title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 24 July 1997 in Case T-573/93 (129): Manuel Francisco Caballero Montoya v. Commission of the European Communities (Judgments - Interpretation)

text:
18 . 10 . 97             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 318/15
(Agents: Dimitrios Gouloussis and Blanca Vila Costa ) —                      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
application pursuant to Article 178 of the EC Treaty for                                          of 23 July 1997
compensation for the damage alleged to have been
suffered by the applicant as a result of the delay in                  in Case T-85/96: Francis Alan Clarke v. European Centre
collection by the carrier designated by the Commission of                for the Development of Vocational Training ( Cedefop ) (')
the olive oil made available by the applicant under a                                 (Case not proceeding to judgment)
tendering procedure for the free supply thereof to the
people of Georgia and Armenia — the Court of First                                                  ( 97IC 318/31 )
Instance ( Third Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf,
President, C. P. Briet and A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung,                                (Language of the case: German)
Registrar, made an order on 18 July 1997, the operative
part of which is as follows:
                                                                       In Case T-85/96: Francis Alan Clarke, an official of the
                                                                       European Centre for the Development of Vocational
 1 . The application is dismissed as clearly inadmissible.             Training ( Cedefop ), resident at Eischen ( Luxembourg),
                                                                       represented by Frank Montag, of the Cologne and Brussels
2 . The applicant shall hear the costs.                                Bars, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                       Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, against the
                                                                       European Centre for the Development of Vocational
(') OJ C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
                                                                       Training ( Cedefop ) ( Agent: Bertrand Wagenbaur) —
                                                                       application for the annulment of 1 . the decision of 5 April
                                                                        1996, as amended by the decision of 22 April 1996 and
                                                                       2 . the decision of 21 May 1996, whereby the defendant
                                                                       rejected an application for the extension of the applicant's
                                                                       secondment to the Statistical Office of the European
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Communities in Luxembourg and ordered his posting to
                                                                       Thessaloniki — the Court of First Instance             ( Fifth
                           of 23 July 1997
                                                                       Chamber), composed of R. Garcia-Valdecasas, President,
       in Case T-24/96: U v. European Centre for the                   J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made
      Development of Vocational Training ( Cedefop ) (')               an order on 23 July 1997, the operative part of which is
                                                                       as follows :
              (Case not proceeding to judgment)
                            ( 97/C 318/30 )
                                                                       1 . There is no need for the action to proceed to
                                                                            judgment.
                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                       2. The applicant is ordered to bear his own costs and
In Case T-24/96 : U, an official of the European Centre for                 those incurred by the defendant in the interlocutory
the Development of Vocational Training ( Cedefop ),                         proceedings and these proceedings.
residing in Berlin, represented by Frank Montag,
Rechtsanwalt, Cologne and Brussels, with an address for                (') OJ C 233 , 10 . 8 . 1996 .
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May,
31 Grand-Rue, v. European Centre for the Development
of Vocational Training ( Cedefop) ( Agent: Bertrand
Wagenbaur) — application for annulment of Cedefop's
decision of 8 February 1996 rejecting a request for an
extension of the applicant's secondment to the office of
the Commission of the European Communities in Berlin                        ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
and ordering his posting to Thessaloniki — the Court of                                           of 24 July 1997
First Instance ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: R. Garcfa
Valdecasas, President; J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges;                 in Case T-573/93 ( 129): Manuel Francisco Caballero
H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 23 July 1997, the                 Montoya v. Commission of the European Communities (')
operative part of which is as follows :                                                 (Judgments — Interpretation)
                                                                                ( 97IC 318/32 )
I. There is no need to give a decision on the application.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
2 . The applicant is ordered to bear his own costs and to
     pay the costs incurred by the defendant in the
     proceedings for the interim relief and in the present             In Case T-573/93 ( 129 ): Manuel Francisco Caballero
     proceedings.                                                      Montoya, an official of the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities, represented by Juan Ramon Iturriagagoitia
                                                                       Bassas, of the Madrid Bar, against Commission of the
H OJ C 133 , 4 . 5 . 1996 .
                                                                       European Communities ( Agents: Ana Maria Alves Vieira
                                                                       and Maria Isabel Jimenez Rojas ) — application for
                                                                       interpretation of the judgment of the Court of First
 ---pagebreak--- C 318/ 16               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  18 . 10 . 97
Instance of 19 June 1996 in Case T-573/93 Caballero                              — the sum of Bfrs 34 654 629 subject to increase
Montoya v. Commission [ 1996] ECR-SC 11-909 — the                                   or adjustment in the course of the proceedings,
Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber ), composed
of C. W. Bellamy, President, A. Kalogeropoulos and                               — the sum of Bfrs 2 500 000 by way of
A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on                            compensation for the loss of preferential rates
24 July 1997, the operative part of which is as follows:                            of interest on building loans,
1 . The application for interpretation is dismissed as                           — Bfrs 1 000 000 by way of compensation for the
     inadmissible.                                                                  injury to his professional reputation,
2 . Each of the parties shall bear its own costs.                       — order the EIB to pay the sum of Bfrs 300 000 to the
                                                                            applicant in his capacity as legal guardian of the
(') OJ C 27, 28 . 1 . 1994 .                                                person and property of his child who is a minor,
                                                                        — order the EIB to bear all costs .
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Action brought on 29 April 1997 by Michel Hautem
            against the European Investment Bank
                          ( Case T-140/97)
                                                                        The EIB alleges in the contested decision that the
                             ( 97/C 318/33 )                            applicant, who has been employed as a messenger since
                                                                        16 December 1994, founded a company together with one
                                                                        of his colleagues from the EIB ( Mr Yasse (')); that,
                 (Language of the case: French)                         without informing the EIB, he engaged in commercial
                                                                        activities outside the EIB on behalf of that company and
                                                                        used EIB property; and that he failed to declare his wife's
An action against the European Investment Bank was                      professional involvement with the company. The applicant
 brought before the Court of First Instance of the European             was therefore dismissed in accordance with Article 39,
 Communities on 29 April 1997 by Michel Hautem,                         fourth paragraph, of the EIB Staff Regulations .
residing in Schouweiler ( Luxembourg ), represented by
 Pascale Delvaux de Fenffe and Pierre-Paul Van Gehuchten,
 of the Brussels Bar.
                                                                        The applicant alleges, first, infringement of Article 40 of
                                                                        the EIB Staff Regulations, of general principles common to
                                                                        the laws of the Member States and, in particular, of the
 The applicant claims that the Court should:                            right to a fair hearing.
— annul the decision taken on 31 January 1997 by the
     European Investment Bank ( EIB ),                                  The applicant's second plea is that the EIB committed an
                                                                        error of fact and of assessment inasmuch as the contested
                                                                        decision and the deliberations preceding it assume the
 — as a consequence, order the applicant to be reinstated               truth of the facts contested or place a manifestly erroneous
     in his duties,                                                     construction on the facts, inconsistent with their
                                                                        substance .
 — order the EIB to pay the applicant:
                                                                        The third plea alleges breach of the formal requirements,
     — upon his reinstatement, the sum of Bfrs 2 671 632                procedures and powers laid down by Article 40 of the
         — a provisional amount subject to increase in the              Staff Regulations in respect of the Joint Committee .
         course of the proceedings — representing salary
         arrears, together with Bfrs 1 000 000 by way of
         compensation for material and non-material                     Fourthly, the applicant alleges breach of the principle of
         damage;                                                        proportionality and/or of the protection of legitimate
                                                                        expectations .
     — should his reinstatement prove impossible:
         — the sum of Bfrs 1 393 616 by way of ordinary                 Lastly, the applicant alleges breach of the principle of
             compensatory settlement for lawful dismissal,              proportionality and of the general duty of impartiality,


title: Case T-44/14: Judgment of the General Court of 19 April 2016 — Costantini and Others v Commission (Law governing the institutions — European citizens’ initiative — Social policy — Service of general economic interest — Article 352 TFEU — Refusal of registration — Manifest lack of powers of the Commission — Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 — Principle of good administration — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               6.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 19 April 2016 — Costantini and Others v Commission
   (Case T-44/14) (1)

   ((Law governing the institutions - European citizens’ initiative - Social policy - Service of general economic interest - Article 352 TFEU - Refusal of registration - Manifest lack of powers of the Commission - Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 - Principle of good administration - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2016/C 200/27)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Bruno Costantini (Jesi, Italy), Robert Racke (Lamadelaine, Luxembourg), Pietro Pravata (Beyne-Heusay, Belgium), Zbigniew Gałązka (Łódź, Poland), Justo Santos Domínguez (Leganés, Spain), Maria Isabel Lemos (Mealhada, Portugal), André Clavelou (Vincennes, France), Citizens’ Committee ‘Right to Lifelong Care: Leading a life of dignity and independence is a fundamental right!’ (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: O. Brouwer and J. Wolfhagen, lawyers, and A. Woods, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Krämer, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 7612 final of 5 November 2013 rejecting the request for registration of the proposed European citizens’ initiative entitled ‘Right to Lifelong Care: Leading a life of dignity and independence is a fundamental right!’.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Bruno Costantini and the other applicants, whose names are set out in the annex, to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 93, 29.3.2014.


title: Action brought on 24 February 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic (Case C-45/95)

text:
No C 119/4          IEN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     13 . 5 . 95
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties             Reference for a preliminary ruling from Hogsta Domstolen
Tribunal, London, by decision of that court of 1 February            by order of that court of 21 February 1995 in the case of
1995 , in the case of Conoco Ltd against Commissioners of                 1 . Data Delecta Aktiebolag, 2. Ronny Forsberg v.
                     Customs and Excise                                                   MSL Dynamics Ltd
                         (Case C-40/95 )                                                     (Case C-43/95 )
                           95/C 119/07                                                         95/C 119/08 )
                                                                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the               European Communities by an order of Hogsta Domstolen
European Communities by a decision of the VAT and Duties             ( Supreme Court) of 21 February 1995, which was received
Tribunal, London, of 1 February 1995 , which was received            at the Court Registry on 24 February 1995 , for a
at the Court Registry on 20 February 1995, for a                     preliminary ruling in the case of 1 . Data Delecta Aktiebolag,
preliminary ruling in the case of Conoco Ltd against                 2 . Ronny Forsberg v. MSL Dynamics Ltd on the following
Commissioners of Customs and Excise, on the following                question:
questions:
                                                                     Under Paragraph 1 of Law 1980:307 on the obligation for
What, on the proper construction of Article 11A 1 ( a ) and          foreign plaintiffs to logde security for costs of judicial
Article 11C 1 of the Sixth Council Directive ( 77/388/EEC)           proceedings, a foreign legal person who wishes to bring
of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the               proceedings before a Swedish court against Swedish
Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common                    nationals or Swedish legal persons must, at the defendant's
system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (*), is       application, lodge security for the costs of the judicial
the taxable amount of a supplier in the situation of Conoco          proceedings which the foreign legal person may be obliged
Ltd ( as found in paragraph 5 of the Preliminary Decision),          to pay by virtue of a final decision in the case . Under
where :                                                              Paragraph 5 of that Law foreign legal persons are exempt
                                                                     from that obligation to the extent that that has been agreed
                                                                     in international agreements binding on Sweden. In the
( a ) the supplier procures the issue of a 'money-off' coupon        Government's notice 1991:112 on certain exemptions from
      which is redeemable at the stated amount (as printed on        the requirement for foreign plaintiffs to lodge security for
      the coupon) by the supplier in favour of a dealer who          costs of judicial proceedings et cetera no reference is made to
      has agreed to participate in a sales promotion                 any such agreement with regard to United Kingdom legal
      campaign;                                                      persons .
                                                                     In an action before the District Court for payment in respect
( b) the coupon, which is distributed to a potential customer        of supply of goods, the Swedish defendants have asked that
      in the course of the sales promotion campaign, must, as        the plaintiff, a United Kingdom company, should lodge
      a matter of contract between the supplier and the              sécurity for costs of judicial proceedings in accordance with
      dealer, be accepted by the dealer from a customer who          the provisions of the abovementioned Law.
      tenders it when purchasing more than a minimum
      specified amount of motor fuel from the dealer,                Is it contrary to the EC Treaty — primarily Article 6
      provided it is a valid coupon;                                 (formerly Article 7) — to require a plaintiff who is a United
                                                                     Kingdom legal person to lodge such a security when no such
(c) the customer on tendering the coupon is entitled as              security can be demanded from Swedish legal persons ?
      against the dealer to a reduction of a stated amount
      below the dealer's normal retail selling price of motor
      fuel;
                                                                     Action brought on 24 February 1995 by the Commission of
(d ) the supplier has supplied the motor fuel to the dealer at         the European Communities against the Italian Republic
      a price determined by an existing supply agreement;
      and                                                                                (Case C-45/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 119/09
(e) the dealer having accepted the coupon on the sale of the         An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
      motor fuel to the customer, presents it to the supplier        the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
      and is paid the stated amount.                                 24 February 1995 by the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities, represented by Enrico Traversa, of its Legal
Is the supplier's taxable amount the price determined by the         Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
supply agreement or that price less the stated amount?               Luxembourg at the office of Georgios Kremlis, Wagner
                                                                     Centre, Kirchberg.
(!) OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6. 1977, p . 1 .                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     1 , declare that, by enacting and maintaining in force a
                                                                          provision concerning value added tax which does not
 ---pagebreak--- 13 . 5 . 95             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 119/5
     exempt transfers of goods used wholly for an activity                 products listed in the Annex to Regulation (EEC)
     which is exempted, or goods which are in any event                    No 3835/90 (2)' also apply to imports from Spain of
     not deductible, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil             tuna in olive oil ?
     its obligations under Article 13B (c ) of Council
     Directive 77/388/EEC ( J ) of 17 May 1977 ( Sixth VAT           ( b ) May the competent customs authorities, pursuant to
     Directive).                                                           Article 5(1 ) and (2 ) of Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79
                                                                           of 24 July 1979, as supplemented by Regulation (EEC)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                        No 1715/90 ( 3 ) of 20 June 1990, and Article 2 of
                                                                           implementing Regulation ( EEC ) No 2164/91 (4 ) of
As regards 'supplies of goods used wholly for an activity                  23 July 1991 , initiate action for the recovery of customs
exempted under this Article . . . when these goods have not                duties which were not collected at the time of
given rise to the right to deduction', Article 10 of                       importation because they were regarded as having been
Presidential Decree No 633 omits to list among                             totally suspended as a result of an erroneous
approximately 30 examples which it gives of 'transactions                  interpretation of the Cpmmunity legislation in force,
exempt from duty' the situation envisaged at the beginning                 but which subsequently proved to be due on the basis of
of Article 13B (c) of the Directive .                                      a different interpretation of the same Community
                                                                           legislation provided by the Commission of the EEC
Âs regards 'supplies . . . of goods on the acquisition or                  after consulting its Legal Service, where the person
production of which, by virtue of Article 17(6 ), value added              liable observed all the provisions laid down by the rules
                                                                           in force as far as his customs declaration was concerned
tax did not become deductible', the corresponding provision
of Presidential Decree No 633/72 (third paragraph of                       and it does not appear that that person was aware that
Article 2 ) provides that transactions involving the goods                 the interpretation initially given to the Community
referred to in Article 19 of that Decree, such as motor                    legislation by the Italian authorities was erroneous ?
vehicles and pleasure craft, 'are not considered to be
transfers of goods'. That specification precludes the                (!)  OJ  No L  324,  26 . 11 . 1991 , p. 11 .
application of VAT to transactions of that kind, and thus            (2 ) OJ  No L  370,  31 . 12. 1990, p. 126 .
likewise fails to implement Article 13B (cj of the Sixth VAT         (3 ) OJ  No L  160 , 26 . 6 . 1990, p . 1 .
Directive correctly.                                                 (4 ) OJ  No L  201 , 24 . 7. 1991 , p . 16 .
(!) OJ No L 145, 13 . 6 . 1977, p. 1 .
                                                                     Appeal brought on 28 February 1995 by Unifruit Hellas
                                                                     EPE against the judgment delivered on 15 December 1994
References for preliminary rulings from the Tribunale di             by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
Genova, Sezione Prima Civile, by orders of that court of             European Communities in Case T-489/93 between Unifruit
26 January 1995 and 16 February 1995 in the cases of                 Hellas EPE and the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
1 . Olasagasti & Co. Sri, 2. Comarcon SNC, 3 . Ghezzi
Alimentari Sri, 4. Fredo Sri, and 5 . Cateringros v.                                           ( Case C-51/95 P
          Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato                                                ( 95/C 119/11 )
      (Cases C-47/95 , C-48/95 , C-49/95 , C-50/95 and
                             C-60/95 )                               An appeal against the judgment delivered on 15 December
                           (95/C 119/10 )                             1 994 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                     the European Communities in Case T-489/93 between
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the               Unifruit Hellas EPE and the Commission of the European
European Communities by orders of the Tribunale di                   Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
Genova, Sezione Prima Civile (District Court, Genoa, First           European Communities on 28 February 1995 by Unifruit
Civil Section) of 26 January 1995 and 16 February 1995 ,             Hellas EPE, established in Athens, represented by Elias
which were received at the Court Registry on 23 February             Souflero, of the Athens Bar, with an address for service in
1995 and 8 March 1 995, for preliminary rulings in the cases         Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand
                                                                     Rue .
of 1 . Olasagasti & Co. Sri, 2. Comarcon SNC, 3 . Ghezzi
Alimentari Sri, 4. Fredo Sri, and 5 . Cateringros v.
Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato on the following           The appellant claims that the Court should:
questions:
                                                                      1 . déclaré the appeal admissible;
(a ) Does the suspension of the residual customs duties
       applicable to imports from Spain into the Community
       of Ten in accordance with Article 75 ( 1 ) of the Act of      2, set aside the judgment appealed against to the extent to
       Accession of that country which was provided for by                 which it rejected the claim for damages;
       Article 1 ( 1 ) of Regulation (EEC ) No 3416/91 O of
       25 November 1991 as regards 'the agricultural                  3 , award costs to the appellant.


title: Action brought on 22 April 1997 by Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc. against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-127/97)

text:
No C 199/34                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   28 . 6 . 97
Action brought on 22 April 1997 by Coca-Cola                              Action brought on 22 April 1997 by Nuova Sidercamuna
Enterprises Inc. against the Commission of the European                   SpA ( in liquidation) against the Commission of the
                               Communities                                                     European Communities
                            ( Case T-127/97)                                                      ( Case T-130/97)
                              ( 97/C 199/ 81 )                                                      ( 97/C 199/ 82 )
                  (Language of the case: English)                                          (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Commission of the European                          An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                         Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 22 April 1997                     Instance of the European Communities on 22 April 1997
by Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc ., represented by Michael                    by Nuova Sidercamuna SpA ( in liquidation ), represented
Reynolds, Allen & Overy, with an address for service in                   by Enrico Adriano Raffaelli , of the Milan Bar, Ivo Van
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Zeyen Beghin Feider, 4                      Bael, of the Brussels Bar, and Fabrizio Di Gianni, of the
Rue de l'Avenir.
                                                                          Rome Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                          the Chambers of Freddy Brausch of Loesch & Wolter, 11
                                                                          Rue Goethe .
The applicant claims that the Court should :
— declare that the Commission Decision of 22 January                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
     1997 is void insofar as it finds that:
                                                                          — annul Commission Decision No C(96 ) 4288 def. of
     ( a ) TCCC controls CCE within the meaning of                              18 December 1996 (') concerning aid for closures
            Article 3 ( 3 ) of the EC Merger Regulation;                        envisaged by Italy as part of the restructuring of its
                                                                                private steel industry,
     ( b ) the supply of cola-flavoured carbonated soft drinks
            in Great Britain comprises a distinct market; and
                                                                          — order the Commission, pursuant to the provision made
                                                                                for unsuccessful pleadings, to pay the costs of the
     ( c ) CCSB is in a dominant position in the market for                     present proceedings,
            colas in Great Britain,
                                                                          — adopt all other measures for the protection of the
— alternatively, declare that the following decisions :                         applicant's interests required by the principles of law
                                                                                or equity.
      (a ) TCCC controls CCE within the meaning of
            Article 3 ( 3 ) of the EC Merger Regulation;
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      ( b ) the supply of cola-flavoured carbonated soft drinks
            in Great Britain comprises a distinct market; and              The decision contested in these proceedings is the same as
                                                                           that contested in      Case T-122/97 Ferriera     Lamifer v.
      (c ) CCSB is in a dominant position in the market for                Commission ( 2).
            colas in Great Britain;
                                                                           The applicant's first plea is that the contested decision is
      contained in the Commission Decision of 22 January                   the result of a misassessment of the relevant legislation
       1997 are void,                                                      and contradictory reasoning on the part of the
                                                                           Commission . Since the Community legislation on the
                                                                           restructuring of the steel industry, including the Aid
 — order the Commission to pay CCE's costs .
                                                                           Code ( 3 ), aims to reduce market overcapacity, the
                                                                           Commission has infringed Article 4 of the Aid Code by
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       declaring that the measures in favour of the applicant
                                                                           were incompatible with the common market even though
                                                                           they would have brought about the permanent cessation
 The Grounds and main arguments are similar to those                        of the production concerned, and its approach is obviously
 submitted in Case T-125/97 Coca-Cola Company/                             contradictory. The applicant also argues that the
 Commission (').                                                            Commission acted contrary to the principle of
                                                                            effectiveness in assessing the compatibility of the Italian
                                                                            measures on the basis of a formal criterion — such as the
 (') See p . 32 of this Official Journal .
                                                                            regularity of production — rather than in the light of the
                                                                            primary objective of Community steel policy, that is, the
                                                                            shedding of production capacity.


title: Case C-532/09 P: Order of the Court of 4 October 2010 — Vladimir Ivanov v European Commission (Appeal — Action for non-contractual liability — Loss of an opportunity for recruitment — Abuse of process — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               12.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/8

         Order of the Court of 4 October 2010 — Vladimir Ivanov v European Commission
   (Case C-532/09 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Action for non-contractual liability - Loss of an opportunity for recruitment - Abuse of process - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
   2011/C 80/14
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Vladimir Ivanov (represented by: F. Rollinger, avocat)

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

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 30 September 2009 in Case T-166/08 Ivanov v Commission dismissing the action brought by the appellant in order to obtain compensation for the damage he allegedly suffered following a Commission decision refusing to recruit him as a local administrative and technical assistance employee at the Commission delegation in Sofia — Autonomous nature of the action for non-contractual liability as opposed to the action for annulment — Abuse of process — Possibility of the Court of First Instance raising that rule of its own motion

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Mr Ivanov to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 51, 27.02.2010.


title: Case C-505/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 19 November 2007 — Compañía Española de Comercialización de Aceite, SA v Asociación Española de la Industria y Comercio Exportador de Aceite de Oliva (ASOLIVA), Asociación Nacional de Industriales Envasadores y Refinadores de Aceites Comestibles (ANIERAC) and Administración del Estado

text:
               9.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 19 November 2007 — Compañía Española de Comercialización de Aceite, SA v Asociación Española de la Industria y Comercio Exportador de Aceite de Oliva (ASOLIVA), Asociación Nacional de Industriales Envasadores y Refinadores de Aceites Comestibles (ANIERAC) and Administración del Estado
   (Case C-505/07)
   (2008/C 37/06)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Referring court
   Tribunal Supremo
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Compañía Española de Comercialización de Aceite, SA

      Defendants: Asociación Española de la Industria y Comercio Exportador de Aceite de Oliva (ASOLIVA), Asociación Nacional de Industriales Envasadores y Refinadores de Aceites Comestibles (ANIERAC) and Administración del Estado
   Questions referred

               1.

               Does the reference to ‘bodies’ authorised to conclude contracts for the storage of olive oil in Article 12a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 136/66 (1) of 22 September 1966 on the establishment of a common organisation of the market in oils and fats, in the version introduced by Regulation 1638/98 (2), cover a company whose shareholders predominantly comprise producers, oil pressers and olive growers' cooperatives, as well as financial institutions? Can a company with these characteristics be considered equivalent to producer groups and associations thereof recognised under Regulation (EC) 952/97 (3)?

               2.

               In the event that the company falls within the description of ‘bodies’ capable of carrying out storage activities, can the ‘approval by the Member State’ which such bodies require by virtue of Article 12a of Regulation 136/66, be obtained as part of an application for a specific exemption (‘authorisation’) made to the national competition authorities?

               3.

               Does Article 12a of Regulation 136/66 constitute an absolute requirement that the Commission authorise the private storage of olive oil in each case or, on the contrary, is it compatible with the existence of a mechanism agreed between producers for the privately financed acquisition and storage of such olive oil, which would be activated exclusively on the same terms and conditions which activate Community-financed private storage, with the aim of supplementing and speeding up such Community-financed storage without going beyond it?

               4.

               Can the reasoning given by the Court of Justice in Case C-137/00 Milk Marque [2003] ECR I-7975 relating to the application by domestic authorities of national competition rules to producers' agreements which are capable, in principle, of being covered by Article 2 of Council Regulation No 26 (4) (applying certain rules of competition to production of and trade in agricultural products) be extended to agreements which, by their nature and by nature of the sector in question, could affect the Community market in olive oil as a whole?

               5.

               In the event that the national competition authorities are competent to apply national laws to the aforementioned agreements which are capable of affecting the common organisation of the market in fats, can those authorities refuse absolutely to allow a company such as the appellant to make use of the storage mechanisms for olive oil even in situations of ‘serious disturbance’ as contemplated by Article 12a of Regulation 136/66?

      (1)  OJ English Special Edition 1965-1966, p. 221.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1638/98 of 20 July 1998 amending Regulation No 136/66/EEC on the establishment of a common organisation of the markets in oils and fats (OJ 1998 L 210, p. 32).

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 952/97 of 20 May 1997 on producer groups and associations thereof (OJ 1997 L 142, p. 30).

      (4)  OJ English Special Edition 1959-1962, p. 129.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 2000 in Case T-35/00 Anthony Goldstein v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
C 316/24                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        4.11.2000
Syndicat Européen des Transformateurs et Distributeurs de                   taken by the Commission in a letter of 21 January 2000
Produits de l’Agriculture Biologique (Setrab), established in               addressed to the applicant’s legal adviser, the Court of First
Paris, and Est Distribution Biogram SARL, established at                    Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, President,
Château-Salins (France), represented by D. Leermakers, of the               R.M. Moura Ramos and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
Brussels and Luxembourg Bars, and C. Hatton, Solicitor, with                has made an order on 11 July 2000, in which it:
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Messrs De Meester and Oostvogels, 5 Place du Théâtre, v                     1.    Dismisses the action as manifestly inadmissible.
Council of the European Union (Agents: F. Anton and J. Mon-
teiro) — application for partial annulment of Council Regu-                 2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs and to reimburse the
lation (EC) No 1804/1999 of 19 July 1999 supplementing                            Commission all the expenses which the latter has incurred in
Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production of                              dealing with the applicant’s requests which gave rise to that
agricultural products and indications referring thereto on                        action and which form its subject-matter.
agricultural products and foodstuffs to include livestock pro-
duction (OJ 1999 L 222, p. 1) — the Court of First Instance
(Third Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, and                   (1) OJ C 135 of 13.05.2000.
J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order
on 11 July 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
1.    The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
2.    There is no need to rule on the applications of the Commission,
      of Danone SA, of Compagnie Gervais Danone, of CLESA SA                      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      and of SKW Biosystems GmbH for leave to intervene.
3.    The applicants are to bear their own costs and to pay the costs                                  of 31 July 2000
      incurred by the Council.
                                                                            in Case T-43/00: Javier Martı́nez Lara and Milva Urbán
4.    The Commission, Danone SA, Compagnie Gervais Danone,                            Penón v Council of the European Union (1)
      CLESA SA and SKW Biosystems GmbH, as applicants for
      leave to intervene, are to bear their own costs.                      (Officials — Time-limit for lodging complaints — Appli-
                                                                                cation manifestly inadmissible)
(1) OJ C 102 of 8.4.2000.
                                                                                (2000/C 316/47)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            In Case T-43/00: Javier Martı́nez Lara and Milva Urbán Penón,
                                                                            officials of the Council of the European Union, residing in
                                                                            Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Greta-Françoise
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  Parmentier and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar, with an
                                                                            address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of the Société
                                                                            de Gestion Fiduciaire SARL, 2-4 Rue Beck, against Council of
                            of 11 July 2000                                 the European Union (Agents: F. Anton and M. Dollfus) —
                                                                            application for the annulment, first, of the decisions of
in Case T-35/00 Anthony Goldstein v Commission of the                       27 November 1998 of the selection board for internal Council
                    European Communities (1)                                competition B/260 not to include the applicants on the list of
                                                                            successful candidates and, secondly, the decision of the
                                                                            Secretary General of the Council of 28 July 1999 not to
     (Action for annulment — Manifest inadmissibility)                      redefine the competition — the Court of First Instance (Third
                                                                            Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President J. Azizi and
                                                                            M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 31 July
                           (2000/C 316/46)                                  2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                            1.    The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                            2.    The parties shall each bear their own costs.
In Case T-35/00 Anthony Goldstein, residing at Harrow,
Middlesex (United Kingdom), represented by R. St John                       (1) OJ 122 C 29.4.2000.
Murphy, Solicitor, 3 King’s Bench Walk, Inner Temple, Lon-
don, v Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
R. Lyal), application for annulment of the decision allegedly


title: Case T-257/07: Action brought on 17 July 2007 — France v Commission

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/50

         Action brought on 17 July 2007 — France v Commission
   (Case T-257/07)
   (2007/C 211/95)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues, R. Loosli and A.-L. During, Agents)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul paragraph (3) of the Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 727/2007 of 26 June 2007 (1) amending Annexes I, III, VII and X to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (2), to the extent that it introduces, into Chapter A of Annex VII, paragraphs 2.3(b)(iii), 2.3(d), and 4;

               —

               Alternatively, if the Court were to rule that this application for partial annulment is inadmissible, annul Regulation No 727/2007in its entirety;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In this action, the applicant applies for the partial annulment, or alternatively the entire annulment, of Commission Regulation (EC) No 727/2007 of 26 June 2007, authorising less restrictive measures of surveillance and eradication in relation to certain spongiform encephalopathies, as compared with those laid down by Regulation (EC) No 999/2001.
   In support of its action, the applicant claims that the contested provisions must be annulled because they infringe the precautionary principle in relation to both the assessment and management of the risk.
   The applicant claims that the Commission has failed to have regard to the precautionary principle at the stage of assessment of the risk by ignoring the scientific uncertainties which, in its opinion, continue to surround both the risk of transmission to human beings of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies other than bovine spongiform encephalopathy, and the reliability of the tests on which the Commission based its decision to adopt the contested Regulation.
   In the opinion of the applicant, the Commission has also failed to have regard to the precautionary principle at the stage of management of the risk in that the contested provisions are not capable of containing the risk and may even increase it. The applicant considers, in addition, that the increase in the risk caused by the contested provisions cannot be justified by the advantages expected from them.

      (1)  OJ L 165, p. 8.

      (2)  OJ L 147, p. 1.


title: Case C-453/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 24 August 2015 — Criminal proceedings against A, B

text:
               3.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 363/24

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 24 August 2015 — Criminal proceedings against A, B
   (Case C-453/15)
   (2015/C 363/30)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

   A, B

      Question referred

   Is Article 56(1)(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax to be interpreted as meaning that an allowance under Article 3(a) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (2) which confers a right to emit one tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent during a specified period is a ‘similar right’ within the meaning of that provision?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347. p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32.


title: Case C-4/08: Order of the President of the Court of 8 September 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — Michael Mario Karl Kerner v Land Baden-Württemberg

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/22

         Order of the President of the Court of 8 September 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — Michael Mario Karl Kerner v Land Baden-Württemberg
   (Case C-4/08) (1)

   (2008/C 313/38)

      Language of the case: German

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

      (1)  OJ C 79, 29.3.2008.


title: Case C-116/14: Order of the President of the Court of 10 December 2014 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

text:
               4.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/32

         Order of the President of the Court of 10 December 2014 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-116/14) (1)

   (2015/C 146/40)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.


title: Case F-102/13: Action brought on 9 October 2013 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/40

         Action brought on 9 October 2013 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-102/13)
   2014/C 24/75
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision to calculate the crediting of pension rights acquired before the entry into service on the basis of the new GIP, and relating to the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights to the European Union pension scheme which applies the new GIP for Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               declare that Article 9 of the general implementing provisions for Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations is unlawful and, therefore, inapplicable;

               —

               annul the decision to credit the pension rights acquired by the applicant before her entry into service, in connection with the transfer of those rights to the pension scheme of the European Union institutions, pursuant to the general implementing provisions for Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 16 July 1998 in Case T-195/97: Kia Motors Nederland BV and Broeckman Motorships BV v. Commission of the European Communities (Commission decision declaring that the repayment of import duties is not justified - Action for annulment - Article 239 of the customs code - Duty to state reasons)

text:
C 299/34             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    26.9.98
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                          President, R. M. Moura Ramos and P. Mengozzi, Judges;
                       of 17 July 1998                             Blanca Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
                                                                   gave a judgment on 14 July 1998, in which it:
in Case T-28/97: AgneÁs Hubert v. Commission of the
                  European Communities (1)                         1. dismisses the action;
(Officials Ð Action for annulment Ð Transfer/reposting             2. the parties shall bear their own costs.
Ð Interests of the service Ð Absence of statement of
            reasons Ð Action for compensation)                     (1) OJ C 166, 31.5.1997.
                        (98/C 299/57)
               (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-28/97: AgneÁs Hubert, an official of the                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Commission of the European Communities, residing in                                       of 16 July 1998
Brusels, represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the LieÁge
                                                                   in Case T-81/97: Region of Tuscany v. Commission of the
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
Chambers of Evelyne Korn, 21, rue de Nassau, v. the
Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                    (Integrated Mediterranean programmes Ð Community
Gianluigi Valsesia, Christine Berardis-Kayser and Denis            financial assistance Ð Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88 Ð
Waelbroeck) Ð application, first, for annulment of the                            Regulation (EEC) No 2085/93)
Commission's decision of 27 March 1996 changing the                                         (98/C 299/59)
applicant's posting and, second, for compensation for the
material and non-material damage allegedly resulting                              (Language of the case: Italian)
therefrom Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth
Chamber), composed of: P. Lindh, President, and K.                 In Case T-81/97: Region of Tuscany, represented by Vito
Lenaerts and J. D. Cooke, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal             Vacchi and Lucia Bora, of the Florence Bar, with an
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on          address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Paolo
17 July 1998, in which it:                                         Benocci, 50, rue de Vianden, against the Commission of
                                                                   the European Communities (Agents: Paolo Ziotti and
1. dismisses the action;                                           Alberto Dal Ferro) Ð application for annulment of several
                                                                   acts of the Commission concerning the Community
2. orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                   assistance allocated to project No 88.20.IT.006.0 (works
                                                                   for the supply of drinking water in Tuscany) Ð the Court
(1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.
                                                                   (Third Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili, President, C. P.
                                                                   BrieÈt and A. Potocki, Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez,
                                                                   Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                   16 July 1998 in which it:
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                   1. annuls the decision contained in the letter of
                       (First Chamber)                                  31 January 1997;
                       of 14 July 1998
                                                                   2. dismisses the      remainder    of  the   application  as
in Case T-42/97: Giorgio Lebedef v. Commission of the                   inadmissible;
                  European Communities (1)
                                                                   3. orders the Commission to pay the costs.
(Officials Ð Refusal to authorise secondment on union
duties to the person designated by a trade union Ð                 (1) OJ C 166, 31.5.1997.
                         Admissibility)
                        (98/C 299/58)
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
In Case T-42/97: Giorgio Lebedef, an official at the                                      of 16 July 1998
Commission of the European Communities, residing in
Senningerberg (Luxembourg), represented by Gilles                  in Case T-195/97: Kia Motors Nederland BV and
BouneÂou, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for                     Broeckman Motorships BV v. Commission of the
service in Luxembourg at his Chambers at 4, rue de                                   European Communities (1)
l'Avenir, against the Commission of the European                   (Commission decision declaring that the repayment of
Communities (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Julian                 import duties is not justified Ð Action for annulment Ð
Currall) Ð application for, first, the annulment of a               Article 239 of the customs code Ð Duty to state reasons)
decision of the Commission of 12 May 1996 refusing to
                                                                                (98/C 299/60)
grant to the applicant the secondment on union duties
requested by his trade union and the re-examination of all                        (Language of the case: Dutch)
secondment on trade union duties granted in the past and,
secondly, a finding that the secondment on trade union             In Case T-195/97: Kia Motors Nederland BV, established
duties procedure was unlawful Ð the Court of First                 in Vianen (The Netherlands), and Broeckman Motorships
Instance (First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf,              BV, established in Rotterdam (The Netherlands),
 ---pagebreak--- 26.9.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 299/35
represented by Annetje-Theckla Ottow, of the Amsterdam                    ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                                        of 8 July 1998
Chambers of Claude Medernach, 8Ð10, rue Mathias
Hardt, against the Commission of the European                        in Joined Cases T-85/94 (92) and T-85/94 (122) (92):
Communities (Agents: Hendrik Van Lier, Marc van der                  EugeÂnio Branco Lda v. Commission of the European
Woude and Rita Wezembeek-Geuke) Ð application for                                           Communities (1)
annulment of the Commission's decision of 8 April 1997
                                                                                (Taxation of costs)
addressed to the Kingdom of the Netherlands and
concerning an application for repayment of import duties                                     (98/C 299/62)
Ð the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed
of: V. Tiili, President, C. P. BrieÈt, and A. Potocki, Judges;
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 16 July 1998 in which it:
                                                                     In Cases T-85/94 (92) and T-85/94 (122) (92) EugeÂnio
1. annuls the Commission's decision of 8 April 1997                  Branco Lda, established in Lisbon, represented by Bolota
    addressed to the Kingdom of the Netherlands and                  Belchior of the Vila Nova de Gaia Bar, with an address for
    concerning an application for repayment of import                service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques
    duties;                                                          Schroeder, 6, rue Heine, against the Commission of the
                                                                     European Communities (Agents: Francisco de Sousa
                                                                     Fialho and Knut Simonsson) Ð application for costs to be
2. orders the Commission to pay the costs.                           taxed following the Court's judgments in Branco v.
                                                                     Commission (T-85/94 [1995] ECR II-45) and Commission
(1) OJ C 252, 16.8.1997.                                             v. Branco (T-85/94 (122) [1995] ECR II-2993) Ð the
                                                                     Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: V.
                                                                     Tiili, President, and C. P. BrieÈt and A. Potocki, Judges; H.
                                                                     Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 8 July 1998 in
                                                                     which it:
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            1. joins Cases T-85/94 (92) and T-85/94 (122) (92) for
                       (Fifth Chamber)                                    the purpose of this order;
                        of 14 July 1998
     in Case T-219/97: Anita Brems v. Council of the                 2. fixes at PTE 3 500 000, plus VAT if appropriate, the
                      European Union (1)                                  total amount of costs recoverable in Cases T-85/94
                                                                          and T-85/94 (122).
(Officials Ð Action for annulment Ð Thermal cure Ð
Article 59 of the Staff Regulations Ð Sick leave Ð Special
                                                                     (1) OJ C 120, 30.4.1994.
                             leave)
                         (98/C 299/61)
                (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-219/97: Anita Brems, an official of the Council                 ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
of the European Union, represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis,                                     of 15 July 1998
Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at Fiduciaire              in Case T-155/95: LPN and GEOTA v. Commission of the
Myson SA  Á RL, 30, rue de Cessange, against the Council of                            European Communities (1)
the European Union (Agents: TheÂreÁse Blanchet and Martin                                   (Inadmissibility)
Bauer) Ð application for the annulment of decisions of
the Council refusing to grant to the applicant all her sick                                  (98/C 299/63)
leave from 24 May to 8 June 1996 Ð the Court of First
Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of J. Azizi, President,
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
R. García-Valdecasas and M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Palacio
GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a
judgment on 14 July 1998, in which it:                               In Case T-155/95, LPN, Liga para ProteccËaÄo da Natureza
                                                                     and GEOTA, Grupo de Estudos do Ordenamento do Ter-
1. dismisses the application;                                        ritório e do Ambiente, both established in Lisbon,
                                                                     represented by Agostinho Pereira de Miranda, Rui Amen-
                                                                     doeira, JoseÂ Cunhal Sendim and Paula Gomes Freire, of
2. orders the parties to bear their own costs.                       the Lisbon Bar, with chambers at Avenida António
                                                                     Augusto Aguiar, 27, 2.o, Dt.o, Lisbon, against the
(1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997.                                            Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                                                                     António Caeiro and Günter Wilms), supported by the
                                                                     Portuguese Republic (Agents: Luís Fernandes and Angelo


title: Case T-343/04: Action brought on 6 August 2004 by Vassilios Tsarnavas against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/54

         Action brought on 6 August 2004 by Vassilios Tsarnavas against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-343/04)
   (2004/C 262/100)
   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 6 August 2004 by Vassilios Tsarnavas, resident in Volos (Greece), represented by N. Lhoëst, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the appeal assessor adopted on 4 August 2003, approving, without amendment, the applicant's final staff report for the period from 1 July 1997 to 30 June 1999;

               —

               annul the Commission's implied decision rejecting the complaint submitted by the applicant under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations on 30 December 2003;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant compensation of EUR 10 000 in respect of non-material damage;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of this action.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicant challenges the appeal assessor's decision, which approves, without amendment, his staff report for the period 1997–1999. He also claims compensation for the non-material damage he has suffered.
   The applicant puts forward the following pleas in support of his application for annulment:

               —

               procedural irregularities;

               —

               manifest error of assessment;

               —

               failure to state reasons;

               —

               misuse of powers and harassment;

         As regards his claim for compensation, the applicant submits that the staff report was drawn up four years late, which is quite unacceptable. Furthermore, the applicant was subjected to harassment. For all the damage suffered, the applicant is claiming compensation which he assesses, on the basis of equity, at EUR 10 000.


title: Case C-77/16 P: Appeal brought on 11 February 2016 by Hewlett Packard Development Company LP against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 3 December 2015 in Case T-628/14: Hewlett Packard Development Company v EUIPO

text:
               25.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/17

         Appeal brought on 11 February 2016 by Hewlett Packard Development Company LP against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 3 December 2015 in Case T-628/14: Hewlett Packard Development Company v EUIPO
   (Case C-77/16 P)
   (2016/C 270/27)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Hewlett Packard Development Company LP (represented by: T. Raab, Rechtsanwalt, H. Lauf, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
   By order of 26 May 2016 the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Case C-278/11 P: Appeal brought on 6 June 2011 by Densmore Ronald Dover against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 24.03.2011 in Case T-149/09: Densmore Ronald Dover v European Parliament

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/14

         Appeal brought on 6 June 2011 by Densmore Ronald Dover against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 24.03.2011 in Case T-149/09: Densmore Ronald Dover v European Parliament
   (Case C-278/11 P)
   2011/C 252/28
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Densmore Ronald Dover (represented by: D. Vaughan QC, M. Lester, Barrister, R. Collard, Solicitor)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               issue an order that the contested parts of Judgment of the General Court in Case T-149/09 be overturned;

               —

               annul the whole of the Contested Decision;

               —

               issue an order that the Parliament pays the appellant's costs of this appeal and of the application for annulment in the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   First, the General Court erred in holding that the Parliament complied with its duty to give proper reasons for seeking repayment of the sum of GBP 345 289,00 at paragraphs 24 and 25 of the Contested Decision. The appellant did not know, from paragraphs 24 to 25 of the Contested Decision or elsewhere, the reasons why he was being ordered to repay those sums, which would permit him to contest the validity of that reasoning before the Courts, or to enable the Courts properly to review those reasons.
   Second, the General Court erred in holding that the Parliament was justified in reclaiming GBP 345 289,00 on the grounds that it had been paid ‘unduly’ under Article 14 of the PEAM rules since:

               (a)

               The Parliament had not explained anywhere in the Contested Decision the reasons why it considered that the numerous documents submitted by the appellant did not prove that the items set out at paragraph 25 were used in accordance with the PEAM rules, nor the respects in which the Parliament considered them to have been wrongly claimed under Article 14 of the PEAM rules or to have been misused or used for improper purposes.

               (b)

               In fact the appellant had explained each item listed at paragraph 25 of the Contested Decision, and had also explained that each item was incurred entirely and precisely in order to cover only the expenses arising from the employment or engagement of MP Holdings as service provider. The appellant had provided a large volume of documentary evidence in order to show that the allowances paid to MP Holdings were actually used for Article 14 purposes. What he provided has vastly exceeded the documents he has been required to keep and provide at all relevant times, in particular documents relating to the appellant’s first mandate. This evidence demonstrated that all expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively in providing parliamentary assistance services to the appellant. The Parliament was seeking to impose hugely onerous requirements on the appellant to provide documentation in order to justify each and every cost going right back to 1999. These were not requirements that existed at the time the expenses were incurred, and indeed have never been preconditions for reimbursement at all under Article 14 of the PEAM Rules.

         Third, the General Court erred in finding that the Parliament’s impermissible reliance on an alleged ‘conflict of interest’ should not have resulted in the annulment of the Contested Decision as a whole. The General Court correctly held that the Parliament could not rely on an alleged conflict of interest to justify seeking repayment of parliamentary assistance allowance. Since the Parliament had relied expressly and principally on that reason to justify the whole of the Contested Decision, that finding should have resulted in the whole of the Contested Decision being annulled.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 June 2003 in Case C-34/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Roma): Sante Pasquini v Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale (INPS) (Social security — Old-age pensions — Recalculation — Recovery of sums paid though not due — Limitation — Law applicable — Detailed procedural rules — Concept)

text:
2.8.2003                  EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                                   C 184/15
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to              of the payment of sums not due, made to a person in receipt of more
      ensure, as regards the waste-disposal sites at Torreblanca, San           than one pension by virtue of his belonging to social security schemes
      Lorenzo de Tormes, Santalla del Bierzo, Sa Roca and Campello              in various Member States, in the form of a pension supplement where
      (Spain), the implementation of Articles 4 and 9 of Council                the maximum authorised income is exceeded. The two year time-limit
      Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended                 referred to in Articles 94, 95, 95a and 95b of Regulation No 1408/
      by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, and, as                 71 cannot be applied by analogy to such a situation.
      regards the first two disposal sites, the implementation of
      Article 13 thereof, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil             National law must, however, observe the Community principle of
      its obligations under that directive;                                     equivalence, in accordance with which the detailed procedural rules
                                                                                governing the treatment of situations arising out of the exercise of a
2.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                             Community freedom must be no less favourable than those governing
                                                                                purely internal situations, and the principle of effectiveness, in
                                                                                accordance with which those procedural rules must not render
(1) OJ C 31 of 2.2.2002.
                                                                                virtually impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights arising
                                                                                out of the situation of Community origin.
                                                                                Those principles apply to all the procedural rules governing the
                                                                                treatment of situations arising out of the exercise of a Community
                                                                                freedom, whether those rules are administrative or judicial, such as
                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       the provisions of national law applicable to the limitation of actions
                                                                                and the recovery of sums paid though not due or those requiring the
                             (Fifth Chamber)                                    competent institutions to take account of the good faith of the
                                                                                persons concerned or to carry out proper checks of their situation
                                                                                with regard to pensions.
                            of 19 June 2003
in Case C-34/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                        (1) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.
the Tribunale ordinario di Roma): Sante Pasquini v Isti-
      tuto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale (INPS) (1)
(Social security — Old-age pensions — Recalculation —
Recovery of sums paid though not due — Limitation —
   Law applicable — Detailed procedural rules — Concept)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                             (2003/C 184/28)
                                                                                of 24 June 2003
                      (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                in Case C-72/02: Commission of the European Commu-
                                                                                nities v Portuguese Republic (1)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
                       the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                                Directives 92/43/EEC and 79/409/EEC — Conservation of
                                                                                natural habitats and wild birds)
In Case C-34/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Tribunale Ordinario di Roma (Italy) for a preliminary
                                                                                (2003/C 184/29)
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Sante Pasquini and Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale
(INPS), on the interpretation of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71                                       (Language of the case: Portuguese)
of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social
security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
persons and to members of their families moving within the                                             the European Court Reports)
Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation
(EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1) and
Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 laying down the procedure for                        In Case C-72/02, Commission of the European Communities
implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, the Court (Fifth                      (Agent: A. Caeiros) v Portuguese Republic (Agents:
Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the                            L. Fernandes and M. Telles Romão and M. João Lois): Applica-
Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and                          tion for a declaration that,
A. Rosas (Rapporteur), Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;
H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on                      by failing to implement in national law:
19 June 2003, in which it has ruled:
                                                                                —      Article 3(3), Article 10, Article 11 and Article 12(4) of
Since Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971                       Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the
on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to                  conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and
self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within                   flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7), and
the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC)
No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, does no more than ensure                          —      Article 7, Article 8 and Article 12 of Council Directive
coordination of provisions of national legislation in the field of social              79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild
security, it is national law which is applicable to a situation arising out            birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1), and


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 7 May 1997 in Case C-223/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg): A. Moksel AG v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Agriculture - Export refunds - Cattle imported from the former German Democratic Republic into the Federal Republic of Germany under the transit procedure - Impact of German reunification on the origin and status of goods in free circulation)

text:
No C 199/8           1 EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     28 . 6 . 97
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         ( Fifth Chamber)                                                       of 15 May 1997
                          of 7 May 1997                                in Case C-250/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                       the Conseil d'Etat du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg ):
in Case C-223/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling                  Futura Participations SA and Singer v. Administration des
from the Finanzgericht Hamburg ): A. Moksel AG v.                                               Contributions (M
               Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (')
                                                                       (Article 52 of the EEC Treaty — Freedom of
(Agriculture — Export refunds — Cattle imported from                   establishment for companies — Taxation of a branch 's
the former German Democratic Republic into the Federal                             income — Apportionment of income)
Republic of Germany under the transit procedure —
Impact of German reunification on the origin and status                                            ( 97/C 199/14 )
                  of goods in free circulation)
                           ( 97/C 199/ 13 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                     In Case C-250/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                       of the EC Treaty from the Conseil d'Etat du Grand-Duche
                                                                       de Luxembourg for a preliminary ruling in the
In Case C-223/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177            proceedings pending before that court between ( 1 ) Futura
of the EC Treaty from the Finanzgericht ( Finance Court),              Participations SA and ( 2 ) Singer and Administration des
Hamburg, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                   Contributions — on the interpretation of Article 52 of the
pending before that court between A. Moksel AG and                     EEC Treaty — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez
Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas — on the interpretation of                  Iglesias, President, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J. L.
Article 8 ( 1 ) of Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 3665/              Murray and L. Sevon, Presidents of the Chamber, P. J. G.
87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed                     Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur ), J.
rules for the application of the system of export refunds              P. Puissochet, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet and R.
on agricultural products ( OJ No L 351 , 14 . 12 . 1987, p. 1 )        Schintgen, Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; H. von
in conjunction with Article 9 ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty —                 Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on
the Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: J. C. Moitinho                15 May 1997, in which it has ruled :
de Almeida , President of the Chamber, L. Sevon
 ( Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, J. -P. Puissochet and M.
Wathelet, Judges; P. Leger, Advocate-General; H. A. Riihl ,
                                                                       Article 52 of the EC Treaty does not preclude a Member
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                State from making the carrying forward of previous losses,
judgment on 7 May 1997, in which it has ruled :                        requested by a taxpayer which has a branch in its territory
                                                                        but is not resident there, subject to the condition that the
                                                                        losses must be economically related to the income earned
Article 8 (1 ) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/                  by the taxpayer in that State, provided that resident
 87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed                     taxpayers do not receive more favourable treatment. On
 rules for the application of the system of export refunds              the other hand, that Article does preclude the carrying
 on agricultural products, in conjunction with Article 9 (2)           forward of losses from being made subject to the
 of the EC Treaty, are to be interpreted as meaning that                condition that, in the year in which the losses were
products obtained from the slaughter of cattle are neither              incurred, the taxpayer must have kept and held in that
 of Community origin nor in free circulation within the                 State accounts relating to his activities carried on there
 territory of the Community and do not therefore qualify                which comply with the relevant national rules. The
 for export refunds if, before 3 October 1990, the date of              Member State concerned may, however, require the non
 German reunification, they were exported from the former               resident taxpayer to demonstrate clearly and precisely that
 GDR, following completion of customs export formalities                the amount of the losses which he claims to have incurred
 in that country and the grant of export refunds, and                   corresponds, under its domestic rules governing the
 imported into the Federal Republic of Germany under the                calculation of income and losses which were applicable in
 transit and warehousing procedure with a view to being                 the financial year concerned, to the amount of the losses
 re-exported to a third country.                                        actually incurred in that State by the taxpayer.
 O OJ No C 229 , 2 . 9 . 1995 .                                         (') OJ No C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 .


title: Case T-596/13: Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2015 — Emsibeth v OHIM — Peek & Cloppenburg (Nael) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark Nael — Earlier Community word mark Mc Neal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               11.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2015 — Emsibeth v OHIM — Peek & Cloppenburg (Nael)
   (Case T-596/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Nael - Earlier Community word mark Mc Neal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 155/30)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Emsibeth SpA (Verona, Italy) (represented by: A. Arpaia, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: L. Rampini, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Dusseldorf, Germany)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 September 2013 (Case R 1663/2012-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Peek & Cloppenburg KG and Emsibeth SpA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Emsibeth SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 39, 8.2.2014.


13.7.2002             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 169/43
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    Removal from the register of Case T-203/00 (1)
—     partially annul Decision R 34/2000-1 of the First Board                                   (2002/C 169/76)
      of Appeal of 21 February 2002 to the extent that the
      applicant was ordered to bear half of the opposition fees                            (Language of the case: Dutch)
      as well as its owns costs in the opposition and appeal
      proceedings;
—     order the Office to pay the costs.                                By order of 25 February 2002 the President of the Third
                                                                        Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                        Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                        T-203/00: Beemsterboer Coldstore Services B.V. v Commission
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         of the European Communities.
The applicant filed an application for registration of the word         (1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.
mark ‘METABALANCE 44’ in respect of goods in Classes 5
and 29 at the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(application no 155747). Frieslands Brands B.V. opposed that
application. The opposition was based on various national and
international marks including, inter alia, ‘BALANCE’, ‘BALANS’
and ‘FRIESISCHE FLAGGE BALANCE’ in respect of, inter alia,                     Removal from the register of Case T-309/00 (1)
goods in Classes 5 and 29.
                                                                                (2002/C 169/77)
As a result of a private settlement with the opponent, the
applicant limited the category of goods by removing some of                                (Language of the case: French)
the goods claimed in Class 29. The opponent later withdrew
its opposition but sought a decision on costs.
                                                                        By order of 17 April 2002 the President of the First Chamber
The Opposition Division decided that the applicant should               of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
bear the costs of the opposition procedure. The Board of                ordered the removal from the register of Case T-309/00: S.A.
Appeal set this decision aside and ordered each of the parties          Cimenteries CBR v Commission of the European Communities.
to pay its own costs in respect of the opposition and appeal
proceedings.                                                            (1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.
The applicant is appealing against the decision of the Board of
Appeal and claims that the more specific Article 81(4) of
Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) , not Article 81(3), is
applicable in the present case. The defendant thus failed to
take into account the fundamental assessment criteria and to                   Removal from the register of Case T-14/02 (1)
observe the principle of proportionality.
                                                                                (2002/C 169/78)
Moreover, in the applicant’s opinion, the defendant also
wrongly applied the assessment criteria in Article 81(3) in                               (Language of the case: English)
conjunction with Article 81(2) of Council Regulation (EC)
No 40/94. In the applicant’s view, that provision requires
that a decision on costs should take into account general               By order of 9 April 2002 the President of the Fifth Chamber
considerations of equity and fairness.                                  of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                        ordered the removal from the register of Case T-14/02:
                                                                        Agrofair Benelux BV and Others v Commission of the
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the         European Communities.
    Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
                                                                        (1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.