title: Case T-143/12: Action brought on 30 March 2012 — Germany v Commission

text:
               9.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/27

         Action brought on 30 March 2012 — Germany v Commission
   (Case T-143/12)
   2012/C 165/48
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze, K. Petersen and U. Soltész, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2012) 184 final of 25 January 2012 on Measure No C 36/2007 (ex NN 25/2007) implemented by Germany for Deutsche Post AG;

               —

               annul Articles 4 to 6 of Commission Decision C(2012) 184 final of 25 January 2012 on Measure No C 36/2007 (ex NN 25/2007) implemented by Germany for Deutsche Post AG;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on 10 pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU in so far as the ‘pension subsidy’ was found to have benefited an undertaking
               The ‘pension subsidy’ is granted directly to the Postbeamtenversorgungskasse (PBVK) (civil servants’ pension fund) and indirectly to retired civil servants, and is thus not granted to any undertaking. Nor has there been any indirect aid for Deutsche Post AG (DPAG).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU in so far as the ‘pension subsidy’ was found to have compensated costs ‘normally’ borne by undertakings
               The ‘pension subsidy’ fully finances excess social costs which would not ‘normally’ be borne by undertakings. Furthermore, the costs compensated by means of the ‘pension subsidy’ constitute a ‘special charge’ for the purposes of Combus. (1)

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU (alternatively of Article 107(3) TFEU) in so far as price-regulated revenues were taken into account
               The ‘comparative advantage’ does not arise from the ‘pension subsidy’ and is entirely independent of it. The ‘comparative advantage’ arises from regulated prices and thus from non-State resources (PreussenElektra
                   (2)). There is no double compensation of costs. No ‘aid’ is thus being declared incompatible with the internal market and reclaimed. The ‘aid’ merely provides an opportunity retroactively to skim off DPAG’s revenues.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU and Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (3) by the unlawful skimming-off of price-regulated revenues in State aid proceedings — misuse of powers/abuse of process
               The Commission can lawfully recover revenues in that form only in the context of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, (4) not in State aid proceedings.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU and Regulation No 659/1999 by the unlawful pursuit of ‘cross-subsidisation’ in State aid proceedings — misuse of powers/abuse of process
               Any ‘cross-subsidisation’ arises from regulated prices, from non-State resources and not, therefore, from aid. Such ‘cross-subsidisation’ cannot be pursued in State aid proceedings either.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU (alternatively of Article 107(3) TFEU) as a result of erroneous calculations in respect of compensation of social costs
               The benchmark adopted by the Commission, which takes into account the employee’s share, is erroneously excessive since, under German social insurance law, an employer bears only the employer’s share. As the employee’s share has already been taken into account by the Commission in relation to the wage base (‘notional gross wage’), the fact that it is taken into account again in the benchmark means that it is counted twice. The increase in the wage base is also misconceived, as civil servants’ salaries were higher than wages paid by private competitors.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU (alternatively of Article 107(3) TFEU) in so far as the ‘pension subsidy’ was found to constitute aid (incompatible with the internal market) in respect of the period from 1995 to 2002 also

               8.

               Eighth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 108(1) TFEU and Article 1(b)(i) of Regulation No 659/1999 in so far as the pension subsidy was found to constitute new aid
               The Commission’s findings are based on an inadequate assessment of the facts.

               9.

               Ninth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 14(1) and Article 7(5) of Regulation No 659/1999 in so far as the order for recovery and the obligation to desist contained in Article 4(1) and Article 4(4) respectively are contrary to the law on State aid
               Recovery under Article 4(1) relates not to ‘aid’ but to DPAG’s revenues from regulated stamp prices. Compliance with the order no longer to benefit cannot be achieved by means of a reduction in ‘aid’. A reduction in the ‘pension subsidy’ would have no effect on the size of the ‘comparative advantage’. To cease to benefit in accordance with Article 4(4) would require the amendment of price regulation, and thus encroaches upon the applicant’s regulatory sovereignty.

               10.

               Tenth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 6 TEU, Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the principle of good administration and Article 10(1) of Regulation No 659/1999, on account of the unreasonable length of the proceedings and inactivity on the part of the Commission

      (1)  Case T-157/01 Danske Busvognmænd v Commission [2004] ECR II-917.

      (2)  Case C-379/98 PreussenElektra [2001] ECR I-2099.

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).

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


title: Case T-368/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  25 October 2005  — De Bustamante Tello v Council of the European Union (Officials — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance — Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Work done for another State — Meaning of  habitually reside  — Principle of equal treatment)

text:
               24.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/19

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 October 2005 — De Bustamante Tello v Council of the European Union
   (Case T-368/03) (1)

   (Officials - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Work done for another State - Meaning of ‘habitually reside’ - Principle of equal treatment)
   (2005/C 330/47)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Rafael De Bustamante Tello (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier, D. Domínguez Pérez and A. Sayagués Torres, lawyers)

      Defendant(s): Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Sims and D. Canga Fano, Agents)
   Application for
   Annulment of the Council's decision of 28 July 2003, refusing to grant the applicant entitlement to the expatriation allowance provided for in Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and the allowances associated therewith.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 7, 10.1.2004


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 September 2004 in Case C-397/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles): Clinique La Ramée ASBL, Winterthur Europe Assurance SA v Jean-Pierre Riehl, Council of the European Union (Officials — Social benefits — Communities' right of subrogation to an official's rights against the third party liable for an actionable event)

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/6

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 9 September 2004
   in Case C-397/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles): Clinique La Ramée ASBL, Winterthur Europe Assurance SA v Jean-Pierre Riehl, Council of the European Union (1)

   (Officials - Social benefits - Communities' right of subrogation to an official's rights against the third party liable for an actionable event)
   (2004/C 262/12)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-397/02: reference to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC by the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) by decision of 6 November 2002, registered on 11 November 2002, in the proceedings between Clinique La Ramée ASBL, Winterthur Europe Assurance SA and Jean-Pierre Riehl, Council of the European Union — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, A. Rosas, S. von Bahr, R. Silva de Lapuerta and K. Lenaerts, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 September 2004, in which it ruled:
   Article 85a of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 of 29 February 1968 laying down the Staff Regulations of officials and the conditions of employment of other servants of the European Communities and instituting special measures temporarily applicable to officials of the Commission, as amended by Council Regulation (ECSC, EEC, Euratom) No 2799/85 of 27 September 1985, is not to be interpreted as conferring on the Communities the right to obtain from a third party liable for the death of an official reimbursement in full of the survivor's pension paid to the surviving spouse pursuant to Articles 79 and 79(a) of those Staff Regulations, where the law applicable to entitlement to compensation for damage provides that the right to a survivor's pension is unconnected with the obligation of the perpetrator of a wrongful act to compensate in full for the damage and the damage suffered by the surviving spouse as a result of the loss of the deceased wife's income is less than the amount of the survivor's pension paid to him.

      (1)  OJ C 7 of 11.1.2003.


title: Case T-40/15: Judgment of the General Court of 17 February 2017 — ASPLA and Armando Álvarez v European Union (Non-contractual liability — Precision of the application — Prescription — Admissibility — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Reasonable time for adjudication — Material damage — Interest on the amount of the unpaid fine — Bank guarantee charges — Causal link)

text:
               10.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 February 2017 — ASPLA and Armando Álvarez v European Union
   (Case T-40/15) (1)

   ((Non-contractual liability - Precision of the application - Prescription - Admissibility - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Reasonable time for adjudication - Material damage - Interest on the amount of the unpaid fine - Bank guarantee charges - Causal link))
   (2017/C 112/45)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Plásticos Españoles, SA (ASPLA) (Torrelavega, Spain) and Armando Álvarez, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented: initially by M. Troncoso Ferrer, C. Ruixó Claramunt and S. Moya Izquierdo, and subsequently by M. Troncoso Ferrer and S. Moya Izquierdo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union (represented: initially by A. Placco, and subsequently by J. Inghelram, Á. Almendros Manzano and P. Giusta, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. van Nuffel, F. Castilla Contreras and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application on the basis of Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of the length of the proceedings, before the General Court, in the context of the cases which gave rise to the judgments of 16 November 2011, ASPLA v Commission (T-76/06, not published, EU:T:2011:672) and Álvarez v Commission (T-78/06, not published, EU:T:2011:673).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Orders the European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union, to pay damages of EUR 44 951,24 to Plásticos Españoles, SA (ASPLA) and damages of EUR 111 042,48 to Armando Álvarez, SA for the material damage suffered by each of those companies as a result of the failure to comply with the requirement to adjudicate within a reasonable period of time in the cases which gave rise to the judgments of 16 November 2011, ASPLA v Commission (T-76/06, not published, EU:T:2011:672) and Álvarez v Commission (T-78/06, not published, EU:T:2011:673). Each of those heads of damages will be reassessed by adding on compensatory interest, to be calculated as from 27 January 2015 and until delivery of the present judgment, at the annual rate of inflation recorded, for the period at issue, by Eurostat (Statistical Office of the European Union) in the Member State in which those companies are established;

               2.

               Orders that each of the heads of damages referred to in paragraph 1 above be increased by default interest, to be calculated as from the date of delivery of the present judgment and until full payment, at the rate set by the ECB for its principal refinancing operations, plus two percentage points;

               3.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               4.

               Orders ASPLA and Armando Álvarez, on the one hand, and the European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union, on the other, to bear their own respective costs;

               5.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.


title: Case T-154/10: Judgment of the General Court of (Sixth Chamber) of 20 September 2012 — France v Commission (State aid — Aid allegedly implemented by France in the form of an implied, unlimited guarantee in favour of La Poste as a result of its status as a publicly-owned establishment — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Action for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Admissibility — Burden of proving the existence of State aid — Advantage)

text:
               10.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/14

         Judgment of the General Court of (Sixth Chamber) of 20 September 2012 — France v Commission
   (Case T-154/10) (1)

   (State aid - Aid allegedly implemented by France in the form of an implied, unlimited guarantee in favour of La Poste as a result of its status as a publicly-owned establishment - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Action for annulment - Interest in bringing proceedings - Admissibility - Burden of proving the existence of State aid - Advantage)
   2012/C 343/21
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: French Republic (represented: initially by E. Belliard, G. de Bergues, B. Beaupère-Manokha, J. Gstalter and S. Menez, and subsequently by E. Belliard, G. de Bergues, J. Gstalter and S. Menez, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and D. Grespan, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2010/605/EU of 26 January 2010 on State aid C 56/07 (formerly E 15/05) granted by France to La Poste (OJ 2010 L 274, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.


title: Case F-103/10: Action brought on 20 October 2010 — Stephan Jaeger v Eurofound

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/64

         Action brought on 20 October 2010 — Stephan Jaeger v Eurofound
   (Case F-103/10)
   ()
   2011/C 30/126
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Stephan Jaeger (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the applicant’s salary adjustment slip for the period from July to December 2009 and the salary slips issued since 1 January 2010 within the framework of the annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants pursuant to Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1296/2009 of 23 December 2009.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul, where necessary, the decisions of Eurofound on the establishment of the applicant’s salary adjustment slips for the period from July to December 2009 and his salary slips issued since 1 January 2010;

               —

               Order Eurofound to pay the applicant the arrears of remuneration, plus default interest;

               —

               Order Eurofound to pay the costs.


title: Case C-166/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (The Netherlands) lodged on 11 May 2009 — Stichting Natuur en Milieu, Stichting Zuid-Hollandse Milieufederatie, Stichting Greenpeace Nederland, Vereniging van Verontruste Burgers van Voorne v Gedeputeerde Staten van Zuid-Holland, Interveners: Electrabel Nederland NV and Burgemeester en Wethouders Rotterdam

text:
               15.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (The Netherlands) lodged on 11 May 2009 — Stichting Natuur en Milieu, Stichting Zuid-Hollandse Milieufederatie, Stichting Greenpeace Nederland, Vereniging van Verontruste Burgers van Voorne v Gedeputeerde Staten van Zuid-Holland, Interveners: Electrabel Nederland NV and Burgemeester en Wethouders Rotterdam
   (Case C-166/09)
   2009/C 193/03
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Stichting Natuur en Milieu, Stichting Zuid-Hollandse Milieufederatie, Stichting Greenpeace Nederland, Vereniging van Verontruste Burgers van Voorne

      Defendant: Gedeputeerde Staten van Zuid-Holland

      Interveners: Electrabel Nederland NV and Burgemeester en Wethouders Rotterdam

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the obligation of interpretation in conformity with directives imply that the obligations under Directive 2008/1/EC (1) concerning integrated pollution prevention and control as transposed in the Wet Milieubeheer, can and should be interpreted as meaning that, in deciding on an application for an environmental permit, the national emission ceiling for SO2 and NOx in Directive 2001/81/EC (2) on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants (hereinafter ‘the NEC Directive’) should be fully taken into account, in particular as regards the obligations under Article 9(4) of Directive 2008/1/EC?

               2.

                           (a)

                           Does the duty of a Member State to refrain from adopting measures liable seriously to compromise the result prescribed by a directive also apply during the period of 27 November 2002 to 31 December 2010 envisaged in Article 4(1) of the NEC Directive?

                           (b)

                           Do positive obligations rest with the Member State concerned during the relevant period of 27 November 2002 to 31 December 2010, either in parallel with the aforementioned duty to refrain, or in place thereof, if the national emission ceilings for SO2 and/or NOx in the NEC Directive are exceeded or if there is a risk that they may be exceeded at the end of that period?

                           (c)

                           In answering Questions 2(a) and 2(b), is it significant that an application for an environmental permit for an installation which contributes to the national emission ceiling for SO2 and/or NOx in the NEC Directive being exceeded or the risk of it being exceeded, indicates that the installation will become operational in the year 2011 at the earliest?

               3.

                           (a)

                           Do the obligations referred to in question 2 imply that, in the absence of guarantees that the installation for which an environmental permit was sought would not contribute to the national emission ceilings for SO2 and/or NOx in the NEC Directive being exceeded or the risk of them being exceeded, the Member State must refuse the application for the environmental permit or attach further conditions or restrictions to it? In answering that question, is the extent to which the installation contributes to the emission ceilings being exceeded or the risk of them being exceeded, of significance?

                           (b)

                           Or does the NEC Directive imply that, where the national emission ceilings for SO2 and/or NOx are exceeded or risk being exceeded, a Member State also has the discretion to bring about the result prescribed by the Directive, not by refusing the permit or by making it subject to further conditions or restrictions, but rather by adopting other measures such as other forms of compensation?

               4.

               Where obligations as referred to in questions 2 and 3 rest with a Member State, can a private individual bring the issue of compliance with those obligations before a national court?

               5.

                           (a)

                           Can an individual rely directly on Article 4 of the NEC Directive?

                           (b)

                           If so, is it possible to do so from 27 November 2002 or only from 31 December 2010? Is it significant, when answering that question, that an application for an environmental permit indicates that the installation will become operational in the year 2011 at the earliest?

               6.

               More particularly, if the granting of an environmental permit and/or other measures contributes to the national emission ceilings for SO2 and/or NOx in the NEC Directive being exceeded or the risk of their being exceeded, is an individual entitled, on the basis of Article 4 of that Directive:

                           (a)

                           to make a general claim that the Member State concerned should adopt a package of measures which, by 2010 at the latest, would limit the annual national emissions of SO2 and NOx to amounts not greater than the national emission ceilings in the NEC Directive, or, if that does not succeed, a package of measures which would limit the emissions to those amounts as soon as possible thereafter?

                           (b)

                           to make concrete claims that the Member State concerned should adopt specific measures in respect of an individual installation — for example, by refusing a permit or attaching further conditions or restrictions to the permit — which, by the year 2010 at the latest, would contribute to the annual national emissions of SO2 and NOx being limited to amounts not greater than the emission ceilings in the NEC Directive, or, if that does not succeed, specific measures which would contribute to the emissions being limited to those amounts as soon as possible thereafter?

                           (c)

                           In answering questions 6(a) and 6(b), is the extent to which the installation contributes to the emission ceilings being exceeded, or the risk of them being exceeded, of significance?

      (1)  Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (Codified version) (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L 24, 29.1.2008, p. 8).

      (2)  Directive 2001/81/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants (OJ L 309, 27.11.2001, p. 22).


title: Case C-444/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 25 September 2014  — Amira Osso v Region Hannover

text:
               8.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 439/22

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 25 September 2014 — Amira Osso v Region Hannover
   (Case C-444/14)
   (2014/C 439/29)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Amira Osso

      Respondent: Region Hannover

      Other party: Vertreter des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the condition requiring residence to be taken up in a geographically limited area (municipality, district, region) of a Member State constitute a restriction of freedom of movement within the meaning of Article 33 of Directive 2011/95/EU (1), where the foreign national can otherwise move and reside freely in the territory of that Member State?

               2.

               Is a place of residence condition imposed on beneficiaries of subsidiary protection status compatible with Article 33 and/or Article 29 of Directive 2011/95/EU, where it is based on the objective of achieving a reasonable distribution of social assistance burdens among the relevant institutions within the territory of the State?

               3.

               Is a place of residence condition imposed on beneficiaries of subsidiary protection status compatible with Article 33 and/or Article 29 of Directive 2011/95/EU, where it is based on grounds of migration or integration policy, for instance to prevent points of social tension as a result of the accumulated settlement of foreign nationals in certain municipalities or districts? Are abstract migration or integration policy grounds sufficient in this regard or must such grounds be specifically ascertained?

      (1)  Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9).


title: Case T-91/01: Action brought on 23 April 2001 by BioID AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
C 227/20               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     11.8.2001
Action brought on 23 April 2001 by Christine Janusch                     Action brought on 23 April 2001 by BioID AG against
              against the European Central Bank                          the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                                                                                (Trade Marks and Designs)
                          (Case T-90/01)
                                                                                (Case T-91/01)
                         (2001/C 227/39)
                                                                                (2001/C 227/40)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
An action against the European Central Bank was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities           An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
on 23 April 2001 by Christine Janusch, residing in Dreieich              Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
(Germany), represented by Boris Karthaus, Rechtsanwalt, with             Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
an address for service in Luxembourg.                                    23 April 2001 by BioID AG, of Berlin (Germany), represented
                                                                         by Axel Nordemann, Lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the defendant addressed to the
      applicant of 5 February 2001;                                      —     annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
                                                                               Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
—     order the defendant to make a number of payments plus                    Marks and Designs) of 20 February 2001 (Appeal
      interest to the applicant;                                               R 538/1999-2) and the decision of the examiner Robert
                                                                               Kliyn Brinkema of the Office for Harmonisation in the
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                    Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 June
                                                                               1999 (concerning application file number 873943);
                                                                         —     order the defendant to admit for publication trade mark
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                873943, logo: BioID.®
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
The applicant was employed by the defendant from July 1998
and assigned to salary band C. In August 2000, she applied for
confirmation of her classification and of assignment to salary
band D, with retrospective effect from 1 January 2000. She               Pleas in law and main arguments
left her employment with the defendant in September 2000.
                                                                         Applicant for the Com-        BioID AG (formerly D.C.S. Dialog
On 28 November 2000, the Executive Board of the defendant                munity trade mark:            Communication Systems AG)
decided to carry out a reclassification of certain posts, whereby
the applicant’s post of ‘Administrative Assistant in the Protocol        The trade mark applied        the word mark and figurative
and Conferences Division’ was assigned to salary band D as               for:                          mark BioID.®
‘Meeting and Conference Assistant’.
                                                                         Goods or services con-        goods and services in Classes 9,
                                                                         cerned:                       38 and 42
By a letter of 5 February 2001, the defendant decided that,
although the applicant’s post as ‘Meeting and Conference                 Decision        contested     refusal of registration by the
Assistant’ had been assigned to salary band D, the defendant             before the Board of           examiner
was not in a position to make the applicant’s new classification         Appeal:
in salary band D retrospective, as the Executive Board had
decided not to apply the decision of 28 November 2000                    Decision of the Board of      dismissal of the applicant’s appeal
retrospectively to employees who had left the defendant in the           Appeal:
meantime.
                                                                         Grounds of claim:             — misapplication of Article
                                                                                7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC)
The applicant makes three pleas in law against the decision,
                                                                                No 40/94 (1)
namely that it was not sufficiently reasoned, infringed the
general principle of equal treatment, and was contrary to the                                          — the trade mark applied for
principles of good faith and fair dealing.                                                                 is, simply on account of its
                                                                                graphic configuration, not a
                                                                                descriptive indication and it
                                                                                has distinctive and indepen-
                                                                                dent graphics
 ---pagebreak--- 11.8.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 227/21
                               — the verbal element contained            Action brought on 27 April 2001 by Mystery Drinks
                                   in the trade mark applied for         GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the
                                   is not in itself subject to any                Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                   absolute ground for refusal
                               — there is no ground for refusal                                   (Case T-99/01)
                                   on the basis of a lack of dis-
                                   tinctiveness.
                                                                                (2001/C 227/42)
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
    Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).                           (Language of the case: to be determined in accordance with
                                                                         Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure. Language in which the
                                                                                application was drafted: German)
                                                                         An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                         Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                         Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                         27 April 2001 by Mystery Drinks GmbH, of Epperthausen
Action brought on 30 April 2001 by A. Seisenbacher                       (Germany), represented by Dr Thomas Jestaedt, Dr Verena von
Gesellschaft m.b.H. against the Commission of the Euro-                  Bomhard and Dr Andreas Renck, lawyers. A further party
                       pean Communities                                  before the Board of Appeal was Karlsberg Brauerei KG Weber,
                                                                         of Homburg (Germany).
                          (Case T-93/01)
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         (2001/C 227/41)                                 —     annul the decision of Third Board of Appeal of the Office
                                                                               for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
                                                                               and Designs) of 12 February 2001 (R 251/2000-3);
                   (Language of the case: German)                        —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               Pleas in law and main arguments
European Communities on 30 April 2001 by A. Seisenbacher
Gesellschaft m.b.H., represented by Dr Johannes Stieldorf,               Applicant for the Com-        the applicant
Lawyer.                                                                  munity trade mark:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Community trade mark          the figurative mark ‘MYSTERY’ for
                                                                         applied for:                  goods in Classes 29 and 30 and
—     order the European Community to pay the applicant the                                            ‘non-alcoholic drinks with the
      sum of ECU 59 694,44 together with interest at 13 %                                              exception of non-alcoholic beer’
      from 20 October 1998 and the costs of the case.                                                  in Class 32.
                                                                         Proprietor of the right       Karlsberg Brauerei KG Weber
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          to a trade mark or sign
                                                                         asserted in the oppo-
Following an invitation to tender concerning the renovation              sition proceedings:
of the European Community building in Kiev, a contract was
concluded between Ost-Invest und Bauprojektmanagement                    Right to a trade mark or      the word mark ‘MIXERY’ for ‘beer
GmbH. and the Commission. On account of the financial                    sign asserted:                and drinks containing beer’ in
situation of that company, the applicant as general contractor                                         Class 32
was to fulfil that contract vis-à-vis the Commission.
                                                                         Decision of the Oppo-         dismissal of the opposition
                                                                         sition Division:
After the restored building had been handed over, the applicant
requested settlement of its final account of ECU 59 694,44.              Decision of the Board of      cancellation of the decision of the
Following investigations the applicant discovered that payment           Appeal:                       Opposition Division, in so far
of ECU 55 000,00 had been made to another company, a fact                                              as the likelihood of confusion
which is, however, immaterial to the relationship between the                                          between the opposing mark and
applicant and the defendant. The applicant brings an action                                            goods in Class 32, namely ‘non-
pursuant to Article 238 EC and demands payment of the final                                            alcoholic drinks with the excep-
account.                                                                                tion of non-alcoholic beer’,
                                                                                referred to in the application was
                                                                                denied, and dismissal of the
                                                                                appeal as to the remainder.


title: Case C-100/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichtshof by order of that Court of 7 February 2002 in the case of Gerolsteiner Brunnen GmbH & Co. against Putsch GmbH

text:
15.6.2002             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 144/15
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungs-               1.   Is Article 6(1)(b) of the Trade Mark Directive (1) also
gerichtshof by order of that Court of 28 February 2002 on                 applicable if a third party uses the indications referred to
the appeal brought by Hannl + Hofstetter Internationale                   therein as trade marks?
Spedition GmbH against Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien,
Niederösterreich und Burgenland (Berufungssenat II der
                          Region Wien)                               2.   If so, must their use as trade marks be taken into account
                                                                          when it is considered, pursuant to the final clause of
                                                                          Article 6(1) of the Trade Mark Directive, whether ‘honest
                         (Case C-91/02)                                   practices in industrial or commercial matters’ prevail?
                        (2002/C 144/24)
                                                                     (1) OJ L 40, 11 February 1989, p. 1.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichts-
hof (Administrative Court) of 28 February 2002, received at
the Court Registry on 15 March 2002, for a preliminary ruling
on the appeal brought by Hannl + Hofstetter Internationale
Spedition GmbH against Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien,
Niederösterreich und Burgenland (Berufungssenat II der Region
Wien) on the following question:                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-
                                                                     richt Stuttgart by order of that Court of 5 March 2002 in
Is the increase in duty under Paragraph 108(1) of the Austrian       the administrative-law case of Ingeborg Beuttenmüller
Zollrechts-Durchführungsgesetz, which is payable in the event                      against Land Baden-Württemberg
of the incurrence of a customs debt under Articles 202 to 205
or 210 or 211 of the Customs Code or in the event of
subsequent recovery under Article 220 of the Customs Code                                     (Case C-102/02)
and which corresponds to the amount which would have been
incurred as interest on arrears for the period between the
incurrence of the customs debt and the entry in the accounts,                                (2002/C 144/26)
and in the case of subsequent recovery under Article 220 of
the Customs Code between the date when the customs debt
originally entered in the accounts was due and the entry in the
accounts of the customs debt to be subsequently recovered,
contrary to Community customs provisions?
                                                                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                     European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht
                                                                     Stuttgart (Stuttgart Administrative Court) of 5 March 2002,
                                                                     received at the Court Registry on 20 March 2002, for a
                                                                     preliminary ruling in the administrative-law case of Ingeborg
                                                                     Beuttenmüller against Land Baden-Württemberg on the follow-
                                                                     ing questions:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundes-                    1.   Is Article 3, in conjunction with Article 4, of Council
gerichtshof by order of that Court of 7 February 2002 in                  Directive 89/48/EEC (1) of 21 December 1988 on a
the case of Gerolsteiner Brunnen GmbH & Co. against                       general system for the recognition of higher-education
                         Putsch GmbH                                      diplomas awarded on completion of professional edu-
                                                                          cation and training of at least three years’ duration directly
                        (Case C-100/02)                                   applicable so that a national of a Member State may rely
                                                                          directly on the provisions of the directive where it has
                                                                          not been correctly transposed into national law?
                        (2002/C 144/25)
                                                                     2.   Is Article 3, in conjunction with Article 4, of Council
                                                                          Directive 92/51/EEC (2) of 18 June 1992 on a second
                                                                          general system for the recognition of professional edu-
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    cation and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC
European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshof                    directly applicable so that, in the absence of implementing
(Federal Court of Justice) of 7 February 2002, received at the            measures enacted within the period prescribed for that
Court Registry on 18 March 2002, for a preliminary ruling in              purpose, a national of a Member State may rely on
the case of Gerolsteiner Brunnen GmbH & Co. against Putsch                those provisions of the directive as against all national
GmbH on the following questions:                                          provisions that are not in conformity with the directive?


title: Case T-204/12: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2014  — Vila Vita Hotel und Touristik v OHIM — Viavita (VIAVITA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark VIAVITA — Earlier national word mark VILA VITA PARC and figurative mark VILA VITA — No genuine use of earlier marks — Article 42(2) and (3) and Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               1.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/34

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2014 — Vila Vita Hotel und Touristik v OHIM — Viavita (VIAVITA)
   (Case T-204/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark VIAVITA - Earlier national word mark VILA VITA PARC and figurative mark VILA VITA - No genuine use of earlier marks - Article 42(2) and (3) and Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2014/C 292/41
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Vila Vita Hotel und Touristik GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: G. Schoenen and V. Töbelmann, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar, agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Viavita (Paris, France) (represented by: M.-P. Escande, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 March 2012 (Case R 419/2011-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Vila Vita Hotel und Touristik GmbH and Viavita.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Vila Vita Hotel und Touristik GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Viavita.

      (1)  OJ C 217, 21.7.2012.


title: Case C-540/15: Action brought on 15 October 2015 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

text:
               11.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/9

         Action brought on 15 October 2015 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-540/15)
   (2016/C 007/15)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by Μaria Patakia, Muriel Heller and Klara Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare that the Hellenic Republic, by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2012/27/ΕU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on energy efficiency, amending Directives 2009/125/EC and 2010/30/EU and repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC, or, in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28(1) of that directive.

               —

               Order the Hellenic Republic to pay, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a daily penalty payment of EUR 29 145,6 from the date of delivery of the Court’s judgment.

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               Directive 2012/27/ΕU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 is concerned with energy efficiency, amending Directives 2009/125/EC and 2010/30/EU and repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC (‘the Directive’). In accordance with Article 1 thereof, Directive 2012/27/ΕU establishes a common framework of measures for the promotion of energy efficiency within the Union in order to ensure the achievement of the Union’s 2020 20 % headline target on energy efficiency and to pave the way for further energy efficiency improvements beyond that date. The Directive lays down rules designed to remove barriers in the energy market and overcome market failures that impede efficiency in the supply and use of energy, and provides for the establishment of indicative national energy efficiency targets for 2020.

               2.

               In accordance with Article 28 of Directive 2012/27/EU, the Member States are obliged to adopt the national provisions necessary to comply with the directive by 5 June 2014 and, more specifically, with respect to particular obligations which are referred to in particular articles, which are referred to in Article 28, by the dates specified in those articles, and to communicate the measures which they adopt to the Commission. That communication is an intrinsic element of the obligation to transpose EU directives into national law and of the duty of sincere cooperation, and that fact is also reflected in Article 260(3) TFEU.

               3.

               The Commission, after following the procedure provided for in Article 258(2) TFEU, found that the Hellenic Republic did not adopt, within the time-limits prescribed for the relevant provisions of the Directive the measures required for the transposition of Directive 2012/27/EU and has not to date done so, or, in any event, did not communicate those measures to it, and decided to being an action before the Court against the Hellenic Republic seeking a declaration of the infringement concerned.

               4.

               Further, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, the Commission claims that the Court should impose a financial penalty on the Hellenic Republic. The financial penalty proposed by the Commission is calculated in accordance with the criteria and the method adopted by the Commission in the relevant Communication of 15 January 2011.

      (1)  OJ L 315 of 14.11.2012, p. 1.


title: Case C-398/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 18 July 2016 — X BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               10.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 18 July 2016 — X BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-398/16)
   (2016/C 371/05)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: X BV

      Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Question referred

   Must Articles 43 EC and 48 EC (now Articles 49 TFEU and 54 TFEU) be interpreted as precluding national legislation on the basis of which a parent company established in a Member State is not allowed to deduct interest in respect of a loan associated with a capital contribution made to a subsidiary established in another Member State, whereas that deduction could have been availed of if that subsidiary had been included with that parent company in a single tax entity — with characteristics such as those of a Netherlands single tax entity — in view of the fact that, in that case, by reason of consolidation, there would be no obvious association with such a capital contribution?


title: Case T-13/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 April 2009 — Nintendo and Nintendo of Europe v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for Nintendo video games consoles and games cartridges — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Limitation of parallel exports — Fines — Deterrent effect — Duration of the infringement — Aggravating circumstances — Role of leader or instigator — Attenuating circumstances — Cooperation during the administrative procedure)

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/37

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 April 2009 — Nintendo and Nintendo of Europe v Commission
   (Case T-13/03) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for Nintendo video games consoles and games cartridges - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Limitation of parallel exports - Fines - Deterrent effect - Duration of the infringement - Aggravating circumstances - Role of leader or instigator - Attenuating circumstances - Cooperation during the administrative procedure)
   2009/C 141/75
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Nintendo Co., Ltd (Kyoto, Japan) and Nintendo of Europe GmbH (Grossostheim, Germany) (represented by: I. Forrester QC, J. Pheasant, M. Powell, C. Kennedy-Loest, Solicitors and J. Killick, Barrister)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by O. Beynet and A. Whelan, and subsequently by X. Lewis and O. Beynet, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for cancellation or reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants by Article 3, first indent, of Commission Decision 2003/675/EC of 30 October 2002 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (COMP/35.587 PO Video Games, COMP/35.706 PO Nintendo Distribution and COMP/36.321 Omega — Nintendo) (OJ 2003 L 255, p. 33).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Nintendo Co., Ltd and Nintendo of Europe GmbH at EUR 119,2425 million;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 70, 22.3.2003.


title: Case C-636/15 P: Appeal brought on 30 November 2015 by August Storck KG against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 25 September 2015 in Case T-366/14: August Storck v EUIPO

text:
               25.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/16

         Appeal brought on 30 November 2015 by August Storck KG against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 25 September 2015 in Case T-366/14: August Storck v EUIPO
   (Case C-636/15 P)
   (2016/C 270/24)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: August Storck KG (represented by: N. Gregor, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
   By order of 11 May 2016 the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Case C-118/10: Action brought on 3 March 2010 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/35

         Action brought on 3 March 2010 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-118/10)
   2010/C 113/54
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, L. Flynn, K. Walkerová, A. Stobiecka-Kuik, Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Council Decision 2009/991/EU (1) of 16 December 2009 on the granting of State aid by the authorities of the Republic of Latvia for the purchase of agricultural land between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2013;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Council, by adopting the contested decision, has overturned the Commission's decision resulting from the proposal for appropriate measures in Point 196 of the 2007 Agricultural Guidelines and from its unconditional acceptance by Latvia, obliging the latter to bring to an end an existing aid scheme for the purchase ofagricultural land by 31 December 2009 at the latest. Under the guise of exceptional circumstances, the Council has in fact allowed Latvia to maintain that scheme until the expiry of the 2007 Agricultural Guidelines on 31 December 2013. The circumstances put forward by the Council as the grounds for its decision are self evidently not exceptional circumstances of such a nature as to justify the decision taken and make no allowance for the Commission's decision on that scheme. In support of its action for annulment, the Commission will put forward four pleas in law:

               a)

               In the first place, it considers that the Council was not competent to act under the third subparagraph of Article 108(2) TFEU because the aid which it approved was existing aid which Latvia had committed to eliminating by the end of 2009 when it accepted the appropriate measures proposed to it by the Commission.

               b)

               Secondly, the Council has misused its powers, seeking to neutralise the determination that aid measures which Latvia was free to retain until the end of 2009 but not after that date could be kept in place until 2013.

               c)

               Next, in its third plea, the contested decision was adopted in breach of the principle of sincere cooperation which applies to Member States and also between institutions. By its decision, the Council has released Latvia from its obligation of cooperation with the Commission in relation to the appropriate measures accepted by that Member State regarding existing aid for purchase of agricultural land in the context of the cooperation established by Article 108(1) TFEU.

               d)

               By its final plea, the Commission will argue that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment insofar it found that exceptional circumstances existed which justify the adoption of the approved measure.

      (1)  OJ L 339, 22.12.2009, p. 34


title: Case F-18/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 August 2016 — McMichael v Commission

text:
               10.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/34

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 August 2016 — McMichael v Commission
   (Case F-18/13) (1)

   (2016/C 371/41)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 114, 20/4/2013, p. 47.


title: Case C-431/10: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 April 2011 — European Commission v Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2005/85/EC — Right of asylum — Procedure for granting and withdrawing refugee status — Minimum standards — Failure to transpose provisions fully within the prescribed period)

text:
               28.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 160/10

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 April 2011 — European Commission v Ireland
   (Case C-431/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2005/85/EC - Right of asylum - Procedure for granting and withdrawing refugee status - Minimum standards - Failure to transpose provisions fully within the prescribed period)
   2011/C 160/09
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Condou Durande and A.-A. Gilly, Agents)

      Defendant: Ireland (represented by: D. O’Hagan, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt within the prescribed period the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status (OJ 2005 L 326, p. 13)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 of that directive;

               2.

               Orders Ireland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.


title: Case T-223/11: Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2014  — Siemens v Commission (Arbitration clause — Contract for the loan of fissile material intended for the Joint Research Centre’s Ispra site — Non-performance of the contract — Default interest)

text:
               1.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2014 — Siemens v Commission
   (Case T-223/11) (1)

   ((Arbitration clause - Contract for the loan of fissile material intended for the Joint Research Centre’s Ispra site - Non-performance of the contract - Default interest))
   2014/C 292/35
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Siemens AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: J. Risse, R. Harbst and H. Haller, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and W. Mölls, acting as Agents, and by R. Van der Hout and A. Krämer, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action based on an arbitration clause seeking an order for reimbursement by the Commission of all or part of the costs of reprocessing fissile material incurred by the applicant in the context of the performance of Contract No AG 2052 relating to the lending of fissile material intended for the Joint Research Centre site in Ispra (Italy), and for default interest.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Siemens AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 194, 2.7.2011.


title: Case C-94/07: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Bonn — Germany) — Andrea Raccanelli v Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften eV (Article 39 EC — Concept of worker — Non-governmental organisation operating in the public interest — Doctoral grant — Employment contract — Conditions)

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/12

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Bonn — Germany) — Andrea Raccanelli v Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften eV
   (Case C-94/07) (1)

   (Article 39 EC - Concept of ‘worker’ - Non-governmental organisation operating in the public interest - Doctoral grant - Employment contract - Conditions)
   (2008/C 223/19)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Arbeitsgericht Bonn
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Andrea Raccanelli

      Defendant: Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften eV
   Re:
   Preliminary ruling — Arbeitsgericht Bonn — Interpretation of Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ English Special Edition 1968(II), p. 475) — Capacity as a worker of a doctoral student engaged as a grant recipient by a non-profit-making association established under private law in another Member State which offers most national doctoral students the possibility of concluding a contract of employment — Need to make it possible for doctoral students who are nationals of the other Member States to choose between a grant and a contract of employment — Concept of ‘worker’
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               A researcher in a similar situation to that of the applicant in the main proceedings, that is, a researcher preparing a doctoral thesis on the basis of a grant contract concluded with the Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften eV, must be regarded as a worker within the meaning of Article 39 EC only if his activities are performed for a certain period of time under the direction of an institute forming part of that association and if, in return for those activities, he receives remuneration. It is for the referring court to undertake the necessary verification of the facts in order to establish whether such is the case in the dispute before it.

               2.

               A private-law association, such as the Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften eV, must observe the principle of non-discrimination in relation to workers within the meaning of Article 39 EC. It is for the referring court to establish whether, in circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, there has been inequality in the treatment of domestic and foreign doctoral students.

               3.

               In the event that the applicant in the main proceedings is justified in relying on damage caused by the discrimination to which he has been subject, it is for the referring court to assess, in the light of the national legislation applicable in relation to non-contractual liability, the nature of the compensation which he would be entitled to claim.

      (1)  OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.


title: Case T-236/05: Action brought on 17 June 2005 by Willem Aldershoff against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               20.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/32

         Action brought on 17 June 2005 by Willem Aldershoff against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-236/05)
   (2005/C 205/58)
   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 17 June 2005 by Willem Aldershoff, residing in Brussels, represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Xavier Martin, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision approving his career development report for the period from 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003,

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of his action, the applicant alleges manifest error of assessment on account of the fact that he was not given the assessment ‘Exceptional’ or ‘Very good’ for his performance, although he had attained, and even exceeded, his objectives despite particular problems encountered in this work-place.
   The applicant then refers to alleged inconsistency between, on the one hand, the remarks made in the contested report which demonstrate improvement in that he exceeded his objectives and, on the other, the marks awarded him which were below average.
   Last, the applicant alleges lack of a relevant statement of reasons for the contested decision.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the French Conseil d'État by order of that court of 11 December 1998 in the case of Association Greenpeace France, Confédération Paysanne, Association Ecoropa France and Étienne Vernet, Association Les Amis de la Terre, Lucien Cabanne, Stéphan Carbonnaux and Guillaume Castaing v French State, in the presence of Novartis Seeds SA and Monsanto Europe SA (Case C-6/99)

text:
13.3.1999             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 71/17
        12-month period apply irrespective of whether the               Annex III, taking account of the fact that this may,
        security provided by the manufacturer Ð possibly                and in this case does, give rise to differences between
        on account of a knowingly false undertaking by                  the various national laws, with the result that by this
        the party referred to in Question 1 Ð has been                  means the Member States which limit the range of
        released?                                                       containers, like Belgium which limits the range of
                                                                        containers for cider, have at their disposal a measure
                                                                        whose purpose or effect is to restrict the free
    (b) Is it still possible to require payment by the                  movement of goods?
        purchaser of 105 % of the highest production
        refund applicable to the product in question
        during the previous 12-month period if it can no
        longer be determined whether the purchaser gave            2. Having regard to the principle of the free movement
        an undertaking, but it is clear that processing into            of goods, does Directive 75/106/EEC allow Member
        a product other than one listed in Annex I has not              States to implement the directive in such a way that
        taken place or been proved on the part of either                the national legislation prohibits the marketing of
        the purchaser or a subsequent purchaser?                        containers of a quantity not listed in Annex III to the
                                                                        directive, in this case the 33 cl container for the
                                                                        marketing of cider?
3. If the answers to Question 2 are in the affirmative:
                                                                   (1) OJ L 42, 15.2.1975, p. 1.
                                                                   (2) OJ L 308, 4.12.1979, p. 25.
    As from what point in time is the previous 12-month
    period' in the second sentence of Article 7(5) of
    Regulation (EEC) No 2169/86 to be calculated?
(1) OJ L 189, 11.7.1986, p. 12.
                                                                   Reference for a preliminary ruling from the French
                                                                   Conseil d'EÂtat by order of that court of 11 December
                                                                   1998 in the case of Association Greenpeace France,
                                                                   ConfeÂdeÂration Paysanne, Association Ecoropa France and
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de            EÂtienne Vernet, Association Les Amis de la Terre, Lucien
Commerce, Brussels, by judgment of that court of                   Cabanne, SteÂphan Carbonnaux and Guillaume Castaing v
28 December 1998 in the case of Cidrerie Ruwet SA v                French State, in the presence of Novartis Seeds SA and
                                                                                Monsanto Europe SA
Cidre Stassen SA and H. P. Bulmer Ltd, a company under
                          English law                                                       (Case C-6/99)
                        (Case C-3/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 71/30)
                       (1999/C 71/29)
                                                                   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 the French Conseil
European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de              d'EÂtat (Council of State) of 11 December 1998, which was
Commerce (Commercial Court), Brussels, of 28 December              received at the Court Registry on 13 January 1999, for a
1998, which was received at the Court Registry on                  preliminary ruling in the case of Association Greenpeace
7 January 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of            France, ConfeÂdeÂration Paysanne, Association Ecoropa
Cidrerie Ruwet SA v Cidre Stassen SA and H. P. Bulmer              France and EÂtienne Vernet, Association Les Amis de la
Ltd, a company under English law, on the following                 Terre, Lucien Cabanne, SteÂphan Carbonnaux and
questions:                                                         Guillaume Castaing v French State, in the presence of
                                                                   Novartis Seeds SA and Monsanto Europe SA, on the
                                                                   following questions:
1. Does Article 30 of the EC Treaty preclude Council
    Directive 75/106/EEC (1) of 19 December 1974 on the
    approximation of the laws of the Member States
    relating to the making-up by volume of certain                 (1) Must the provisions of Council Directive 90/220/EEC
    prepackaged liquids, as amended by Directive                        of 23 April 1990 (1) be interpreted as meaning that if,
    79/1005/EEC (2), which provides for a transitional                  after an application to place a genetically modified
    period, from allowing Member States, even today,                    organism on the market has been forwarded to the
    some twenty years later and even though during that                 Commission of the European Communities, no
    period of time habits have changed and the 33 cl                    Member State has raised an objection as provided for
    container has become popular and widely used all                    in Article 13(2) of Directive 90/220/EEC, or if the
    over the world, to authorise or not, as they wish, the              Commission of the European Communities has taken
    marketing of containers other than those listed in                  a favourable decision' pursuant to Article 13(4), the
 ---pagebreak--- C 71/18               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    13.3.1999
    competent authority which forwarded the application                this case to a form of arbitrary discrimination between
    to the Commission with a favourable opinion is                     officials engaged when the decision of 7 February 1996
    obliged to give the consent in writing' allowing the              concerning the criteria for initial grading' was in force
    product to be placed on the market, or does that                   and officials, such as the appellant, engaged at a time
    authority retain a discretion not to give such consent?            when the Commission automatically refused to apply
                                                                       Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations.
(2) Must the decision of the Commission of the European
    Communities of 23 January 1997 under which the                    Inconsistency
    French authorities are to authorise the placing on the
    market of the product . . . notified by Ciba-Geigy
    Limited' be interpreted as requiring the French
                                                                       On the one hand the Court of First Instance held in
    Government to give its consent in writing'?
                                                                       Alexopoulou I (1) that the Commission's decision of
                                                                       1 September 1983 was contrary to the Staff Regulations,
(1) On the deliberate release into the environment of genetically      while on the other it allowed the Commission to rectify
    modified organisms, OJ L 117, 8.5.1990, p. 15.                     the irregularity only in part, that is with effect from
                                                                       5 October 1995.
                                                                       Such reasoning appears inconsistent also in the light of the
                                                                       previous case-law of the Court of Justice concerning the
                                                                       grading of staff, which the Commission accepts as being
Appeal brought on 14 January 1999 by Franco Campoli                    of general application.
against the order delivered on 12 October 1998 by the
First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-235/97 between Franco                   Inadequate statement of reasons
Campoli and the Commission of the European
                          Communities
                        (Case C-7/99 P)                                The Court of First Instance fails to give a proper
                        (1999/C 71/31)                                 statement of reasons for its finding that rejection of the
                                                                       official's request for a review of his initial classification is
                                                                       not contrary to 5(3) of the Staff Regulations' inasmuch as
                                                                       it does not explain how it arrives at such a conclusion.
An appeal against the order delivered on 12 October 1998
by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-235/97 between Franco                   (1) Case T-17/95 Alexopoulou v. Commission [1995] ECR-SC
Campoli and the Commission of the European                                 II-683.
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
the European Communities on 14 January 1999 by Franco
Campoli, represented by Sergio Diana, of the Cagliari Bar.
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       Appeal brought on 15 January 1999 by Carmen Gómez
                                                                       de Enterría y Sanchez against the judgment delivered on
Ð set aside the order delivered by the Court of First                  17 November 1998 by the First Chamber of the Court of
    Instance on 12 October 1998 in Case T-235/97                       First Instance of the European Communities in Case
    Campoli v Commission;                                              T-131/97 between Carmen Gómez de Enterría y Sanchez
                                                                                and the European Parliament
Ð uphold the claims submitted at first instance;                                              (Case C-8/99 P)
                                                                                (1999/C 71/32)
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                       An appeal against the judgment delivered on 17 November
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    1998 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance
                                                                       of the European Communities in Case T-131/97 between
                                                                       Carmen Gómez de Enterría Sanchez and the European
Breach of the principle of equal treatment                             Parliament was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities on 15 January 1999 by Carmen
                                                                       Gómez de Enterría y Sanchez, represented by Eric
To find the application inadmissible inasmuch as it seeks              Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
to challenge afresh, without there being any new facts, the            Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du
decision taken by the Commission in 1985, amounts in                   Fort Rheinsheim.


title: Case C-88/15 P: Appeal brought on 20 February 2015 by Ferriere Nord SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 9 December 2014 in Case T-90/10 Ferriere Nord v Commission

text:
               4.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/23

         Appeal brought on 20 February 2015 by Ferriere Nord SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 9 December 2014 in Case T-90/10 Ferriere Nord v Commission
   (Case C-88/15 P)
   (2015/C 146/30)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Ferriere Nord SpA (represented by: W. Viscardini and G. Donà, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               primarily, set aside the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 9 December 2014 in Case T-90/10 to the extent that it dismissed Ferriere Nord’s main head of claim seeking the annulment in its entirety of Commission Decision C(2009) 7492 final of 30 September 2009, as amended and supplemented by Commission Decision C(2009) 9912 final of 8 December 2009;

               —

               consequently, annul the Commission Decisions mentioned above;

               —

               in the alternative, set aside the judgment under appeal to the extent that it dismissed Ferriere Nord’s alternative head of claim seeking the annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2009) 7492 final of 30 September 2009, as amended and supplemented by Commission Decision C(2009) 9912 final of 8 December 2009 and, as a result, reduce the fine imposed;

               —

               consequently, annul in part the Commission Decisions mentioned above and, as a result, order a further reduction (in addition to the reduction already granted by the General Court) of the fine imposed;

               —

               in any event, order the European Commission to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

               I —

               Manifest distortion, as can be seen from the acts in question, of the facts and the evidence as regards the Commission’s lack of competence to impose penalties on Ferriere Nord — Unlawful failure to establish the clear contradictions in the statement of reasons for the Commission’s decision and failure to state reasons — Infringement of the rules governing the burden of proof.

               II —

               Infringement of Article 27 of Regulation No 1/2003 (1) owing to a failure to communicate a new ‘Statement of Objections’ beforehand — Infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations — Manifest distortion, as can be seen from the acts in question, of the facts and the evidence — Infringement of the rights of the defence — Failure to state reasons — Infringement of the right to a hearing before the Hearing Officer.

               III —

               Infringement of the Commission’s internal rules of procedure (and, in turn, of primary and secondary EU law on multilingualism) owing to the authentic language version of the Hearing Officer’s Final Report postdating the decision adopted by the College of Commissioners on 30 September 2009.

               IV —

               Duration of Ferriere Nord’s participation in the cartel — Errors of law in the assessment of the facts: distortion of the evidence — Infringement of the general principles concerning the burden of proof and in dubio pro reo — Contradictory statement of reasons.

               V —

               Infringement of the principle of proportionality in determining the basic amount of the fine applied to Ferriere Nord in view of the seriousness and duration of the cartel — Infringement of the principle of equal treatment — Failure to state reasons.

               VI —

               Manifest error (or clear inaccuracy) in calculating the reduction of the fine imposed on Ferriere Nord — Misuse of powers of unlimited jurisdiction — Failures to state reasons.

               VII —

               Increase in the basic amount of the fine for repeated infringement unlawful due to infringement of the rights of the defence.

               VIII —

               Increase in the basic amount of the fine for repeated infringement unlawful by reason of the time spent.

               IX —

               Increase in the basic amount of the fine for repeated infringement unlawful due to infringement of the principle of proportionality.

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


title: Case T-594/13: Order of the General Court of 11 March 2015 — Sanctuary Brands v OHIM — Richter International (TAILORBYRD)

text:
               11.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/37

         Order of the General Court of 11 March 2015 — Sanctuary Brands v OHIM — Richter International (TAILORBYRD)
   (Case T-594/13) (1)

   (2015/C 155/44)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.


title: Case C-452/15 P: Appeal brought on 17 August 2015 by Best-Lock (Europe) Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 16 June 2015 in Case T-396/14: Best-Lock (Europe) v EUIPO

text:
               25.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/14

         Appeal brought on 17 August 2015 by Best-Lock (Europe) Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 16 June 2015 in Case T-396/14: Best-Lock (Europe) v EUIPO
   (Case C-452/15 P)
   (2016/C 270/19)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Best-Lock (Europe) Ltd (represented by: J. Becker, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
   By order of 14 April 2016 the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Case T-1/10 RENV: Order of the General Court of 24 June 2014  — PPG and SNF v ECHA (Action for annulment — REACH — Identification of acrylamide as a substance of very high concern — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/48

         Order of the General Court of 24 June 2014 — PPG and SNF v ECHA
   (Case T-1/10 RENV) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - REACH - Identification of acrylamide as a substance of very high concern - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility))
   2014/C 315/81
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Polyelectrolyte Producers Group GEIE (PPG) (Brussels, Belgium), and SNF SAS (Andrézieux-Bouthéon, France) (represented initially by: K. Van Maldegem and R. Cana, and subsequently by R. Cana, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä, W. Broere and T. Zbihlej, acting as Agents, assisted by J. Stuyck and A.-M. Vandromme, lawyers)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: B. Koopman, acting as Agent); and European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of ECHA identifying acrylamide (EC No 201-173-7) as a substance fulfilling the criteria referred to in Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1), pursuant to Article 59 of that regulation.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Polyelectrolyte Producers Group GEIE (PPG) and SNF SAS shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA).

               3.

               SNF shall pay the costs relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

               4.

               The Kingdom of the Netherlands and the European Commission shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 13.3.2010.


title: Action brought on 30 June 1997 by Donato Continolo against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-196/97)

text:
10. 1. 98             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 7/17
precisely in order to avoid the need for any retroactivity              render the grant of sick leave prescribed for the
that that Article provides for six-monthly interim                      purposes of undergoing treatment in the form of a
adjustments, with the possibility of being able to make                 thermal cure subject to further conditions for which
additional interim adjustments in the event of an                       no provision is made in Article 59 of the Staff
appreciable variation in the cost of living. The                        Regulations. On the basis of the presumption that a
Commission's failure to make six-monthly adjustments to                 medical certificate is to be presumed to be regular, and
the weightings during more than two years cannot                        of the principle of its credibility, that provision
therefore justify, a posteriori, the recovery of a so-called            automatically gives rise to entitlement to sick leave for
overpayment of remuneration.                                            the whole of the period covered,
(1) OJ L 83, 2. 4. 1996, pp. 1, 4 and 7.                            Ð breach of the principles of legal certainty, of the
                                                                        protection of legitimate expectations, of respect for
                                                                        acquired rights and of non-retroactivity, and
                                                                        infringement of the second paragraph of Article 25 of
                                                                        the Staff Regulations. The applicant considers in that
                                                                        regard that, although the appointing authority
Action brought on 30 June 1997 by Donato Continolo                      referred, in its decision rejecting his complaint, to the
   against the Commission of the European Communities                   criteria for granting sick leave covering the whole of
                        (Case T-196/97)                                 the period when he was absent for the purposes of
                                                                        undergoing medical treatment in the form of a thermal
                           (98/C 7/53)
                                                                        cure, it failed to set out those criteria in a clear
                                                                        manner or to mention the legal basis justifying their
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        adoption. Such a statement of reasons is not relevant.
                                                                        Moreover, contrary to the statement made by the
An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                        appointing authority in its reply rejecting his
Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                        complaint, the criterion of serious illness is not merely
Instance of the European Communities on 30 June 1997
                                                                        one of the criteria applied for the purposes of granting
by Donato Continolo, residing at Taino (Italy),
                                                                        additional leave; it constitutes the only criterion
represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Thierry Demaseure and
                                                                        currently applied. He considers that, if other criteria
Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
                                                                        had been applied, the appointing authority should
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
                                                                        have brought them to the attention of the staff in a
SARL, 30, rue de Cessange.
                                                                        clear and exhaustive manner, and should have referred
                                                                        to the provisions establishing them.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
Ð annul the Commission's decision refusing to grant the             Furthermore, although the applicant underwent his
    applicant sick leave in respect of the whole of the             treatment by way of thermal cure in May and September
    period prescribed by his attending medical practitioner         1995, it was not until 1 February 1996 that the Heads of
    for the purposes of undergoing medical treatment in             Administration confirmed the criterion proposed by the
    the form of a thermal cure,                                     Interinstitutional Medical Board for the grant of the
                                                                    second part of the special leave, namely, that it should be
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.                             granted only in the case of a thermal cure connected with
                                                                    a sickness the expenses in relation to which are
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 reimbursable at the rate of 100 %.
The present action concerns the refusal to grant the
applicant sick leave for the whole of his periods of
absence in May and September 1995, during which he
underwent medical treatment in the form of a thermal
cure, as prescribed by his attending medical practitioner           Action brought on 2 July 1997 by Carmen JimeÂnez
and as deemed to be necessary by the medical officer of             against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme.                                              Market (trade marks and designs)
                                                                                (Case T-200/97)
In support of his claims, he advances, in particular, the
following pleas:                                                                              (98/C 7/54)
Ð the illegality of conclusion No 207/94 of the Heads of                           (Language of the case: French)
    Administration, of the Commission's internal Directive
    No 8927 of 28 December 1994 and of the conclusion               An action against the Office for Harmonization in the
    of the Heads of Administration of 1 February 1996,              Internal Market (trade marks and designs) was brought
    inasmuch as, by authorizing the administration to               before the Court of First Instance of the European
    leave a medical certificate out of account,                     Communities on 2 July 1997 by Carmen JimeÂnez, residing
    alternatively, by providing that sick leave may be              in Luxembourg, represented by Georges Vandersanden, of
    granted only if the medical treatment is connected              the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
    with a sickness the expenses in relation to which are           Luxembourg at the offices of the Fiduciaire Myson SARL,
    reimbursable at the rate of 100 %, those documents              30, rue de Cessange.