title: Case T-204/99: Action brought on 23 September 1999 by Olli Mattila against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 333/32              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    20.11.1999
So far as concerns specifically the report for 1995-1997, the            — breach of the principle of non-discrimination between
applicant is aware of the fact that the abovementioned                       officials, inasmuch as the appointing authority refuses to
implementing provisions provide that it is not mandatory to                  allow any travelling time linked to leave for trade union
draw up such a report where the official reaches retirement                  purposes, whereas officials who are granted special leave
age before expiry of the time-limit for the report to be                     other than leave for trade union purposes may, depending
communicated. He claims, however, that there are serious                     on the need therefor, be allowed travelling time by special
doubts as to their compatibility with the Staff Regulations on               decision;
which they are based.
                                                                         — breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate
                                                                             expectations, inasmuch as the appointing authority is
                                                                             required in any event to respect the legitimate expectations
                                                                             of applicants in its decision-making practices prior to the
                                                                             grant of travelling time linked to leave for trade union
                                                                             purposes, and should have adopted the appropriate tem-
                                                                             porary measures as regards the Congress in question,
Action brought on 13 September 1999 by Patrizia De                           assuming that it was entitled to refuse to grant the
Palma, Jacqueline Escale, Claudine Hamptaux and Harry                        travelling time in issue.
Wood against the Commission of the European Com-
                            munities
                                                                         The applicants also maintain that the obligation to provide a
                                                                         statement of the reasons for those acts has been disregarded in
                        (Case T-203/99)                                  the present case.
                        (1999/C 333/72)
                   (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of European Communities
was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European           Action brought on 23 September 1999 by Olli Mattila
Communities on 13 September 1999 by Patrizia De Palma,                   against the Council of the European Union and the
Jacqueline Escale, Claudine Hamptaux and Harry Wood,                              Commission of the European Communities
residing in Brussels, represented by Carlos Mourato, of the
Brussels Bar, with an address for service at the office of                                       (Case T-204/99)
Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.
                                                                                (1999/C 333/73)
The applicants claim that the Court should:
— annul the express decisions made on 11 June 1999                                          (Language of the case: English)
    rejecting the complaints lodged by the applicants with the
    appointing authority on 8, 14, 18 and 10 December 1998
    respectively, by which they contested the appointing                 An action against the Council of the European Union and the
    authority’s decision of 23 September 1998 not to accede              Commission of the European Communities was brought
    to the request for leave for trade union purposes or                 before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
    travelling time in order to enable the applicants to attend          on 23 September 1999 by Olli Mattila, represented by Pro-
    the 13th UIECS Congress;                                             fessor Zacharias Sundström, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt & Medernach, 28-10
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                                  rue Mathias Hardt.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         — annul the letters of 14 July 1999 and 5 July 1999, in so
By their action, the applicants contest the refusal by the                   far as they contain or communicate any decision or act of
appointing authority to accede to the request for leave for                  the Council and the Commission in response to the
trade union purposes or travelling time for the dates of 25                  applicant’s request under Article 230;
and 28 September 1998 in order to enable trade union
representatives of the UIECS, including the applicants, to               — to order, in any event, the Council and the Commission
attend the 13th Congress of that trade union, held in Italy.                 jointly to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the
                                                                             present proceedings.
In support of their claims, the applicants plead:
— infringement of Article 24a and the second paragraph of                Pleas in law and main arguments
    Article 57 of the Staff Regulations, Articles 6 and 7 of
    Annex V to the Staff Regulations and Article 16 of the               The applicant in the present case challenges the refusal of the
    framework agreement of 20 September 1974 concerning                  defendant institutions to grant it access to specific documents
    relations between the Commission and trade unions and                relating to EU cooperation with Russia and other States of the
    staff associations;                                                  former Soviet Union.
 ---pagebreak--- 20.11.1999              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 333/33
The applicant points out that, whereas the Council invoked                and Dirk Ehle, Rechtsanwälte, of Messrs Ehle & Schiller,
systematically, for each document, Article 4(1) of its Decision           Cologne, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
93/731/EC (‘the Decision’), the Commission referred to the                Chambers of Marc Lucius, 6 Rue Michel Welter.
Decision and indicated that the documents requested could
undermine the position of the EU in current and future                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
negotiations with Russia and could not, therefore, be made
available to the applicant.                                               1. annul the Commission’s decision of 5 February 1999
                                                                               (REM: 14/98);
In support of its claims, the applicant submits that:                     2. order the Commission to pay the costs.
— it is necessary to analyse and consider the relevance and
     weight of the denials in question in the light of the overall        Pleas in law and main arguments
     transparency aimed at by the Decision;
                                                                          The applicant’s pleas in law and main arguments are similar to
— the exception relating to international relations must                  those in Cases T-186/97, T-187/97, T-190/97, T-191/97,
     be interpreted restrictively and applied carefully on a              T-192/97, T-210/97, T-211/97, T-216/97, T-217/97,
     case-by-case basis;                                                  T-218/97 (1), T-279/97 (2), T-280/97 (2), T-293/97 (3) and
                                                                          T-147/99 (4).
— in the present case the Council and the Commission are
     using what they consider to be part of their discretionary           (1) See, as regards all these cases, OJ C 318 of 18.10.1997, pp. 17 to
     authority to deny all rights to access to the requested                  25.
     documentation;                                                       (2) OJ C 387 of 20.12.1997, p. 24.
                                                                          (3) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998, p. 24.
                                                                          (4) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999, p. 41.
— agendas of meetings held in 1998, possibly without critical
     annotations, are mere lists of tractanda which are usually
     made available to the press in connection with meetings,
     so that it is hardly conceivable that the release of such
     agendas, after the lapse of a year, could constitute a
     dangerous or prejudicial measure liable to have an adverse
     effect on the international relations of the European Union;         Action brought on 15 September 1999 by Métropole
                                                                          Télévision (M6) against the Commission of the European
— it is a fundamental principle of Community law that                                                  Communities
     citizens of the European Union should be granted the
     widest and fullest possible access to documents of the                                          (Case T-206/99)
     institutions of the European Union;
                                                                                (1999/C 333/75)
— in the present case, not only is the public interest at stake,
     but also the private interest of the applicant who needs to
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
     be able to defend before the Finnish courts his case that
     the contents of the requested documents do not have the
     highly confidential nature that is currently alleged by the          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
     Council and the Commission.                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on
                                                                          15 September 1999 by Métropole Télévision (M6), having its
                                                                          registered office in Neuilly-sur-Seine (France), represented by
                                                                          Didier Théophile, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service
                                                                          in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
                                                                          — annul the Commission’s decision of 29 June 1999;
Action brought on 15 September 1999 by HYPER S.r.l.                       — order the Commission to pay all the costs.
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
                          (Case T-205/99)
                                                                          The applicant contests the Commission’s decision of 29 June
                          (1999/C 333/74)                                 1999 rejecting the complaint submitted by it against the
                                                                          European Broadcasting Union (EBU), concerning an alleged
                                                                          infringement by the EBU of Article 81(1) EC by virtue of its
                   (Language of the Case: German)                         refusal to accept the applicant’s application for membership
                                                                          of that organisation. That decision forms part of the aftermath
                                                                          to the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 1996
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 in Joined Cases T-528/93, T-542/93, T-543/93 and T-546/93
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                Métropole Télévision and Others v Commission [1996] ECR
European Communities on 15 September 1999 by HYPER                        II-649, in which the Court of First Instance annulled a decision
S.r.l., of Limena (Italien Republic), represented by Dietrich Ehle        exempting the EBU’s internal provisions and other regulations


title: Case C-386/99: Action brought on 8 October 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
C 366/20                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     18.12.1999
Must Article 119 of the EC Treaty [Articles 117 to 120 of the             Pleas in law and main arguments
Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC] be
interpreted to mean that pension funds must be considered to              The third paragraph of Article 249 EC requires each Member
be employers and are obliged to treat men and women equally               State to which a directive is addressed to transpose the
as regards payments of occupational old-age pensions, even                provisions thereof into national law within the time-limit
though disadvantaged employees have a claim, which is                     prescribed for that purpose, in such a way as to give full effect
protected in the event of insolvency and therefore precludes              thereto. The time-limit laid down in Article 3 of the directive
discrimination, against the body directly responsible for pro-            expired on 31 May 1998, but Germany has not adopted the
vision of a pension, that is to say their employer as a party to          necessary measures in that regard.
the employment contract.
                                                                          (1) OJ L 265 of 18.10.1996, p. 17.
                                                                          Action brought on 8 October 1999 by the Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-
                                                                                lic of Germany
Action brought on 8 October 1999 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-                                             (Case C-387/99)
                            lic of Germany
                                                                                (1999/C 366/33)
                           (Case C-386/99)
                                                                          An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                          brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                          (1999/C 366/32)                                 ties on 8 October 1999 by the Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities, represented by Claudia Schmidt, of its Legal
                                                                          Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                     Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-              Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.
ties on 8 October 1999 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Claudia Schmidt, of its Legal                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its              (1) declare that, by classifying as medicinal products vitamin
Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.                                 and mineral nutrient preparations which have been law-
                                                                               fully produced and/or placed on the market as food
                                                                               supplements in other Member States, where the daily dose
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    of such vitamins and minerals is more than three times
                                                                               that recommended by the German Gesellschaft für Ernäh-
                                                                               rung, the Federal Republic of Germany has infringed its
(1) declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and                obligations under Article 28 EC;
     administrative measures necessary in order to comply with
     Commission Directive 96/65/EC (1) of 11 October 1996                 (2) order the defendant to pay the costs.
     adapting to technical progress for the fourth time Council,
     Directive 88/379/EEC on the approximation of the laws,
     regulations and administrative provisions of the Member              Pleas in law and main arguments
     States relating to the classification, packaging and labelling
     of dangerous preparations and modifying Directive                    Infringement of Article 28 EC: the obstacle to trade resulting
     91/442/EEC on dangerous preparations the packaging of                from the practice followed by the German administrative
     which must be fitted with child-resistant fastenings, the            authorities and courts cannot be justified on grounds of public
     Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its                 health or consumer protection, since that practice is not in
     obligations under the third paragraph of Article 249 EC in           accordance with the principle of proportionality. It is an
     conjunction with Article 3(1) of that directive;                     established scientific fact that the threshold at which increasing
                                                                          doses of vitamins become harmful is not reached at the same
                                                                          rate in the case of all vitamins. Consequently, to regard all
(2) alternatively, declare that the Federal Republic of Germany           vitamins in global/abstract terms, in such a way as necessarily
     has failed to fulfil its obligation to notify the Commission         to apply the strictest criterion, is to go beyond what is
     without delay of the measures taken to transpose the                 necessary and permissible in order to achieve the goal of health
     directive;                                                           protection under Community law; it is disproportionate.
(3) order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.


title: Case C-194/02: Action brought on 24 May 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
C 169/26               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        13.7.2002
      (b) incorrectly or incompletely transposing into Austri-                  (a)   not transposing into Austrian law the obligation to
            an law the obligation imposed on the competent                            separate waste laid down in Article 2(4) of Council
            authorities by Article 13 of the directive to undertake                   Directive 91/689/EEC(1) of 12 December 1991 on
            appropriate periodic inspections of establishments                        hazardous waste, as amended (2), and
            and undertakings which carry out the operations
            referred to in Articles 9 to 12 of the directive, the               (b) not fully transposing the obligation on the auth-
            Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations                  orities to carry out appropriate periodic inspections
            under Article 1(e) and (f) of the directive in conjunc-                   of producers of hazardous waste laid down in
            tion with Annexes II A and II B thereto and                               Article 4(1) of the directive, or the obligation on the
            Article 13 of the directive;                                              authorities to carry out inspections laid down in
                                                                                Article 5(2), the Republic of Austria has failed to
2.    order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.                                 fulfil its obligations under Articles 2(4), 4(1) and
                                                                                5(2) of the directive;
                                                                          2.    order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The definitions of ‘disposal’ and ‘recovery’ laid down in                 There is no provision of Austrian law which clearly transposes
Article 1(e) and (f) in conjunction with Annexes II A and II B            the duty to separate mixed waste imposed by Article 2(4) of
of Directive 75/442/EEC are of central importance to the                  the directive.
uniform terminology of Community waste law and the
realisation of European waste policy. Under the legal pro-                In addition, the duty to carry out inspections prescribed by
visions in force in the Republic of Austria, terminology                  Austrian law relates only to those entities which collect and
inconsistent with that used in the directive is employed for the          handle hazardous waste, but does not extend to producers of
classification of operations which are regulated in Community             hazardous waste, as required by Directive 91/689/EEC. There
law by the definitions of ‘disposal’ and ‘recovery’.                      is also no comprehensive obligation on the competent auth-
                                                                          orities to carry out appropriate periodic inspections of estab-
                                                                          lishments and undertakings as required by Article 5(2) of the
In addition, the provisions in the Gewerbeordnung 1994 (the
                                                                          directive.
Austrian Trade Code of 1994) relating to industrial plants do
not adequately meet the requirements of Article 13 of the
directive, because those provisions do not provide that the               (1) OJ L 377, 31.12.1991, p. 20.
inspection must be carried out by the competent authorities.              (2) Council Directive 94/31/EC of 27 June 1994, OJ L 168, 2.7.1994,
                                                                              p. 28.
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Irinodikio
                                                                          Athinon by judgment of that court of 13 May 2002 in the
Action brought on 24 May 2002 by the Commission                           case of Vasiliki Nikoloudi against Organismos Tilepiki-
of the European Communities against the Republic of                                              nonion Elladas (OTE)
                              Austria
                                                                                (Case C-196/02)
                         (Case C-194/02)                                                            (2002/C 169/47)
                         (2002/C 169/46)
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by judgment of the Irinodikio Athinon
                                                                          (Small Claims Court, Athens) of 13 May 2002, received at the
                                                                          Court Registry on 27 May 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before              case of Vasiliki Nikoloudi against Organismos Tilepikinonion
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 May                Elladas (OTE) on the following questions:
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Josef Christian Schieferer, of its Legal Service,          1.    Are the existence and operation of a rule, such as, in
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Luis                 the present case, Article 24a(2a) of the General Staff
Escobar Guerrero, of its Legal Service, at Wagner Centre C 254,                 Regulations of the Organismos Tilepikinonion Elladas
Kirchberg, Luxembourg.                                                          (OTE), under which it is laid down that (only) women
                                                                                are taken on as cleaners on employment contracts of
                                                                                indefinite duration for part-time or intermittent employ-
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     ment, consistent with the requirements which arise from
                                                                                Article 119 of the EEC Treaty and Directives 117/75 and
1.    declare that by:                                                          207/76?


title: Case T-566/13: Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2015 — Hostel Tourist World v OHIM — WRI Nominees (HostelTouristWorld.com) (Community trade mark — Cancellation proceedings — Community figurative mark HostelTouristWorld.com — Earlier international word mark HOSTELWORLD.COM — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Minimal inherent distinctiveness of the earlier mark — Likelihood of confusion)

text:
               15.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 198/35

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2015 — Hostel Tourist World v OHIM — WRI Nominees (HostelTouristWorld.com)
   (Case T-566/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Cancellation proceedings - Community figurative mark HostelTouristWorld.com - Earlier international word mark HOSTELWORLD.COM - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Minimal inherent distinctiveness of the earlier mark - Likelihood of confusion))
   (2015/C 198/47)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Hostel Tourist World, SL (Seville, Spain) (represented by: J. Bartrina Díaz, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: WRI Nominees Ltd (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented initially by G. Kelly and A. Payne, solicitors, subsequently by A. Payne, J. Llevat Vallespinosa and J.-Y. Teindas Maillard, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 August 2013 (Case R 966/2012-4) concerning cancellation proceedings between the company WRI Nominees Ltd and Hostel Tourist World, SL.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Hostel Tourist World, SL to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 31, 1.2.2014.


title: Case T-484/12: Action brought on 6 November 2012 — CeWe Color v OHIM (SMILECARD)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/53

         Action brought on 6 November 2012 — CeWe Color v OHIM (SMILECARD)
   (Case T-484/12)
   2013/C 26/108
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: CeWe Color AG & Co. OHG (Oldenburg, Germany) (represented by U. Sander, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 September 2012 in Case R 2279/2011-4;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘SMILECARD’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16 and 40 — Community trade mark application No 9 861 691

      Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case C-173/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Lyon — France) — Maurice Leone, Blandine Leone v Garde des Sceaux, ministre de la Justice, Caisse nationale de retraite des agents des collectivités locales (Social policy — Article 141 EC — Equality of pay for female and male workers — Early retirement with immediate payment of pension — Service credit for the purposes of calculating the pension — Advantages benefiting mainly female civil servants — Indirect discrimination — Objective justification — Genuine concern about attaining the stated objective — Consistency in implementation — Article 141(4) EC — Measures aimed at compensating for career-related disadvantages for female workers — Not applicable)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/12

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Lyon — France) — Maurice Leone, Blandine Leone v Garde des Sceaux, ministre de la Justice, Caisse nationale de retraite des agents des collectivités locales
   (Case C-173/13) (1)

   ((Social policy - Article 141 EC - Equality of pay for female and male workers - Early retirement with immediate payment of pension - Service credit for the purposes of calculating the pension - Advantages benefiting mainly female civil servants - Indirect discrimination - Objective justification - Genuine concern about attaining the stated objective - Consistency in implementation - Article 141(4) EC - Measures aimed at compensating for career-related disadvantages for female workers - Not applicable))
   2014/C 315/17
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour administrative d’appel de Lyon

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Maurice Leone, Blandine Leone

      Defendants: Garde des Sceaux, ministre de la Justice, Caisse nationale de retraite des agents des collectivités locales

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 141 EC must be interpreted as meaning that a scheme for early retirement with immediate payment of pension such as that at issue in the main proceedings gives rise to indirect discrimination in terms of pay as between female workers and male workers, contrary to that article, unless it can be justified by objective factors unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex, such as a legitimate social policy aim, and is appropriate to achieve that aim and necessary in order to do so, which requires that it genuinely reflect a concern to attain that aim and be pursued in a consistent and systematic manner.

               2.

               Article 141 EC must be interpreted as meaning that a service credit scheme for pension purposes, such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, gives rise to indirect discrimination in terms of pay as between female workers and male workers, contrary to that article, unless it can be justified by objective factors unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex, such as a legitimate social policy aim, and is appropriate to achieve that aim and necessary in order to do so, which requires that it genuinely reflect a concern to attain that aim and be pursued in a consistent and systematic manner.

               3.

               Article 141(4) EC must be interpreted as meaning that the measures referred to in that provision do not cover national measures such as those at issue in the main proceedings which merely allow the workers concerned to take early retirement with immediate payment of pension and to grant them a service credit upon their retirement, without providing a remedy for the problems which they may encounter in the course of their professional career.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.


title: Case F-125/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 21 July 2016 — HB v Commission (Civil service — Officials — 2014 promotion exercise — Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations — Comparison of the merits — 2011 and 2012 staff reports — Absence of several months due to maternity leave in 2013 — Staff report lacking any substantive assessment for the year in question — Decision not to promote the applicant in 2014 — Duty to provide a statement of reasons — Consideration of the comparative merits — No recommendation from the Joint Promotion Committee — Access to the applicant’s individual computerised file — Composition of the Joint Promotion Committee — Discrimination based on gender — Non-material damage)

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/36

      Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 21 July 2016 — HB v Commission
      (Case F-125/15) (1)

      ((Civil service - Officials - 2014 promotion exercise - Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations - Comparison of the merits - 2011 and 2012 staff reports - Absence of several months due to maternity leave in 2013 - Staff report lacking any substantive assessment for the year in question - Decision not to promote the applicant in 2014 - Duty to provide a statement of reasons - Consideration of the comparative merits - No recommendation from the Joint Promotion Committee - Access to the applicant’s individual computerised file - Composition of the Joint Promotion Committee - Discrimination based on gender - Non-material damage))
      (2016/C 364/43)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

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

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Berscheid, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 8 in the 2014 promotion exercise and compensation for the non-material damage which the applicant claims to have suffered.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Tribunal:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders HB to bear half of her own costs;

                  3.

                  Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay half of HB’s costs.

         (1)  OJ C 398, 30/11/2015, p. 80.


title: Case T-299/06: Action brought on 25 October 2006 — Leclercq v Commission

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/59

         Action brought on 25 October 2006 — Leclercq v Commission
   (Case T-299/06)
   (2006/C 326/128)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Sylvie Leclercq (represented by: S. Rodrigues, C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

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

               —

               Declare the action admissible;

               —

               Annul the Commission's decision of 27 July 2006, in that it refuses the applicant access to the Commission's documents sought;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs;

               —

               Order the defendant, in respect of its non-contractual liability, to pay the applicant EUR 50 per day from the date of the contested decision.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By this action, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of 27 July 2006, adopted by the Secretary-General of the Commission, rejecting her confirmatory application for access to an extract from the databases containing information relating to the Commission's staff. The reasons for refusal put forward by the Commission were that the application was outside the scope of Regulation No 1049/2001 (1) on the ground that, in this case, it was not an application for access to an existing document held by the institution, within the meaning of that regulation.
   In support of her action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law. The first alleges infringement of Article 3(a) of Regulation No 1049/2001 on the ground that, in the contested decision, the Commission excludes a database from the meaning of ‘document’. The applicant claims that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment by making such exclusion which is not provided for by the regulation and goes against the broad interpretation which should be given, in the applicant's submission, to the meaning of ‘document’ in Regulation No 1049/2001.
   The second plea in law alleges infringement of Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001 and of the duty to state reasons on the ground that the Commission did not state in the contested decision how the disclosure of the document sought would undermine a public or private interest so that it could be refused on the basis of one of the exceptions in Article 4 of the regulation.
   The applicant claims that the Commission's conduct, which she alleges to be unlawful because contrary to Regulation No 1049/2001, is capable of giving rise to its non-contractual liability under the second paragraph of Article 288 EC. She therefore claims compensation for the losses, both pecuniary and non-pecuniary, which the Commission's conduct has caused her.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).


title: Case T-271/04: Action brought on 5 July 2004 by Citymo S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/31

         Action brought on 5 July 2004 by Citymo S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-271/04)
   (2004/C 262/60)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 5 July 2004 by Citymo S.A, established in Brussels, represented by Pierre Van Ommeslaghe and Isabelle Heenen, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that the defendant is at fault and contractually liable and order it to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 27 330 577.77, the estimated amount of its loss, together with interest at the legal rate applicable in Belgium (currently 7 %) from the date of the application to the date of actual payment, the amount being subject to adjustment during the proceedings;

               —

               declare, alternatively, that the Community, represented by the Commission, is liable and order the Commission to pay the sum of EUR 20 589 332.22 as compensation for the loss suffered together with default interest on that sum from the date of judgment until the date of actual payment, at the rate of 6 %, the amount being subject to adjustment during the proceedings;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicant affirms that it concluded a contract for a lease with the Commission of a building in Brussels comprising 16 954 m2. The Commission even agreed that the lessor should place an order for the interior fitting-out required to be done.
   However, the Commission informed the lessor before 1 November 2003, the date on which the lease became effective, that it intended neither to take the property on lease nor to indemnify the applicant for the work already arranged.
   In support of its claims, the applicant submits that:

               —

               Although the lease contract had not been formally signed by the Commission, it bound the parties, since the contract is concluded under Belgian law by simple consent of the parties without formalities;

               —

               The Commission is liable by reason of its repudiation of the contract.

         The applicant seeks the setting aside of the contract due to the Commission's fault pursuant to Article 1.184 of the Belgian Civil Code and an order that it compensate the applicant for the loss it suffers as a result thereof.
   In the alternative, should the Court not accept that the contract at issue was concluded, the applicant considers that the Commission committed an act of non-contractual negligence by breaking off the negotiations. It claims in that regard that the defendant acted in bad faith by disappointing Citymo's legitimate expectations acquired during the contract negotiations and by leading it to believe that the contract would be concluded, but then withdrawing from it and failing to act in good faith by informing the applicant of its changed intentions.


title: Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-261/94 and C-262/94

text:
6 . 7 . 96              1 EN I                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       No C 197/ 17
( a ) insofar as it is based, as it purports to be, on the                         justification for a temporary ban on the export from the
         perceived need to allay concern among consumers in                        United Kingdom of all the items mentioned in Article 1
         order to protect the market for beef generally in                          of the contested Decision, there is no longer any
         Member States, the export ban is not within the scope                     justification for the continuation of the export ban
         of the Commission's powers or the margin of discretion                    either at all or in relation to products recognized by
         allowed to it;                                                             independent scientific bodies as being safe .
( b ) having regard in particular to the other measures                    (') Commission Decision 96/239/EC of 27 March 1996 on
         adopted in the United Kingdom and at the Community                       emergency measures to protect against bovine spongiform
         level to deal with BSE, the export ban is not, and cannot                encephalopathy ( OJ No L 78 , 28 . 3 . 1996 , p. 47).
         be, justified on the basis of any serious hazard to animal        ( 2 ) Commission Decision 94/474/EEC of 27 July 1994 concerning
                                                                                certain protection measures relating to bovine spongiform
         or human health;
                                                                                encephalopathy ( OJ No L 194, 29. 7. 1994, p. 96 ).
                                                                           ( 3 ) Council      Directive      89/662/EEC of 11   December  1989
(c ) it is therefore an unlawful impediment to the free                           concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a
                                                                                view to the completion of the internal market ( OJ No L 395 ,
         movement of goods within the Community;                                  30 . 12 . 1989 , p . 13 ).
                                                                           (4 ) Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning
( d ) the adoption of the export ban and its continuance                          veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in
                                                                                intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products
         constitute a misuse of powers ;                                          with a view to the completion of the internal market ( OJ No
                                                                                L 224 , 18 . 8 . 1990, p . 29 ).
( e ) the export ban is disproportionate whether it was
         imposed or is being maintained in order to allay
         concern among consumers or in order to protect
         against a perceived threat to animal or human
         health;
 ( f) the export ban discriminates between consumers in the                Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-261/94 and
         United Kingdom and consumers in other Member                                                          C-262/94 ( l )
         States and between producers in the United Kingdom                                                  ( 96/C 197/35 )
         and producers in other Member States, contrary to
         Articles 6 and 40 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty;
                                                                            By order of 7 February 1996 , the President of the Court of
 (g) the export ban is inconsistent with the objectives of the             Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
          Common Agricultural Policy set out in Article 39 ( 1 ) of         from the Register of Joined Cases C-261 /94 and C-262/94 :
         the EC Treaty;                                                     ( References for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice
                                                                            Conciliatore di Trieste ): Centralsped Sri v . Amministrazione
                                                                            delle Finanze dello Stato ( C-261 /94 ) and For Trans Sri v .
 ( h ) the contested Decision in various respects infringes the             Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato ( C-262/94 ).
          principle of legal certainty, fails to state the reasons for
          its adoption and, as the Commission contends, covers
                                                                            (') OJ No C 316 , 12 . 11 . 1994 .
          products that, as the United Kingdom contends, fall
          outside the scope of the powers purportedly exercised
          by the Commission;
  ( i ) by maintaining the contested Decision in force, the
          contested acts are vitiated by the same defects;
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C- 1 9 5/94 ( )
  (j ) Directive 89/662/EEC ( 3 ) and Directive 90/425/EEC ( 4 )
          are unlawful and therefore inapplicable if and insofar                                              ( 96/C 197/36 )
          as they purport to provide the legal basis for the
          extension of the export ban to products falling outside
          the scope of the powers purportedly exercised by the               By order of 27 March 1996 , the President of the Court of
           Commission;
                                                                            Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                             from the Register of Case C-l 95/94 (Reference for a
                                                                             preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Koblenz ): José
   ( k ) it is manifest that the export ban is and was                       Oliveira-Neves v . Bundesanstalt fiir Arbeit.
           counterproductive and is not in the interests of any
           Member State;
                                                                             f 1 ) OJ No C 233 , 20 . 8 . 1994 .
   (1)     even if, contrary to the United Kingdom's primary
           submission, there was a sufficient and a lawful


title: Case T-483/17: Action brought on 28 July 2017 — García Suárez and Others v Commission and SRB

text:
               2.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/13

         Action brought on 28 July 2017 — García Suárez and Others v Commission and SRB
   (Case T-483/17)
   (2017/C 330/17)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: María de la Soledad García Suárez (Madrid, Spain), María del Carmen Chueca García (Madrid), Sol María Chueca García (Madrid), Alejandro María Chueca García (Madrid), José María Chueca García (Madrid) and Ignacio María Chueca García (Madrid) (represented by: A. Rivas Rodríguez, lawyer)

      Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 (SRB/EES/2017/08) concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme regarding the institution Banco Popular Español S.A., and of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme for Banco Popular Español, S.A.;

               —

               Order the defendant[s] to remedy the harm and damage resulting from the loss in value of the shares in Banco Popular Español, S.A. held by the applicants, taking the difference in the value of the shares on 6 June 2017, namely EUR 9 212,34, as reference for the compensation, together with interest at the appropriate rate.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward in Case T-482/17 Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and SRB.


title: Action brought on 2 December 1997 by Benito Latino against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-300/97)

text:
7.2.98                  EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 41/23
competition. According to that decision, the applicant's               Action brought on 2 December 1997 by Benito Latino
certificates and diplomas did not fulfil the conditions laid             against the Commission of the European Communities
down in point III.B.2 of the competition notice, according                                   (Case T-300/97)
to which candidates were required to have completed full
university studies certified by a diploma (degree or                                           (98/C 41/47)
equivalent).
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The applicant considers that possession of the diploma in              An action against the Commission of the European
ingeniería teÂcnica' presupposes full university studies              Communities was brought before the Court of First
certified by a diploma and that the selection board is                 Instance of the European Communities on 2 December
imposing a requirement which does not appear in the                    1997 by Benito Latino, residing in Brussels, represented by
wording of the vacancy notice.                                         Olivier Eben, of the Brussels Bar, 11 Rue Paul Emile
                                                                       Janson, Brussels.
In support of his claims, the applicant puts forward the               The applicant claims that the Court should:
following pleas in law:
                                                                       Ð order the Commission to pay, pursuant to Article 73
                                                                           of the Staff Regulations and Article 14 of the Rules on
Ð Breach of the principle of equal treatment,
                                                                           the insurance of officials of the European
                                                                           Communities against the risk of accident and of
                                                                           occupational disease, a capital sum, based on the rate
Ð Infringement of Directive 89/48/EEC (1), the provisions
                                                                           of permanent partial incapacity determined by the
     of which are considered applicable, by way of analogy,
                                                                           Court, in respect of the asbestosis contracted by the
     to any competition notice,
                                                                           applicant,
Ð Breach of the principle of proportionality, inasmuch                 Ð order the Commission to pay ECU 1 000 000 by way
     as, in the applicant's view, the requirement to hold a                of compensation for the non-material damage suffered
     long cycle diploma is neither necessary nor                           by the applicant,
     appropriate in order to achieve the objective pursued,
     which is simply that of recruiting into the A/LA                  Ð order the Commission to pay interest at the rate of
     category of the Community civil service individuals                   10 % per annum on the capital sum found by the
     who have followed full university degree courses                      Court to be payable in accordance with the rate of
     certified by a diploma,                                               permanent partial incapacity determined pursuant to
                                                                           Articles 73 and 14 of the Staff Regulations, and on the
                                                                           capital sum of ECU 1 000 000, such interest to be
Ð Breach of the principle of legal certainty and of                        calculated from 1 August 1997 until payment in full of
     legitimate expectations,                                              that capital sum,
                                                                       Ð annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision of
Ð Breach of the right of access to the Community public                    the Commission of 1 August 1997 refusing the
     service.                                                              applicant's request of 11 May 1997,
                                                                       Ð order the Commission to pay all the costs.
The applicant further affirms that, in its judgment in Case
T-82/92 Manuel CorteÂs JimeÂnez v. Commission [1994] (2),
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
the Court of First Instance simply rejected the higher'
nature of the ingeniero teÂcnico' diploma without,
however, thereby expressly rejecting the full' nature of              The applicant, a former official who worked in the
that diploma.                                                          Berlaymont building in Brussels as an archivist from 1969
                                                                       to 1991, has contracted an occupational disease,
                                                                       asbestosis. On 11 February 1997 the appointing authority
The applicant also claims that the defendant has misused               decided to recognize the applicant as having a permanent
its power inasmuch as, in his view, the contested act forms            partial incapacity (PPI) rate of 5 %, equivalent to a capital
part of a staff selection policy intended to prevent access            sum of Bfrs 639 114.
by ingenieros teÂcnicos' to the A/LA category.
                                                                       The applicant maintains that, in view of the seriousness of
                                                                       that mortal illness and the physical consequences resulting
(1) Council Directive of 21 December 1988 on a general system
                                                                       from it, which will totally reduce his quality of life, he
    for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on
    completion of professional education and training of at least      should be awarded a PPI percentage reflecting with the
    three years' duration (OJ L 19, 24.1.1989, p. 16).                 seriousness of his illness. According to the applicant, the
(2) ECR II-237.                                                        Commission is guilty of having required him to work in a
                                                                       building in which, between 1967 and 1969, the workers
                                                                       were exposed to the flaking' of 4 000 tonnes of asbestos
                                                                       on the south and west walls, despite the fact that:
 ---pagebreak--- C 41/24                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  7.2.98
Ð the Commission knew of, or could not in any event                 Communities ordered the removal from the register of
    have been unaware of, the dangerous nature of                   Case T-173/96: Teresa Maria Rodrigues Gomes de
    asbestos generally, and, in particular, the danger which        Oliveira v. Commission of the European Communities.
    it represented for persons performing tasks of an
    administrative nature and archive work in a building            (1) OJ C 388, 21.12.1996.
    contaminated with asbestos;
Ð the Commission knew that it lacked sufficient staff to
    monitor compliance with safety and hygiene standards
    generally and the protection measures applicable
    during the course of maintenance works.                         Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-176/96 and
                                                                                T-108/97 (1)
The unlawfulness of the conduct in question also results                                    (98/C 41/49)
from a disregard of the principles, rights and guarantees                          (Language of the case: French)
contained in the European Social Charter. Those
principles, rights and guarantees constitute general                By order of 4 December 1997, the President of the First
principles of Community law with which the Community                Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
authorities are required to comply and which the                    Communities ordered the removal from the register of
Community judicature is required to monitor. On the                 Joined Cases T-176/96 and T-108/97, Cornelis Volger v.
basis of that Charter, the applicant claims that all workers        European Parliament.
are entitled to safety and hygiene at work, that all persons
are entitled to the benefit of all such measures as will            (1) OJ C 388, 21.12.1996 and OJ C 181, 14.6.1997.
enable them to enjoy the best possible state of health and
that it is necessary, in so far as may be possible, to prevent
epidemic, endemic and other illnesses. In the present case,
the applicant's rights were disregarded and no measures
were taken to prevent diseases caused by contact with
asbestos.                                                                    Removal from the register of T-225/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 41/50)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                    By order of 17 December 1997, the President of the
                                                                    Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
          Removal from the register of T-173/96 (1)                 European Communities ordered the removal from the
                          (98/C 41/48)                              register of Case T-225/97: Asia Motor France SA, Jean-
                                                                    Michel Cesbron, Monin Automobiles SA and Europe Auto
                (Language of the case: French)                      Service (EAS) SA v. Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities.
By order of 5 December 1997, the President of the Second
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European              (1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997.


title: Case T-32/13 P: Order of the General Court of 19 December 2013 — da Silva Tenreiro v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Recruitment — Vacancy notice — Nomination to post of Director of Directorate A ‘Civil Justice’ in the Commission’s Directorate General ‘Justice’ — Rejection of the applicant’s candidature — Nomination of another candidate — Misuse of powers — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/32

         Order of the General Court of 19 December 2013 — da Silva Tenreiro v Commission
   (Case T-32/13 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Vacancy notice - Nomination to post of Director of Directorate A ‘Civil Justice’ in the Commission’s Directorate General ‘Justice’ - Rejection of the applicant’s candidature - Nomination of another candidate - Misuse of powers - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
   2014/C 45/54
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

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

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Eggers and C. Ehrbar, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 14 November 2012 in Case F-120/11 da Silva Tenreiro v Commission, seeking annulment of that judgment.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Mario Paulo da Silva Tenreiro shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.


title: Case T-179/11: Judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2012 — Sport Eybl & Sports Experts v OHIM — Seven (SEVEN SUMMITS) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark SEVEN SUMMITS — Earlier Community figurative mark Seven — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               7.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2012 — Sport Eybl & Sports Experts v OHIM — Seven (SEVEN SUMMITS)
   (Case T-179/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark SEVEN SUMMITS - Earlier Community figurative mark Seven - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 200/32
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sport Eybl & Sports Experts GmbH (Wels, Austria) (represented by: S. Fürst, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Seven SpA (Leinì, Italy) (represented by: D. Sindico, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 January 2011 (Case R 364/2010-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Seven SpA and Sport Eybl & Sports Experts GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Sport Eybl & Sports Experts GmbH to pay its own costs and to bear those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and by Seven SpA.

      (1)  OJ C 152, 21.5.2011.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) of 17 April 1997 in Case C-138/95 P: Campo Ebro Industrial SA, Levantina Agrícola Industrial SA (LAISA) and Cerestar Ibérica SA v. Council of the European Union, supported by Commission of the European Communities (Appeal - Sugar - Accession of the Kingdom of Spain - Alignment of sugar prices - Isoglucose production)

text:
No C 199/2              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  28 . 6 . 97
      so far as the latter may favour forms of production                  interest at the annual rate of 8% to run from
      which are not in compliance with Community                           24 January 1991 until the date of actual payment;
      legislation.
(') OJ No C 54,4 . 3 . 1995 .                                         5 . orders the European Parliament to pay all the costs of
                                                                           the proceedings before both courts.
                                                                      0 ) OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         ( Sixth Chamber)
                         of 17 April 1997
       in Case C-90/95 P: Henri de Compte v. European
                           Parliament (')                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Officials — Decision recognizing the existence of an                                            (First Chamber)
occupational disease — Revocation of an administrative
act — Legitimate expectations — Reasonable period —                                            of 17 April 1997
                               Appeal)                                in Case C-138/95 P: Campo Ebro Industrial SA, Levantina
                           ( 97/C 199/02 )                            Agricola Industrial SA ( LAISA) and Cerestar Iberica SA
                                                                      v. Council of the European Union, supported by
                                                                               Commission of the European Communities H
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      (Appeal — Sugar — Accession of the Kingdom of Spain
                                                                          — Alignment of sugar prices — Isoglucose production)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
            published in the European Court Reports)                                              ( 97/C 199/03 )
In Case C-90/95 P: Henri de Compte ( represented by:
initially Eric Boigelot, subsequently Francesco Pasetti                               (Language of the case: English)
Bombardella ) — appeal against the judgment of the Court
of First Instance of the European Communities of
26 January 1995 in Joined Cases T-90/91 and T-62/92
Henri de Compte v. European Parliament [ 1995 ] ECR-SC                In Case C-138/95 P: Campo Ebro Industrial SA, Levantina
II- 1 , seeking to have that judgment set aside, save in so far       Agricola Industrial SA ( LAISA ) and Cerestar Iberica SA
as it orders the Parliament to pay the appellant the sum of           ( Legal Adviser: Paul Glazener ) — appeal against the
Bfrs 200 000 by way of compensation for non-material                  judgment of the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber) of
damage — the other party to the proceedings being:                    21 February 1995 in Case T-472/93 Campo Ebro and
European Parliament ( Agent: Francois Vainker, assisted by            Others v. Council [ 1995 ] ECR 11-421 , seeking to have that
Denis Waelbroeck ) — The Court ( Sixth Chamber ),                     judgment set aside in part, the other party to the
composed of: G. F. Mancini, President of the Chamber,                 proceedings being Council of the European Union ( Agent:
J. L. Murray, C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn and H.                 Arthur Brautigam ), supported by Commission of the
Ragnemalm ( Rapporteur ), Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate                European Communities ( Agents : Jose Luis Iglesias
General; R. Grass, Registar, has given a judgment on                  Buhigues and James MacDonald Flett) — the Court ( First
 17 April 1997, in which it:                                          Chamber ), composed of: L. Sevón, President of the
                                                                      Chamber ( Rapporteur ), D. A. O. Edward and M.
                                                                      Wathelet, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate-General; R.
 1 . sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance           Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 April 1997,
       of the European Communities on 26 January 1995 in              in which it :
      Joined Cases T-90/91 and T-62/92 De Compte v.
       Parliament, save in so far as it orders the European
       Parliament to pay the appellant the sum of Bfrs
       200 000 by way of compensation for non-material                 1 . dismisses the appeal;
       damage;
2 . in Case T-90/91 , annuls the decision of 18 April 1991 ;          2 . orders the appellants to pay the costs and the
                                                                            intervener to bear its own costs.
 3 . in Case T-62/92, annuls the decision of 20 January
       1992;                                                           (') OJ No C 189 , 22 . 7 . 1995 .
4 . orders the European Parliament to pay the appellant
       the sum of Bfrs 9 147 091 , together with default


title: Case C-37/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Cagliari (Italy) lodged on 29 January 2015 — Gicacomo Bolasco di Gianni Bolasco S.a.s. v Comune di Monastir, Equitalia Centro SpA

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/31

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Cagliari (Italy) lodged on 29 January 2015 — Gicacomo Bolasco di Gianni Bolasco S.a.s. v Comune di Monastir, Equitalia Centro SpA
   (Case C-37/15)
   (2015/C 138/42)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Cagliari

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Gicacomo Bolasco di Gianni Bolasco S.a.s.

      Defendants: Comune di Monastir, Equitalia Centro SpA

      Question referred

   Does Community law preclude the rules laid down in Article 188 of Legislative Decree No 152/2006 and the Decree of the Minister for the Environment of 17 December 2009, under which the entry into force of the legislation transposing Directive 2008/98/EC (1) into national law is to be deferred pending the adoption of a ministerial decree laying down the related technical rules and specifying the time-limits within which that implementing legislation is to enter into force?

      (1)  Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives (OJ 2003 L 312, p. 3).


title: Case C-166/13: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Melun — France) — Sophie Mukarubega v Préfet de police, Préfet de la Seine-Saint-Denis (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Visas, asylum, immigration and other policies related to free movement of persons — Directive 2008/115/EC — Return of illegally staying third-country nationals — Procedure for the adoption of a return decision — Principle of respect for the rights of the defence — Right of an illegally staying third-country national to be heard before the adoption of a decision liable to affect her interests — Administrative authority refusing to grant such a national resident permit as an asylum applicant and imposing an obligation to leave the territory — Right to be heard before the return decision is issued)

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Melun — France) — Sophie Mukarubega v Préfet de police, Préfet de la Seine-Saint-Denis
   (Case C-166/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Visas, asylum, immigration and other policies related to free movement of persons - Directive 2008/115/EC - Return of illegally staying third-country nationals - Procedure for the adoption of a return decision - Principle of respect for the rights of the defence - Right of an illegally staying third-country national to be heard before the adoption of a decision liable to affect her interests - Administrative authority refusing to grant such a national resident permit as an asylum applicant and imposing an obligation to leave the territory - Right to be heard before the return decision is issued))
   (2015/C 007/08)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal administratif de Melun

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sophie Mukarubega

      Defendant: Préfet de police, Préfet de la Seine-Saint-Denis

      Operative part of the judgment

   In circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the right to be heard in all proceedings, as it applies in the context of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, and in particular Article 6 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that a national authority is not precluded from failing to hear a third-country national specifically on the subject of a return decision where, after that authority has determined that the third-country national is staying illegally in the national territory on the conclusion of a procedure which fully respected that person’s right to be heard, it is contemplating the adoption of such a decision in respect of that person, whether or not that return decision is the result of refusal of a residence permit.

      (1)  OJ C 164, 8.6.2013.


title: Joined Cases C-446/12 to C-449/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — W.P. Willems v Burgemeester van Nuth, (C-446/12), H.J. Kooistra v Burgemeester van Skarsterlân (C-447/12), M. Roest v Burgemeester van Amsterdam(C-448/12), L.J.A. van Luijk v Burgemeester van Den Haag (C-449/12) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Biometric passport — Biometric data — Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 — Article 1(3) — Article 4(3) — Use of data collected for purposes other than the issue of passports and travel documents — Establishment and use of databases containing biometric data — Legal guarantees — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 7 and 8 — Directive 95/46/EC — Articles 6 and 7 — Right to privacy — Right to the protection of personal data — Application to identity cards)

text:
               15.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 198/2

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — W.P. Willems v Burgemeester van Nuth, (C-446/12), H.J. Kooistra v Burgemeester van Skarsterlân (C-447/12), M. Roest v Burgemeester van Amsterdam(C-448/12), L.J.A. van Luijk v Burgemeester van Den Haag (C-449/12)
   (Joined Cases C-446/12 to C-449/12) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Biometric passport - Biometric data - Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 - Article 1(3) - Article 4(3) - Use of data collected for purposes other than the issue of passports and travel documents - Establishment and use of databases containing biometric data - Legal guarantees - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 7 and 8 - Directive 95/46/EC - Articles 6 and 7 - Right to privacy - Right to the protection of personal data - Application to identity cards))
   (2015/C 198/02)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: W.P. Willems (C-446/12), H.J. Kooistra (C-447/12), M. Roest (C-448/12), L.J.A. van Luijk (C-449/12)

      Defendants: Burgemeester van Nuth (C-446/12), Burgemeester van Skarsterlân (C-447/12), Burgemeester van Amsterdam (C-448/12), Burgemeester van Den Haag (C-449/12)

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 1(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 of 13 December 2004 on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 444/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that that regulation is not applicable to identity cards issued by a Member States to its nationals, such as Netherlands identity cards, regardless of the period of validity and the possibility of using them for the purposes of travel outside that State;

               2.

               Article 4(3) of Regulation No 2252/2004, as amended by Regulation No 444/2009, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require the Member States to guarantee, in their legislation, that biometric data collected and stored in accordance with that regulation will not be collected, processed and used for purposes other than the issue of the passport or travel document, since that is not a matter which falls within the scope of that regulation.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.


title: Case T-170/99: Action brought on 20 July 1999 by RJB Mining plc against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 281/24                  EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      2.10.1999
Action brought on 13 July 1999 by Diputación Foral de                     represented by Mark Brealey and Jonathan Lawrence, with an
Alava against the Commission of the European Communi-                      address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt
                                   ties                                    & Medernach, 8-10 rue Mathias Hardt.
                            (Case T-168/99)                                The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           — annul the contested decision on the grounds set out in the
                            (1999/C 281/45)                                     application and;
                                                                           — order the Commission to pay the costs of the action,
                     (Language of the case: Spanish)                            including those of the applicant.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  Pleas in law and main arguments
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 13 July 1999 by Diputación Foral
de Alava, represented by Antonio Creus Carreras and Begoña                The applicant, a public limited company incorporated in
Uriarte Valiente, lawyers, with an address for service c/o                 England, has already raised similar issues in four applications
Cuatrecasas Abogados, 78 Avenue d’Auderghem, 1040 Brus-                    against the Commission, currently pending before the Court
sels.                                                                      of First Instance of the European Communities (1).
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                By the present application, the applicant submits that the
                                                                           Commission has purported to approve aid to be granted to
— annul the Commission Decision of 31 March 1999 in so                     the Spanish coal mining industry in 1999. According to the
     far as it initiates a State aid proceeding against the financial      applicant, the contested decision should be declared void in
     measures provided for in Normas Forales (regional regu-               whole or in part for the following reasons:
     lations) 22/1994 and 24/1996 and requires the Spanish
     State to suspend the payment of sums in pursuance thereof             — the Commission has no competence to approve the aid
     to the company Ramondı́n S.A.;                                             under Article 1(1) of the Code unless the aid complies with
                                                                                Articles 2 to 9 of the Code;
— order the Commission to pay all the costs.
                                                                           — the approval of State aid infringed an essential procedural
                                                                                requirement and/of infringed the ECSC Treaty and/or a
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 rule of law relating to its application;
                                                                           — the Commission has failed properly or at all to provide in
By the present action, the applicant contests the decision of                   the contested decision the reasons for authorising the aid
the Commission by which it found that certain financial                         in several cases.
measures adopted in relation to Ramondı́n S.A. constitute
State aid incompatible with the common market.
                                                                           (1) See cases T-110/98 (OJ C 299 of 26/9/98, p. 38) ; T-111/98 (OJ
                                                                               C 299 of 26/9/98, p. 39) ; T-12/99 (OJ C 86 of 27/3/99, p. 25) ;
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                       T-63/99 (OJ C 160 of 5/6/99, p. 26).
advanced in Case T-127/95 Territorio Histórico de Alava,
Arabako Foru Aldundia — Diputación Foral de Alava v
Commission.
                                                                           Action brought on 23 July 1999 by British Steel plc
                                                                             against the Commission of the European Communities
Action brought on 20 July 1999 by RJB Mining plc against
       the Commission of the European Communities                                                   (Case T-171/99)
                            (Case T-170/99)                                                         (1999/C 281/47)
                            (1999/C 281/46)                                                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                     (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 23 July 1999 by British Steel plc,
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  represented by Philip G.H. Collins and Matthew Levitt, with an
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 address for service in Luxembourg at the chambers of Marc
European Communities on 20 July 1999 by RJB Mining plc,                    Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe.


title: Case T-159/12: Action brought on 4 April 2012 — Pri v OHIM — Belgravia Investment Group (PRONOKAL)

text:
               30.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/21

         Action brought on 4 April 2012 — Pri v OHIM — Belgravia Investment Group (PRONOKAL)
   (Case T-159/12)
   2012/C 194/36
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Pri SA (Clémency, Luxembourg) (represented by: C. Marí Aguilar and F.J. Márquez Martín, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Belgravia Investment Group Ltd (Tortola, Islas Vírgenes Británicas)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 December 2011 in Case R 311/2011-2 which dismissed the action brought by Pri SA and granted, in part, the registration of Community trade mark No 57644099 ‘PRONOKAL’ in Classes 5, 29, 30 and 32, of which BELGRAVIA is the proprietor, and reject in its entirety the registration of (BELGRAVIA’s) Community trade mark No 5744099 ‘PRONOKAL’ in Classes 5, 29, 30 and 32 for infringement of the rights of Pri SA;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs, in accordance with Article 87(2) and (3) of the Rules of Procedure.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Belgravia Investment Group Ltd

      Community trade mark concerned: word mark ‘PRONOKAL’ for goods in Classes 5, 29, 30 and 32 — Trade mark application No 5744099

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish word mark and trade name ‘PRONOKAL’ for goods in Class 30

      Decision of the Opposition Division: rejection in part of the opposition and registration in part of the mark applied for

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: infringement of Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case C-561/10 P: Order of the Court of 20 September 2011 — Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission (Appeal — Public service contracts — Invitation to tender — Computing services for the maintenance of the SEI-BUD/AMD/CR systems — Rejection of the tender — Inadequate statement of reasons — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence)

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/23

      Order of the Court of 20 September 2011 — Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission
      (Case C-561/10 P) (1)

      (Appeal - Public service contracts - Invitation to tender - Computing services for the maintenance of the SEI-BUD/AMD/CR systems - Rejection of the tender - Inadequate statement of reasons - Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence)
      (2012/C 25/41)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

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

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude and N. Bambara, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 September 2010 in Case T-387/08 Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission dismissing an application (i) for annulment of the decision of the Publications Office of the European Union of 20 June 2008 rejecting the tender submitted by the appellant in Call for Tender for computing services — maintenance of the SEI-BUD/AMD/CR systems and related services (AO 10185) (OJ 2008/S 43-058884) and of the decision to award the contract to another tenderer, and (ii) for damages.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The appeal is dismissed.

                  2.

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

         (1)  OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.


title: Case T-124/15: Judgment of the General Court of 28 October 2016 — Unicorn v EUIPO — Mercilink Equipment Leasing (UNICORN) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark UNICORN — Earlier national word and figurative marks UNICORN and earlier national figurative mark representing a unicorn’s head — Relative ground for refusal — Reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               12.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 October 2016 — Unicorn v EUIPO — Mercilink Equipment Leasing (UNICORN)
   (Case T-124/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark UNICORN - Earlier national word and figurative marks UNICORN and earlier national figurative mark representing a unicorn’s head - Relative ground for refusal - Reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 462/18)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Unicorn a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: L. Lorenc, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Rajh, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Mercilink Equipment Leasing Ltd (Limassol, Cyprus)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 January 2015 (Case R 149/2014-5), concerning opposition proceedings between Unicorn and Mercilink Equipment Leasing.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Unicorn a.s. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.


               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/62

         Removal from the Register of Case T-57/97 (1)

   (2005/C 217/127)

      (Language of the case: Dutch)

   By order of 16 June 2005, the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-57/97, R. Dusselaar v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 142 of 10.5.1997.


title: Case T-483/04: Action brought on 8 December 2004 by Armour Pharmaceutical Company against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               19.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/21

         Action brought on 8 December 2004 by Armour Pharmaceutical Company against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case T-483/04)
   (2005/C 69/39)
   Language in which the application was submitted: French
   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 December 2004 by Armour Pharmaceutical Company, established in Bridgewater (United States), represented by Richard Gilbey, lawyer.
   Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was also a party to the proceedings before the Fourth Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 September 2004 (Case R 295/2003-4) and confirm the decision of the Opposition Division of 28 February 2003 by upholding the opposition in its entirety;

               2.

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               Applicant for the Community trade mark:

               Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited

               Community trade mark concerned:

               The word mark ‘GALZIN’ for goods in Class 5 (pharmaceutical preparations for the treatment of Wilson's disease – Application No 1 606 102)

               Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               The applicant

               Mark or sign cited in opposition:

               The national word mark ‘CALSYN’ for products in Class 5 (pharmaceutical and medical preparations, more specifically calcium-based preparations – French trade mark No 1 226 303)

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Opposition upheld

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division

               Pleas in law relied on:

               Misinterpretation of Article 43(2) of Council Regulation No 40/94 given that all the products claimed had not been taken into account and there was no overall comparison of the two trade marks. The goods covered by the two marks in conflict are similar.


title: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 February 2005 in Case C-203/03: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Articles 249 EC and 307 EC — Articles 2 and 3 of Directive 76/207/EEC — Equal treatment for men and women — Prohibition of the employment of women in underground work in mining or in a high-pressure atmosphere or in diving work)

text:
               2.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/4

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Grand Chamber)
   of 1 February 2005
   in Case C-203/03: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Articles 249 EC and 307 EC - Articles 2 and 3 of Directive 76/207/EEC - Equal treatment for men and women - Prohibition of the employment of women in underground work in mining or in a high-pressure atmosphere or in diving work)
   (2005/C 82/07)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-203/03, action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 12 May 2003, Commission of the European Communities (Agent: N. Yerrell and H. Kreppel) v Republic of Austria (Agent: H. Dossi and E. Riedl) – action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 12 May 2003 – the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President of the Chamber, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans and A. Rosas, Presidents of Chambers, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric (Rapporteur), J. Malenovský, J. Klučka, U. Lõhmus and E. Levits, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 1 February 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by maintaining in Articles 8 and 31 of the Druckluft- und Taucherarbeiten-Verordnung (Regulation on work in a high-pressure atmosphere and diving work) of 25 July 1973 a general prohibition of the employment of women in work in a high-pressure atmosphere and in diving work, providing a limited number of exceptions in the former case, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 158 of 05.07.2003.