title: Case C-509/07: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 23 April 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bergamo (Italy)) — Luigi Scarpelli v NEOS Banca SpA (Directive 87/102/EEC — Consumer protection — Consumer credit — Breach of contract of sale)

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/13

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 23 April 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bergamo (Italy)) — Luigi Scarpelli v NEOS Banca SpA
   (Case C-509/07) (1)

   (Directive 87/102/EEC - Consumer protection - Consumer credit - Breach of contract of sale)
   2009/C 141/21
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Bergamo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Luigi Scarpelli

      Defendant: NEOS Banca SpA

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Bergamo — Interpretation of Article 11(2) of Council Directive 87/102/EEC of 22 December 1986 for the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning consumer credit (OJ 1987 L 42, p. 48) — Consumer credit — Right of the consumer to pursue remedies against the grantor of credit for breach of the contract of sale relating to the goods financed by the credit

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 11(2) of Council Directive 87/102/EEC of 22 December 1986 for the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning consumer credit is to be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, an agreement between a supplier and a grantor of credit whereunder credit is made available exclusively by that grantor of credit to customers of that supplier is not a necessary condition for the right of those customers to pursue remedies against the grantor of credit — where the supplier is in breach of contract — in order to obtain the termination of the credit agreement and the subsequent reimbursement of the sums already paid to the grantor of credit.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 9.2.2008.


title: Case T-135/04: Action brought on 8 April 2004 by GfK Aktiengesellschaft against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               24.7.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/16

         Action brought on 8 April 2004 by GfK Aktiengesellschaft against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case T-135/04)
   (2004/C 190/27)
   Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure - language in which the application was submitted: German
   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 8 April 2004 by GfK Aktiengesellschaft, Nuremberg (Germany), represented by U. Brückmann and R. Lange, lawyers.
   BUS-Betreuungs- und Unternehmensberatungs-GmbH, Munich (Germany) was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 February 2004 (Case R 327/2003-1);

               —

               reject the opposition of the intervener of 6 October 2000 founded on the German word and figurative mark ‘BUS Betreuungsverbund für Unternehmer und Selbständige e.V.’ (Registration No: DE 1 127 415);

               —

               order the Office to bear the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               The applicant

               Community trade mark sought:

               The word mark ‘Online Bus’ for services in Class 35 (including drawing up statistics in the field of economics, marketing, market research and market analysis, business consultancy and organisation consultancy)

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               BUS-Betreuungs- und Unternehmensberatungs-GmbH

               Mark or sign cited in opposition.

               German figurative mark ‘BUS’ for services in Classes 35, 40, 41 and 42 (including business consultancy, in particular organisation consultancy and economic consultancy)

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Registration refused

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Dismissal of the applicant's appeal

               Pleas in law:

                           —

                           The intervener has failed to furnish proof of the use of the mark on which the opposition is founded, and the opposition should be rejected under the second sentence of Article 43(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.

                           —

                           As there is no similarity between the opposing marks, there is no likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.


title: Case C-174/01: Action brought on 23 April 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
C 173/30               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    16.6.2001
1.   Does Paragraph 183(1) of Sozialgesetzbuch III provide             Question 1
     for a date within the meaning of Article 3(2) of Council
     Directive 80/987/EEC (1) of 20 October 1980 on the
     approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
     to the protection of employees in the event of the                Is Article 10(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council
                                                                       of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association
     insolvency of their employer?
                                                                       to be interpreted as precluding a provision of a Member State
                                                                       which excludes Turkish workers from eligibility to the general
2.   Has the Federal Republic of Germany effectively limited           assembly of a chamber of workers?
     the liability of the Bundesanstalt für Arbeit in accordance
     with Article 4 of Directive 80/987/EEC?
3.   Is the Federal Republic of Germany liable to pay damages          Question 2
     to the plaintiff on account of defective implementation
     of Directive 80/987/EEC?
                                                                       If the answer to Question 1 is affirmative: Is Article 10(1) of
                                                                       Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September
4.   Does the Court hold to its view that the date to be taken         1980 on the development of the Association directly appli-
     as the basis for determining the reference period is that         cable Community law?
     of the request for the opening of proceedings?
5.   Is the calculation of the insolvency benefit period pro-
     vided for in Paragraph 183(1) of Sozialgesetzbuch III
     compatible with Article 141 EC?
6.   In the case of claimants who are on child raising leave, is
     the day before that leave was taken the relevant date for
     the purposes of Article 3(2) of Directive 80/987/EEC?
                                                                       Action brought on 23 April 2001 by the Commission of
                                                                       the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
(1) OJ L 283, 28.10.1980, p. 23.                                                                  Luxembourg
                                                                                (Case C-174/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 173/52)
                                                                       An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                       brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verfassungs-               ties on 23 April 2001 by the Commission of the European
gerichtshof by order of that court of 2 March 2001 in the              Communities, represented by H. Støvlbæk and J. Adda, acting
election proceedings brought by the electoral group                    as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
‘Gemeinsam Zajedno/Birlikte Alternative und Grüne
                   GewerkschafterInnen/UG’
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should
                         (Case C-171/01)
                                                                       —     Declare that, by failing to notify the Commission of plans
                         (2001/C 173/51)                                     for the decontamination and/or disposal of inventoried
                                                                             equipment and the PCBs contained therein, in accordance
                                                                             with Article 11 of Council Directive 96/59/EC (1) of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       16 September 1996 on the disposal of polychlorinated
European Communities by an order of the Verfassungsgerichts-                 biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT), the
hof (Constitutional Court, Vienna) of 2 March 2001, which                    Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
was received at the Court Registry on 19 April 2001, for a                   obligations under that directive;
preliminary ruling in the election proceedings brought by the
electoral group ‘Gemeinsam Zajedno/Birlikte Alternative und
Grüne GewerkschafterInnen/UG’ on the following questions:              —     Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 16.6.2001              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 173/31
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           —     Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
The provisions of the Grand-Ducal Regulation of 24 February
1988, put forward by the Grand Duchy as its disposal plan,                Pleas in law and main arguments
cannot be considered fully to meet the requirements of
Article 11(1) of the directive in so far as concerns the                  Decree No 2001/63 of 18 January 2001 which the French
equipment included in the inventory provided for by Article 4             authorities forwarded to the Commission provides for the
thereof. Member States are to determine, on the basis of the              drawing-up of a national inventory of equipment with a PCB
inventory provided for under Article 4(1) of the directive, the           volume of more than 5 dm3 which is to be the basis for a
dates on which it is possible, in view of the quantities of spent         national plan for decontamination or disposal of inventoried
PCB and of the number of contaminated pieces of equipment                 equipment which must subsequently be adopted in accordance
involved and of the available processing capacity, to require             with the procedure laid down in Article 7(5) et seq of the
that the elimination and decontamination required by the                  aforementioned decree. The Order of 13 February 2001 has as
directive be carried out; the Luxembourg authorities, however,            its sole purpose to request those who hold equipment contain-
have taken no steps to satisfy themselves that what they                  ing PCB to make a declaration before the Prefect. The
termed the ‘filière de décontamination ou d’élimination’ is able          Commission therefore remains of the view, first, that the
to process the equipment and PCB involved within the period               implementation of a procedure for drawing up a national
prescribed since, other than the laying down of a final deadline          inventory does not remedy the complaint regarding failure to
of 31 December 2010, no indication is given as to plans                   communicate to it a summary of inventories pursuant to
regarding the decontamination and elimination of spent                    Article 4(1) of the directive.
equipment and PCB in such a case.
                                                                          Secondly, the adoption of that decree is not sufficient to
                                                                          remedy the complaint that that Member State had not drawn
(1) OJ 1996 L 243, p. 31.                                                 up either a plan for decontamination and/or disposal of
                                                                          contaminated equipment or plans for the collection and
                                                                          subsequent disposal of equipment not subject to inventory.
                                                                          (1) OJ 1996 L 243, p. 31.
Action brought on 24 April 2001 by the Commission of
 the European Communities against the French Republic
                         (Case C-177/01)
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van
                         (2001/C 173/53)                                  Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven, by judgment of that court
                                                                          of 26 April 2001 in the case of (1) H. Jippes, (2)
                                                                          Afdeling Groningen van de Nederlandse Vereniging tot
An action against the French Republic was brought before the              Bescherming van Dieren and (3) Afdeling Assen en
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 April                  omstreken van de Nederlandse Vereniging tot Bescherm-
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                       ing van Dieren against the Minister van Landbouw,
represented by H. Støvlbæk and J. Adda, acting as Agents, with                               Natuurbeheer en Visserij
an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                                (Case C-189/01)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (2001/C 173/54)
—     Declare that, by failing to send it a summary of inventories
      compiled of equipment with PCB volumes of more than
      5 dm3, plans for the decontamination and/or disposal of             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      inventoried equipment and the PCBs contained therein                European Communities by judgment of the College van Beroep
      and plans for the separate removal and collection of                voor het bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and
      equipment containing PCBs which is not subject to                   Industry) of 26 April 2001, received at the Court Registry on
      inventory in accordance with Article 4(1) and as referred           27 April 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
      to in Article 6(3) of Council Directive 96/59/EC (1) of             (1) H. Jippes, (2) Afdeling Groningen van de Nederlandse
      16 September 1996 on the disposal of polychlorinated                Vereniging tot Bescherming van Dieren and (3) Afdeling Assen
      biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT), the             en omstreken van de Nederlandse Vereniging tot Bescherming
      French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under          van Dieren against the Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer
      Articles 4 and 11 of the abovementioned directive;                  en Visserij on the following questions:


title: Case F-111/06: Action brought on 25 September 2006 — Giannopoulos v Council

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/48

         Action brought on 25 September 2006 — Giannopoulos v Council
   (Case F-111/06)
   (2006/C 281/86)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Nikos Giannopoulos (Wezembeek-Oppem, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the applicant's classification decision as stated in the establishment decision of 18 November 2003 in that it awards him grade A7;

               —

               annul, in so far as necessary, the appointing authority's decision rejecting the applicant's complaint;

               —

               indicate to the appointing authority the effects of the annulment of the contested decisions, and in particular: (i) the applicant is to be reclassified in grade A6, in order to take account of the exceptional nature of his qualifications and the specific needs of the service, with retroactive effect to 18 November 2003; (ii) the applicant is to be reclassified in a step which takes account of his professional experience and is, at least, equivalent to that granted to him on the date of his recruitment; (iii) the applicant is to be paid the difference between the salary corresponding to the grade and step in which he was classified and that corresponding to the grade and step in which he ought to have been classified, plus default interest at the statutory rate from the date on which the amount in question became payable;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, a successful candidate in open competition EUR/A/127 (1) for the constitution of a reserve for the future recruitment of administrators A7/A6, was recruited by the General Secretariat of the Council and classified in grade A7. Having learnt in July 2005 that other successful candidates in competitions for grades A7/A6 had been recruited by the General Secretariat in grade A6, or reclassified in that grade following an internal administrative review of the initial classification decisions, the applicant submitted a request for reclassification. That request was rejected by the administration, as was the complaint which he subsequently submitted.
   In support of his action, the applicant puts forward a first plea in law alleging breach of Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations, a manifest error of assessment and an error of law, in that the criteria established in the case-law relating to the exceptional nature of his qualifications and the specific needs of the service were not applied. Next, the applicant puts forward a second plea in law alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons and a third plea in law alleging failure to observe the principle of equal treatment, in that 10 to 15 of his colleagues, whose legal and factual situations are not essentially different from the applicant's, were, unlike the applicant, classified or reclassified in grade A6.

      (1)  OJEC C 125/A, 23.4.1998, p. 10.


title: Case T-356/10: Action brought on 23 August 2010 — Nike International/OHMI — Deichmann (VICTORY RED)

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/55

      Action brought on 23 August 2010 — Nike International/OHMI — Deichmann (VICTORY RED)
      (Case T-356/10)
      ()
      (2010/C 288/103)
      Language in which the application was lodged: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Nike International Ltd (Oregon, U.S.A.) (represented by: M. De Justo Bailey, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Deichmann SE (Essen, Germany)

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office For Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 May 2010 in case R 1309/2009-2;

                  —

                  Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, and;

                  —

                  Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, should it become an intervening party in this case.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

         Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

         Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘VICTORY RED’, for goods in classes 18 and 28

         Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

         Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration No 30318528 of the word mark ‘Victory’, for goods in classes 18, 25 and 28; International trade mark registration No 819143 of the word mark ‘Victory’, for goods in classes 18, 25 and 28

         Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for all of the contested goods and rejected the application in its entirety

         Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

         Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal made an incorrect assessment of the likelihood of confusion, in particular of the similarity of the signs.


title: Case C-221/01: Action brought on 5 June 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

text:
11.8.2001              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 227/11
      (a)   the packaging of the goods is to be regarded as the         —     Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
            shape of the goods for the purpose of Article 3(1)(e)
            of the directive; and
      (b) the packaging of the goods may serve to designate
            the (external) quality of the packaged goods for the        Pleas in law and main arguments
            purpose of Article 3(1)(c) of the directive?
2.    In the case of three-dimensional trade marks which                —     Failure correctly to transpose Article 7(5) of Directive
      consist of the packaging of goods which are normally                    97/33/EC: under the last two sentences of the second
      traded in packaged form does the establishment of                       subparagraph of Article 7(5) of Directive 97/33, com-
      distinctive character within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b)             pliance with the cost accounting system must be verified.
      of the directive turn on whether or not the average                     The Directive states that a statement concerning com-
      consumer, who is reasonably well-informed and reason-                   pliance must, in addition, be published annually. Those
      ably observant and circumspect, is able to recognise the                obligations are not included in the Belgian legislation.
      characteristic features of the three-dimensional trade
      mark applied for, which differ from the norm or custom
      in the sector and are therefore decisive as regards its           —     Failure correctly to transpose Article 9(3) of Directive
      capability of serving as an indication of origin, even                  97/33/EC: the provisions communicated by the Belgian
      without conducting an analytical or comparative examin-                 authorities as implementing measures, namely the fifth
      ation or without paying particular attention?                           subparagraph of Article 109B(4) of the Law of 21 March
                                                                              1991 and Articles 8 and 12 of a decree of 20 April 1999,
3.    Can the necessary assessment of distinctive character be                only partially cover the obligations imposed by the
      made solely on the basis of the relevant national trade                 Directive, since Article 109B(4) concerns solely the
      perceptions without further official investigations being               obligation imposed by the Belgian legislature on organis-
      necessary to establish whether and to what extent ident-                ations with ‘significant [market] power’ to publish a
      ical or comparable trade marks have been registered or                  reference offer which may be used as a basis for
      refused registration in other Member States of the Euro-                subsequent negotiations; it is that reference offer which
      pean Union?                                                             may be changed by the Institute, a possibility which
                                                                              clearly cannot be construed as a right of intervention in
                                                                              favour of that institute in any negotiation or discussion
(1) OJ L 40 of 11.2.1989, p. 1.                                               concerning an interconnection agreement. Nor do the
                                                                              provisions of the Decree of 20 April 1999 provide for
                                                                              the regulatory authorities to be able to intervene in the
                                                                              negotiations ‘on their own initiative at any time’.
                                                                        —     Failure correctly to transpose Article 14(1) and (2): in
                                                                              respect of the information relating to the reference
Action brought on 5 June 2001 by the Commission of the                        interconnection offer, which is identified in Article 7(3)
 European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium                          of the Directive, and the main elements of the national
                                                                              numbering plans referred to in Article 12(4) of the
                                                                              Directive, the Belgian authorities have opted for a means
                         (Case C-221/01)
                                                                              of communication in accordance with Article 14(2)
                                                                              of the Directive, whereas Article 7(3) is covered by
                         (2001/C 227/18)                                      Article 14(1) which requires easy access to the infor-
                                                                              mation and therefore access which is more direct than
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before                   that by individual request. In respect of the information
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 June                    referred to in Article 9(2) of the Directive (general
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                           conditions of interconnection) and the information
represented by H. van Lier, acting as Agent, with an address                  referred to in Article 10 of the Directive, the Belgian
for service in Luxembourg.                                                    legislation does not provide for any publication or
                                                                              communication in any form whatever. Finally, in respect
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                        of the information referred to in Article 9(3) of the
the Court should:                                                             Directive, the Belgian legislation still does not provide for
                                                                              access at the request of interested parties.
—     Declare, pursuant to Article 226 EC, that by failing to
      adopt all the laws, regulations or administrative pro-
      visions necessary to comply with Directive 97/33/EC of
      the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June
      1997 on interconnection in Telecommunications with                (1) OJ L 199 of 26.07.1997, p. 32.
      regard to ensuring universal service and interoperability
      through application of the principles of Open Network
      Provision (ONP) (1), in particular with Articles 7(5), 9(3)
      and 14(1) and (2) thereof, Belgium has failed to fulfil its
      obligations under that directive; and


title: Case T-382/03: Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2006 — Izar Construcciones Navales v Commission

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/43

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2006 — Izar Construcciones Navales v Commission
   (Case T-382/03) (1)

   (2006/C 281/77)

      Language of the case: Spanish

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

      (1)  OJ C 21, 24.1.2004.


title: Case T-444/13 P: Appeal brought on 20 August 2013 by the Agence européenne des médicaments (EMA) against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 26 June 2013 in Joined Cases F-135/11, F-51/12 and F-110/12, BU v EMA

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/40

         Appeal brought on 20 August 2013 by the Agence européenne des médicaments (EMA) against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 26 June 2013 in Joined Cases F-135/11, F-51/12 and F-110/12, BU v EMA
   (Case T-444/13 P)
   2013/C 325/67
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Agence européenne des médicaments (EMA) (represented by: T. Jabloński and N. Rampal Olmedo, acting as Agents, and D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: BU (London, United Kingdom)

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal in Cases F-135/11, F-51/12 and F-110/12 in so far as it annuls the decision of the EMA not to renew the defendant’s contract, and orders the EMA to bear the costs of BU in Cases F-135/11 and F-51/12;

               —

               grant the form of order sought at first instance by the appellant, namely dismiss the action as wholly unfounded

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings and those which took place before the Civil Service Tribunal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on four pleas in law.
   First plea in law, alleging infringement by the Civil Service Tribunal of the prohibition on ruling ultra vires in that it decided that it has the power to ascertain whether the grounds given by the administration for refusing to renew a contract are not such as to call into question the criteria and conditions which have been laid down by the legislature in the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union seeking to ensure that contractual staff are able to benefit, over time, from a certain continuity of employment (concerning paragraphs 57 to 62 of the judgment under appeal). The EMA claims that there is no legal basis for the power claimed by the Civil Service Tribunal.
   Second plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law when interpreting the first subparagraph of Article 8 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (CEO), since the Civil Service Tribunal held that it is for the competent authority to examine whether there exists a position to which the temporary agent whose contract has terminated could be usefully appointed or reappointed.
   Third plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law in that it distorts the concept of the interests of the service, in so far as the interpretation given by the Civil Service Tribunal creates a presumption according to which the interested person’s employment is continued unless the competent authority is able to establish that there exists no position to which the temporary agent whose contract has terminated could be usefully appointed or reappointed.
   Fourth plea in law, alleging an error of law with regard to the order that the EMA pay the costs in Case F-51/12, which was dismissed as inadmissible.


title: Case T-12/07: Action brought on 16 January 2007 — Polimeri Europa v Commission

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/37

         Action brought on 16 January 2007 — Polimeri Europa v Commission
   (Case T-12/07)
   (2007/C 56/69)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Polimeri Europa SpA (Brindisi, Italy) (represented by: M. Siragusa, F.M. Moretti and L. Nascimbene, avvocati)

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

               —

               annul the decision in its entirety, as well as all acts inseparably connected therewith and, in consequence, direct the Commission to take steps to recover the copy, forwarded to Michelin, of the non-confidential version of the new statement of objections;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the present application, the applicant contests the Commission's decision (COMP/F2/D (2006) 1095) adopted on 6 November 2006 in the proceeding initiated pursuant to Article 81 EC (Case COMP/F38.638 BR/ESBR), by which the Commission forwarded to Manufacture Française des Pneumatiques Michelin (MFPM) a copy of the non-confidential version of the statement of objections adopted on 6 April 2006. MFPM had previously been admitted to the administrative procedure as an interested third party, since it had been asked to forward possible observations.
   In support of the forms of order sought, the applicant submits:

               —

               infringement of its rights of defence. On that point, the applicant maintains that ever since the adoption of the decision, the Commission has concealed the true purpose and nature of Michelin's participation in the procedure, thus limiting the possibilities of defence open to the applicant and negatively affecting the applicant's position in the case;

               —

               the decision is unlawful, regard being had to the legal basis cited, in particular Article 6 of Regulation No 773/2004 (1). The applicant maintains in this connection that Michelin cannot be regarded as a complainant, because the Form C submitted by Michelin is not an act capable of triggering the procedure launched following a complaint for the purposes of Article 7 of Regulation No 1/2003 (2). The decision is therefore vitiated for infringement of the latter provision, read in conjunction with Article 7 of Regulation No 773/2004.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (OJ L 123, 27.4.2004, p. 18).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1).


               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/4

         Designation of the Chamber responsible for cases of the kind referred to in Article 104b of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice
   2010/C 317/07
   At its meeting on 28 September 2010, the Court of Justice designated the First Chamber of the Court as the Chamber which, in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 9(1) of the Rules of Procedure, is responsible for cases of the kind referred to in Article 104b of the Rules of Procedure, for a period of one year expiring on 6 October 2011.


title: Case F-116/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Full Court) of 24 June 2008 — Cerafogli and Paolo Poloni v ECB (Staff Case — ECB Staff — Remuneration — Method of calculation of annual salary adjustment — Enforcement of a judgment of the Community judicature — Confirmatory act — Inadmissibility)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/68

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Full Court) of 24 June 2008 — Cerafogli and Paolo Poloni v ECB
   (Case F-116/05) (1)

   (Staff Case - ECB Staff - Remuneration - Method of calculation of annual salary adjustment - Enforcement of a judgment of the Community judicature - Confirmatory act - Inadmissibility)
   (2008/C 209/123)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Maria Concetta Cerafogli and Paolo Poloni (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: F. Malfrère and K. Sugar, Agents and H.-G. Kamann, lawyer)
   Re:
   First, annulment of the applicants' respective remuneration slips for the month of July 2001, as drawn up by the European Central Bank in May 2005, in enforcement of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 November 2003 in Case T-63/02 Cerafolgi and Poloni v ECB and, second, a claim for damages.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 48, 25.2.2005 (case initially lodged before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities as Case T-431/05 and transferred to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal by order of 15.12.2005).


title: Case T-393/09: Action brought on 2 October 2009 — NEC Display Solutions Europe v OHIM — Nokia (NaViKey)

text:
               5.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/26

         Action brought on 2 October 2009 — NEC Display Solutions Europe v OHIM — Nokia (NaViKey)
   (Case T-393/09)
   2009/C 297/38
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: NEC Display Solutions Europe GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: P. Munzinger, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nokia Corp. (Helsinki, Finland)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 June 2009 in case R 1143/2008-2;

               —

               Dismiss the opposition filed by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal against the registration of the Community trade mark concerned;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs, including those incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal; and

               —

               Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs, including those incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal, should it become an intervener in this case.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark “NaViKey” for goods in class 9

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited: Community trade mark registration of the word mark “NAVI” for goods and services in classes 9 and 38; Finish trade mark registration of the word mark “NAVI” for goods in class 9

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal: (i) erred when determining the relevant public whose perception must be taken into account; (ii) erred when assessing the similarity between the trade marks concerned and the goods covered; and (iii) failed to take into account that the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal is not entitled to prohibit the use of later trade marks containing the element “NAVI”, as a result of the lack of distinctiveness of such or of low degree of distinctiveness, and therefore not entitled to rely on Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 207/2009 to obtain the rejection of the application for the Community trade mark concerned; infringement of Article 75 of Council Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal failed to state reasons for its finding that there was a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.


title: Case T-260/09: Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2010 — OHIM v Simões Dos Santos (Appeal — Cross-appeal — Civil service — Officials — Promotion — 2003 promotion procedure — Merit points reset at zero and their total recalculated — Compliance with a judgment of the General Court — Res judicata — Legal basis — Non-retroactivity — Legitimate expectation — Material damage — Loss of opportunity for promotion — Non-material damage)

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2010 — OHIM v Simões Dos Santos
   (Case T-260/09) (1)

   (Appeal - Cross-appeal - Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2003 promotion procedure - Merit points reset at zero and their total recalculated - Compliance with a judgment of the General Court - Res judicata - Legal basis - Non-retroactivity - Legitimate expectation - Material damage - Loss of opportunity for promotion - Non-material damage)
   2011/C 13/47
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: I. de Medrano Caballero, agent, and D. Waelbroeck, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Simões Dos Santos (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: A. Creus Carreras, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 5 May 2009 in Case F-27/08 Simões Dos Santos v OHIM, not published in the ECR, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Paragraphs 2 to 25 of the operative part of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 5 May 2009 in Case F-27/08 Simões Dos Santos v OHIM are annulled.

               2.

               The main appeal and the cross appeal are dismissed as to the remainder.

               3.

               The case is referred back to the Civil Service Tribunal.

               4.

               The costs are reserved.

      (1)  OJ C 220, 12.9.2009.


title: Case C-14/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Euro Park Service, having assumed the rights and obligations of Cairnbulg Nanteuil v Ministre des finances et des comptes publics (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Direct taxation — Companies of different Member States — Common system of taxation — Merger by acquisition — Prior approval of the tax authority — Directive 90/434/EEC — Article 11(1)(a) — Tax evasion or avoidance — Freedom of establishment)

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/11

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Euro Park Service, having assumed the rights and obligations of Cairnbulg Nanteuil v Ministre des finances et des comptes publics
   (Case C-14/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Direct taxation - Companies of different Member States - Common system of taxation - Merger by acquisition - Prior approval of the tax authority - Directive 90/434/EEC - Article 11(1)(a) - Tax evasion or avoidance - Freedom of establishment))
   (2017/C 144/15)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Euro Park Service, having assumed the rights and obligations of Cairnbulg Nanteuil

      Respondent: Ministre des finances et des comptes publics

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               In so far as Article 11(1)(a) of Council Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States does not carry out exhaustive harmonisation, EU law allows for the assessment of the compatibility of national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in the light of primary law, where that legislation was adopted to transpose into national law the option provided for in that provision.

               2.

               Article 49 TFEU and Article 11(1)(a) of Directive 90/434 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, in the case of a cross-border merger, makes the granting of the tax advantages applicable to such an operation under that directive, in the present case the deferral of the taxation of the capital gains relating to the assets transferred by a French company to a company established in another Member State, subject to a process of prior approval under which, in order to obtain that approval, the taxpayer must show that the operation concerned is justified for commercial reasons, that it does not have as its principal objective, or as one of its principal objectives, tax evasion or tax avoidance and that its terms make it possible for the capital gains deferred for tax purposes to be taxed in the future, whereas in the case of a national merger such a deferral is granted without the taxpayer being made subject to such a process.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.


title: Case T-466/04: Action brought on 19 November 2004 by Elisabetta Dami against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               19.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/18

         Action brought on 19 November 2004 by Elisabetta Dami against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case T-466/04)
   (2005/C 69/35)
   Language in which the application was submitted: French
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 19 November 2004 by Elisabetta Dami, residing in Milan (Italy), represented by Paolo Guido Beduschi and Silvia Giudici, lawyers.
   The Stilton Cheese Makers Association was also a party to the proceedings before the Second Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               establish that the letter of 4 June 2004, sent to the Office and signed jointly does not contain a statement intended to bring an end to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, but is only an application for a stay of proceedings;

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office of 20 September 2004 in Case R 973/2002-2 and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal;

               —

               order the Office to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               The applicant

               Community trade mark sought:

               Word mark ‘GERONIMO STILTON’ for goods and/or services in Class 16 (books etc.), Class 25 (clothing etc.), Class 28 (games etc.), Class 29 (meat etc.), Class 30 (cake dough etc.) and Class 41 (services rendered in the field of education etc.) – Application No 1345503

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               The Stilton Cheese Makers Association

               Mark or sign cited in opposition:

               National word mark ‘STILTON’; registered designations of origin WHITE STILTON CHEESE and BLUE STILTON CHEESE

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Opposition allowed for Classes 29 and 30

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               The Board of Appeal held that as a result of amendments to the specification of the relevant goods, in accordance with a joint letter from the parties of 4 June 2004, the opposition had been withdrawn and the proceedings had therefore been terminated. Since according to the Board of Appeal, the only question to be decided was the allocation of costs, each party was ordered to bear the fees and expenses of the opposition and appeal proceedings which it had itself incurred.

               Pleas in law:

               In support of its application, the applicant submits that the letter of 4 June 2004 contained only an application for a stay of the proceedings in order to allow the parties to resolve between themselves the issue, which is still in dispute, namely which other goods apart from dairy products and cheese should be removed from Class 29 in order to enable the party in opposition to withdraw its opposition. The Board of Appeal erred in holding that the applicant, having accepted the application for a stay of proceedings, had agreed to what the party in opposition was requesting.


title: Case T-620/15: Action brought on 9 November 2015 — Orthema Service v OHIM (Gehen wie auf Wolken)

text:
               11.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/32

         Action brought on 9 November 2015 — Orthema Service v OHIM (Gehen wie auf Wolken)
   (Case T-620/15)
   (2016/C 007/43)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Orthema Service GmbH (Rotkreuz, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Gehen wie auf Wolken’ — Application for registration No 13 121 868

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 September 2015 in Case R 404/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 23 February 1995 in Case T-490/93: Bremer Vulkan Verbund AG v. Commission of the European Communities (Disclaimer of jurisdiction)

text:
No C 119/12         EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                 13 . 5 . 95
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            2 . order the defendants to pay the costs of the
                     of 23 February 1 995                                proceedings.
     in Case T-490/93 : Bremer Vulkan Verbund AG v.
        Commission of the European Communities i 1 )                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                  (Disclaimer ofjurisdiction)                        The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
                          ( 95/C 119/29 )                            Case T-20/94 .
               (Language of the case: German)
In Case T-490/93 : Bremer Vulkan Verbund AG, established
in Bremen ( Germany ), represented by Hans-Jürgen Rabe,
Rechtsanwalt of Hamburg and of the Brussels Bar, with an             Action brought on 23 January 1995 by Ernst-Reinhard
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Turk            Konrad against the Council of the European Union and the
& Prum, 13B Avenue Guillaume v. Commission of the                            Commission of the European Communities
European Communities (Agents: B. Smulders and J.                                            (Casé T-9/95 )
Grunwald ) — application for the annulment of Commission                                    ( 95/C 119/31 )
Decision 93/412/EEC of 6 April 1993 concerning aid
awarded by the German Government to Hibeg and by Hibeg
via Krupp GmbH to Bremer Vulkan AG, facilitating the sale                          (Language of the case: German)
of Krupp Atlas Elektronik GmbH from Krupp GmbH
to Bremer Vulkan AG (2 ) — the Court of First Instance               An action against the Council of the European Union and
( Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of                 the Commission of the European Communities was brought
K. Lenaerts, President, R. Schintgen, C. P. Briët,                   before the Court of First Instance of the European
R. García-Valdecasas and C. W. Bellamy, Judges; H. Jung,             Communities on 23 January 1995 by Ernst-Reinhard
Registrar, made an order on 23 February 1995, the                    Konrad, Löllbach (Federal Republic of Germany),
operative part of which is as follows:                               represented by Bernd Meisterernst, Mechtild Düsing,
                                                                     Dietrich Manstetten, Frank Schulze and Winfried
1 , the Court of First Instance declines jurisdiction in Case        Haneklaus, Rechtsanwälte, Münster, with an address for
      T-490/93, Bremer Vulkan Verbund AG v. Commission               service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Dupong &
      of the European Communities, in order to enable the            Associés, 14a Rue des Bains.
      Court of Justice to rule on the applications for
     annulment;                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
2 , the costs are reserved.                                          1 , order the defendants jointly to pay to the applicant
                                                                         SLOM III compensation for the period from 1 July 1984
(M OJ No C 222, 18 . 8 . 1993 .                                          to 29 March 1989 in the amount of DM 83 670,155 ,
(2 ) OJ No L 185 , 28 . 7. 1993 , p. 43 .                                together with interest thereon at 8% from 19 May
                                                                         1992, and jointly to pay the costs of the proceedings;
                                                                     2 , join the present action to that already pending in Case
                                                                         T-77/93 Hülseberg and Others v. Council and
Action brought on 13 January 1995 by Ursula Schottler                    Commission and also stay the proceedings.
against the Council of the European Union and the
          Commission of the European Communities                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                          (Case T-4/95 )
                          ( 95/C 119/30 )                            The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
                                                                     Case T-20/94 .
               (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Council of the European Union and
the Commission of the European Communities was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 13 January 1995 by Ursula Schottler,                  Action brought on 15 February 1995 by the International
Orsfeld ( Federal Republic of Germany), represented by                     Express Carriers Conference (IECC ) against the
Matthias H. François, Rechtsanwalt, of François, Neuhaus                     Commission of the European Communities
& Kollegen, Bitburg, with an address for service in                                        (Case T-28/95 )
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Annick Wurth, 100                                             ( 95/C 119/32 )
Boulevard de la Pétrusse .
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                         (Language of the case: English)
 1 . grant the applicant compensation for the period during          An action against the Commission of the European
      which she was required not to market produce;                  Communities was brought before the Court of First


title: Case C-140/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 12 March 2007 — Hecht-Pharma GmbH v Staatliches Gewerbeaufsichtsamt Lüneburg

text:
               26.5.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 117/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 12 March 2007 — Hecht-Pharma GmbH v Staatliches Gewerbeaufsichtsamt Lüneburg
   (Case C-140/07)
   (2007/C 117/23)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesverwaltungsgericht
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hecht-Pharma GmbH

      Defendant: Staatliches Gewerbeaufsichtsamt Lüneburg

      Other party: Vertreterin des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht
   Questions referred

               1.

               Does the rule of doubt in Article 2(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC (1) in the version of Directive 2004/27/EC (2) mean that Directive 2001/83/EC applies to a product which could possibly be classified as a medicinal product but whose quality of a medicinal product has not been positively determined? What degree of probability and hence what degree of elucidation of the facts may be required in order to justify the application of Directive 2001/83/EC?

               2.

               Can a product which is not a presentational medicinal product be regarded as a functional medicinal product within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC in the version of Directive 2004/27/EC because of a component which can produce physiological changes in a certain dosage but whose dosage in the product to be assessed — if used as intended — is too low for that? Is this question to be allocated to the criterion of ‘pharmacological action ’or the criterion of ‘modifying physiological functions in human beings’?

               3.

               Are the characteristics of ‘the manner in which it is used, the extent of its distribution, its familiarity to consumers and the risks which its use may entail ’(judgment in Case C-211/03 [2005] ECR I-5141, paragraph 51) stated in the case-law of the Court of Justice to be relevant, in addition to the pharmacological qualities, to classification as a medicinal product still relevant following the new definition of a medicinal product introduced by Directive 2004/27/EC?

      (1)  OJ L 311, p. 67.

      (2)  OJ L 136, p. 34.


title: Case T-468/09: Action brought on 24 November 2009 — JSK International Architekten und Ingenieure v ECB

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/61

         Action brought on 24 November 2009 — JSK International Architekten und Ingenieure v ECB
   (Case T-468/09)
   2010/C 24/108
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: JSK International Architekten und Ingenieure GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: J. Steiff and K. Heuvels, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Central Bank

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the ECB’s award decision of 6 August 2009 and the decision on the complaint of 14 September 2009 by the body within the ECB responsible for review proceedings;

               —

               declare that (i) the annulled award decision is to be replaced by the award of the contract to the applicant, (ii) in the alternative, that the procedure by which the contract was awarded is to be repeated from the moment tenderers were invited to submit bids, this time to include JSK’s bid, (iii) in the final alternative, to repeat the procedure by which the contract was awarded from the very beginning;

               —

               only in the alternative — and only if, as is not likely, the applications under 1 and 2 above are dismissed — award the applicant damages in the amount of its positive interest (lost profit), provisionally estimated to amount to EUR 900 000; in the alternative, in the amount of its negative interest (cost of preparing the tender), provisionally estimated to amount to EUR 80 000;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings and the extrajudicial costs necessarily incurred by the applicant in taking the appropriate legal action (lawyers’ fees and expenses);

               —

               grant the applicant unrestricted access to the files, which has been denied to date.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its claims, the applicant takes issue with, on the one hand, the decision of the ECB’s award committee of 6 August 2009 to reject the bid submitted by the applicant in response to the call for tenders in respect of coordination and site management tasks relating to the new ECB building in Frankfurt am Main (T109 Bauleiter), and, on the other hand, the decision of the body within the ECB responsible for review proceedings of 14 September 2009 to reject the applicant’s complaint brought against that award decision. In the alternative, the applicant has applied for damages.
   In support of its application, the applicant submits, first, that the award decision contains errors because of a conflict of interests. In this respect, the applicant alleges that there has been an infringement of the principle of good administration within the meaning of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
   Second, the applicant submits that the failure to consider its bid constitutes an error of law and takes issue with the fact that its bid was excluded on grounds of inadequacy and low quality.
   Finally, the applicant claims that procedural rights were infringed with respect to transparency and the right to legal protection, such as an infringement of the right of access to the file.


title: Case C-12/08: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 July 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Liège — Belgium) — Mono Car Styling SA, in liquidation v Dervis Odemis and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 98/59/EC — Articles 2 and 6 — Procedure for informing and consulting employees in the case of collective redundancy — Employer’s obligations — Workers’ right of action — Obligation to interpret national law in conformity with Community law)

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 July 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Liège — Belgium) — Mono Car Styling SA, in liquidation v Dervis Odemis and Others
   (Case C-12/08) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 98/59/EC - Articles 2 and 6 - Procedure for informing and consulting employees in the case of collective redundancy - Employer’s obligations - Workers’ right of action - Obligation to interpret national law in conformity with Community law)
   2009/C 220/11
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour du travail de Liège

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Mono Car Styling SA, in liquidation

      Defendants: Dervis Odemis and Others

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour du travail de Liège (Belgium) — Interpretation of Articles 2, 3 and 6 of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16) — Legality of the procedure for informing and consulting staff in the event of redundancy — Lack of written communication in relation to, inter alia, the reasons for the projected redundancies, the number and categories of workers to be made redundant and the criteria proposed for the selection of those workers — Effect of the failure, on the part of the workers’ representatives, to complain, on the right of workers, individually, to bring proceedings to contest the legality of the redundancy procedure — Scope of the requirement to interpret consistently.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 6 of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies, read in conjunction with Article 2 thereof, is to be interpreted as not precluding national rules which introduce procedures intended to permit both workers’ representatives and the workers themselves as individuals to ensure compliance with the obligations laid down in that directive, but which limit the individual right of action of workers in regard to the complaints which may be raised and makes that right subject to the requirement that workers’ representatives should first have raised objections with the employer and that the worker concerned has informed the employer in advance of his intention to query whether the information and consultation procedure has been complied with;

               2.

               The fact that national rules, establishing procedures which permit workers’ representatives to ensure that the employer has complied with all the information and consultation obligations set out in Directive 98/59, impose limits and conditions on the individual right of action which it also grants to every worker affected by collective redundancy is not of such a nature as to infringe the principle of effective judicial protection;

               3.

               Article 2 of Directive 98/59 must be interpreted as precluding national rules which reduce the obligations of an employer who intends to proceed with collective redundancies below those laid down in Article 2 of that directive. In applying domestic law, the national court is required, applying the principle of interpreting national law in conformity with Community law, to consider all the rules of national law and to interpret them, so far as possible, in the light of the wording and purpose of Directive 98/59 in order to achieve an outcome consistent with the objective pursued by the directive. Consequently, it must ensure, within the limits of its jurisdiction, that the obligations binding such an employer are not reduced below those laid down in Article 2 of that directive.

      (1)  OJ C 79, 29.3.2008.


title: Case C-472/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by judgment of that Court of 7 November 2003 in the case of Staatssecretaris van Financiën against the single taxable entity Arthur Andersen & Co Accountants c.s.

text:
24.1.2004               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 21/15
—      error of law, in that the Court of First Instance considered         insurance company and the insurance risk is borne by the
       that the Commission was not required to determine the                latter, are the activities undertaken by that taxable person in
       actual effect on competition and intra-Community trade               execution of the agreement ‘related services performed by
       in its examination of the aid at issue in the light of               insurance brokers and insurance agents’ within the meaning of
       Article 87 EC;                                                       Article 13B(a) of the Sixth Directive (1)?
—      distortion of the sense of the claims in the application
       and error in law consisting of breach of the procedural              (1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
       rules concerning the right to a fair hearing, in that the                harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
       Court of First Instance did not examine the claims relating              turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax: uniform
       to the existence of exceptional circumstances and the                    basis of assessment (OJ L 145 of 13.06.1977, p. 1-40).
       protection of legitimate expectations;
—      distortion of the sense of the claims in the application
       and error in law consisting of infringement of the
       procedural rules concerning the right to a fair hearing, in
       that the Court of First Instance did not examine the
       claims relating to infringement of Article 10 EC and
       breach of the principle of good and proper administration
       by the Commission;
                                                                            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
—      error of law consisting of breach of the procedural rules            Ordinario di Milano — Sezione X Penale — by order of
       concerning the right to a fair hearing, in that the Court of         that Court of 23 October 2003 in the criminal proceedings
       First Instance did not give a decision on the preparatory            against Adelio Aggio, Paolo Berlusconi and Giovanni Butti
       inquiry proposed in the application.
                                                                                (Case C-473/03)
                                                                                (2004/C 21/28)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden by judgment of that Court of 7 November
2003 in the case of Staatssecretaris van Financiën against
the single taxable entity Arthur Andersen & Co Account-                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                               ants c.s.                                    European Communities by order of the Tribunale Ordinario di
                                                                            Milano - Sezione X Penale - (Milan District Court, Tenth
                                                                            Criminal Chamber) of 23 October 2003, received at the Court
                          (Case C-472/03)                                   Registry on 13 November 2003, for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                            the criminal proceedings against Adelio Aggio, Paolo Berlus-
                           (2004/C 21/27)                                   coni and Giovanni Butti on the following question:
                                                                            —     Is Article 6 of Directive 68/151/EEC (1) to be understood
                                                                                as requiring the Member States to establish appropriate
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                            penalties not only for failing to disclose company balance
European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad                                 sheets and profit and loss accounts but also for falsifying
der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of                             those documents, or other company documents
7 November 2003, received at the Court Registry on 12 Nov-                        addressed to the members or the public or any infor-
ember 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Staatssecre-                  mation on a company’s assets and liabilities, and econ-
taris van Financiën against the single taxable entity Arthur                      omic and financial situation which the company is
Andersen & Co Accountants c.s. on the following question:                         required to provide in relation to the company or the
                                                                                group of which it forms a part?
Where a taxable person has concluded an agreement with a
(life) assurance company, such as the agreement at issue                    —     Do the requirements that the penalty be effective, pro-
between ACMC and UL, under which that taxable person                              portionate and dissuasive, with which terms the Court
undertakes, for a certain remuneration and with the aid of                        defined the concept of ‘appropriate penalty’ in its judg-
qualified personnel who are expert in the insurance field, most                   ment of 21 September 1989 in Case 68/88 [Commission
of the actual activities related to insurance — including, as a                   v Hellenic Republic [1989] ECR I-2965], refer to the
rule, the taking of decisions that bind the insurance company                     nature or type of penalty considered in the abstract, or
to enter into insurance contracts and maintaining contact with                    rather also to its application in practice having regard to
the agents and, as the occasion arises, with the insured —                        the structural characteristics of the legal system within
while the insurance contracts are concluded in the name of the                    which it takes effect? and finally


title: Case T-173/16: Order of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — Wöhlke v EUIPO — Danielle Roches (ALIQUA)

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/62

         Order of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — Wöhlke v EUIPO — Danielle Roches (ALIQUA)
   (Case T-173/16) (1)

   (2017/C 144/93)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 232, 27.6.2016.


title: Action brought on 9 December 1998 by Scan Office Design S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-194/98)

text:
C 48/28              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 20.2.1999
Infringement of the internal rules regarding                      The Commission sought to justify its refusal to
competence and functioning of the European                        communicate the information at issue by relying on the
Parliament                                                        Code of conduct concerning public access to Commission
                                                                  documents and Article 7(1) and Article 9(3) of Council
                                                                  Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating
Infringement of Article 2(4) of Annex VII to                      procedures for the award of public supply contracts.
the Staff Regulations and of the general
implementing provisions, as well as of
Annex V to the Staff Regulations                                  The applicant pleads in that regard breaches of the
                                                                  obligation to provide a statement of reasons and of the
                                                                  principles of equality and proportionality, as well as abuse
The applicant considers that the effect of the contested          of process and/or misuse of powers.
decision is a refusal to pay the allowance because the
calculation under Articles 5 to 9 of the general provisions
implementing the Staff Regulations was applied
incorrectly, as was Article 10 thereof. In particular, the
calculation made under Articles 5 to 9 should be annulled,
first, because the statement of reasons is inadequate and,
secondly, because the calculation is wrong in law and in          Action brought on 11 December 1998 by Eduardo PenÄa
fact. In the alternative, should that calculation be              Abizanda and Others v. Commission of the European
considered to be correct the applicant pleads that                                         Communities
Article 10 of the general implementing provisions should
                                                                                (Case T-196/98)
have been applied.
                                                                                (1999/C 48/61)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                  An action against the Commission of the European
Action brought on 9 December 1998 by Scan Office
                                                                  Communities was brought before the Court of First
Design S.A. against the Commission of the European
                                                                  Instance on 11 December 1998 by Eduardo PenÄa
                        Communities
                                                                  Abizanda and Others, residing in Belgium and
                      (Case T-194/98)                             Luxembourg, represented by Antonio Creus Carreras and
                                                                  BegonÄa Uriarte Valiente, of the Barcelona and Madrid
                       (1999/C 48/60)
                                                                  Bars respectively, with an address for service in Brussels at
                                                                  78 Avenue d'Auderghem.
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                  The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance
An action against the Commission of the European                  should:
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 9 December
1998 by Scan Office Design S.A., the registered office of         Ð annul the implied Commission decision contained in
which is in Brussels, represented by Benoît Mertens, of the           the letter from the Director General of Personnel of
Brussels Bar, and Denis Philippe, of the Luxembourg Bar,              9 September 1998;
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the latter's
Chambers, 47 Grand-Rue.                                           Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
Ð annul the contested decision;                                   The annulment is sought of the letter from the
                                                                  Commission Director General of Personnel of 9 September
                                                                  1998 indicating the defendant's approval of the content of
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                  the draft Royal Decree on the transfer of rights under
                                                                  public social security schemes to the social security scheme
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support                for officials of the European Communities. That approval
                                                                  will entail the adoption in the near future of legislation by
                                                                  the Spanish Government, which, in the applicants'
The Commission refused the applicant's request for                opinion, will only partially bring to an end the persistent
communication of certain information concerning the bid           infringement by the Kingdom of Spain of the provisions of
made by the successful tenderer (Frezza Belgium S.A.) in          the Staff Regulations concerning transfer to the
the context of an invitation to tender for the supply of          Community pension scheme of the rights acquired by
office furniture, in which the applicant had also                 Community officials and other servants under national
participated.                                                     schemes.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 31 May 2001 in Case C-41/99 P: Sadam Zuccherifici, divisione della SECI — Società Esercizi Commerciali Industriali SpA and Others v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Sugar — Regulation (EC) No 2613/97 — Aid to beet sugar producers — Abolition — Marketing year 2001/02 — Action for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Inadmissible)

text:
C 200/24                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          14.7.2001
M. Patakia and G. Bisogni) v Italian Republic (Agents: U. Lean-            Bologna (Italy), Sadam Castiglionese SpA, established in Bolog-
za, assisted by O. Fiumara) — application for a declaration                na, Sadam Abruzzo SpA, established in Bologna, Zuccherificio
that, by placing restrictions on the pursuit of the activity of            del Molise SpA, established in Termoli (Italy), Società Fondiaria
transport consultant, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its        Industriale Romagnola SpA (SFIR), established in Cesena (Italy),
obligations under Articles 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty (now,                represented by V. Cerulli Irelli, G. Pittalis and G. Fanzini,
after amendment, Articles 43 EC and 49 EC) — the Court                     avvocati — appeal against the order of the Court of First
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the                 Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber,
Chamber, V. Skouris, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), N. Colneric                Extended Composition) of 8 December 1998 in Case T-39/98
and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;              Sadam Zuccherifici and Others v Council [1998] ECR II-4207,
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 May 2001, in               as amended by an order of 29 January 1999 (not published in
which it:                                                                  the European Court Reports), seeking to have the first order
                                                                           set aside, the other party to the proceedings being: Council of
1.    Declares that, by subjecting, in the context of Law No 264           the European Union, (Agents: J. Carbery and I. Dı́ez Parra) —
      Disciplina dell’attività di consulenza per la circolazione dei       the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola,
      mezzi di trasporto (Law No 264 on the activity of transport          President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and C. W.A. Tim-
      consultancy), of 8 August 1991, the pursuit of the activity          mermans (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate
      of transport consultant to possession of an administrative           General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
      authorisation, failing which liability to penalties is incurred,     a judgment on 31 May 2001, in which it:
      and by making its issue subject to the condition that nationals
      of other Member States reside in Italy and lodge a security, the     1.    Dismisses the appeal.
      Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      Articles 52 and 59 of the Treaty (now, after amendment,              2.    Orders Sadam Zuccherifici, divisione della SECI — Società
      Articles 43 EC and 49 EC);                                                 Esercizi Commerciali Industriali SpA, Sadam Castiglionese
                                                                                SpA, Sadam Abruzzo SpA, Zuccherificio del Molise SpA and
2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                              Società Fondiaria Industriale Romagnola SpA (SFIR) to pay
                                                                                the costs.
(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        (Fourth Chamber)                                                              of 31 May 2001
                          of 31 May 2001                                   in Case C-43/99 [reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                           the Conseil supérieur des assurances sociales (Luxem-
in Case C-41/99 P: Sadam Zuccherifici, divisione della                     bourg)]: Ghislain Leclere and Alina Deaconescu v Caisse
SECI — Società Esercizi Commerciali Industriali SpA and                                 nationale des prestations familiales (1)
         Others v Council of the European Union (1)
                                                                           (Regulations (EEC) Nos 1408/71 and 1612/68 — Luxem-
                                                                           bourg maternity, childbirth and child-raising allowances —
(Appeal — Sugar — Regulation (EC) No 2613/97 — Aid to
                                                                           Residence condition — Rights of a person receiving a pension
beet sugar producers — Abolition — Marketing year
                                                                           but not resident in the Member State responsible for the
2001/02 — Action for annulment — Natural or legal
                                                                           pension — Family allowances and family benefits — Concept
                     persons — Inadmissible)
                                                                                of ‘worker’ and ‘social advantage’)
                          (2001/C 200/42)                                                             (2001/C 200/43)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                                             (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                                              in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-41/99: Sadam Zuccherifici, divisione della SECI —                In Case C-43/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
Società Esercizi Commerciali Industriali SpA, established in               the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Conseil supérieur


title: Case F-146/06: Action brought on 11 December 2006 — Speiser v Parliament

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/42

         Action brought on 11 December 2006 — Speiser v Parliament
   (Case F-146/06)
   (2007/C 56/80)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Michael Alexander Speiser (Neu-Isenburg, Germany) (represented by: F. Theumer)

      Defendant: European Parliament
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the defendant's decision of 11 September 2006 (No 115521) dismissing the applicant's complaint of 31 March 2006 pursuant to Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations in respect of payment of the expatriation allowance;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant the expatriation allowance pursuant to Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations with retroactive effect from 3 October 2005;

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, who started working as a 'temporary agent' for the EPP-ED Group on 3 October 2005, is challenging the rejection of his application for payment of the expatriation allowance. He claims that he submitted all the documents and information necessary for claiming the allowance and that he satisfies all the criteria.


title: Case T-770/14: Order of the General Court of 19 July 2016 — Italy v Commission (ERDF — Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 — Italy-Malta Cross-border Cooperation Programme 2007-2013 — Failure to comply with the deadlines — Automatic decommitment — Proportionality — Principle of cooperation — Principle of partnership — Force majeure — Obligation to state reasons — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/46

         Order of the General Court of 19 July 2016 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-770/14) (1)

   ((ERDF - Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 - Italy-Malta Cross-border Cooperation Programme 2007-2013 - Failure to comply with the deadlines - Automatic decommitment - Proportionality - Principle of cooperation - Principle of partnership - Force majeure - Obligation to state reasons - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
   (2016/C 335/60)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri and P. Gentili, Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B.-R. Killmann and D. Recchia, Agents)

      Re:

   Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking, first, annulment of Commission note Ares (2014) 2975571 of 11 September 2014, by which the Commission notified the Italian Republic of the automatic decommitment, on 31 December 2013, of a part of the resources relating to European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) commitments referred to in the Italy-Malta Cross-border Cooperation Programme 2007-2013, and, secondly, that the General Court declare the expenditure relating to the ImaGenX, Simit and PIM Energethica projects eligible for financing.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               The Italian Republic is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2015.


title: Case C-552/07: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 February 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France)) — Commune de Sausheim v Pierre Azelvandre (Directive 2001/18/EC — Deliberate release of genetically modified organisms — Location of release — Confidentiality)

text:
               18.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 February 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France)) — Commune de Sausheim v Pierre Azelvandre
   (Case C-552/07) (1)

   (Directive 2001/18/EC - Deliberate release of genetically modified organisms - Location of release - Confidentiality)
   2009/C 90/07
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Commune de Sausheim

      Defendant: Pierre Azelvandre

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d’État (France) — Interpretation of Article 19 of Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms (OJ 1990 L 117, p. 15) and of Article 4 of Directive 2003/4/EC of 28 January 2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on public access to environmental information (OJ 2003 L 41, p. 26) — Meaning of ‘location of release’ of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) — Is release confined to a particular registered parcel of land or to a larger geographical area (Commune, Canton, Department)? — If the former, may disclosure of the registered reference number of the parcel in question be refused on grounds of the protection of public order or of the safety of individuals or property?

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The ‘location of release’, within the meaning of the first indent of Article 25(4) of Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC, is determined by all the information relating to the location of the release submitted by the notifier to the competent authorities of the Member State on whose territory that release is to take place in the context of the procedures referred to in Articles 6, 7, 8, 13, 17, 20 or 23 of that directive.

               2.

               An exception relating to the protection of public order or other interests protected by law cannot be relied on against the disclosure of the information set out in Article 25(4) of Directive 2001/18.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 9.2.2008.