title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret by decision of that court of 10 April 1995 in the case of Bent Jensen and Korn- og Foderstofkompagniet A/S v. Ministry of Agriculture EC-Directorate (Case C-132/95)

text:
No C 189/6                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      22 . 7 . 95
Appeal brought on 24 March 1995 by 1 . Roger Tremblay,                   Reference for a preliminary ruling from the 0stre Landsret
2 . Harry Kestenberg and 3 . Syndicat des Exploitants de                 by decision of that court of 10 April 1995 in the case of Bent
Lieux de Loisirs ( SELL ) against the judgment delivered on              Jensen and Korn- og Foderstofkompagniet A/S v. Ministry
24 January 1995 by the Second Chamber of the Court of                                     of Agriculture EC-Directorate
First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-5/93                                         (Case C- 1 3 2/95 )
between Roger Tremblay, François Lucazeau and Harry
                                                                                ( 95/C 189/12 )
Kestenberg, supported by Syndicat des Exploitants de Lieux
de Loisirs ( SELL), and Commission of the European
                               Communities
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                           ( Case C-91/95 P)                             European Communities by a decision of the 0stre Landsret
                              ( 95/C 189/11 )                            ( Eastern Regional Court) of 10 April 1995 , which was
                                                                         received at the Court Registry on 24 April 1995 , for a
                                                                         preliminary ruling in the case of Bent Jensen and Korn
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 24 January
                                                                         og Foderstofkompagniet A/S v. Ministry of Agriculture
1995 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance
                                                                         EC-Directorate on the following questions :
of the European Communities in Case T-5/93 between
Roger Tremblay, François Lucazeau and Harry Kestenberg,
supported by Syndicat des Exploitants de Lieux de Loisirs                — Question 1 :
( SELL ), and Commission of the European Communities
was brought before the Court of Justice on 24 March 1995
by 1 . Roger Tremblay, 2 . Harry Kestenberg and 3 . Syndicat                 Does Community law in general preclude a Member
                                                                             State from setting off of an amount due to the
des Exploitants de Lieux de Loisirs ( SELL), represented by
Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris and Brussels Bar, with an                      beneficiary of aid under a Community measure against
                                                                             outstanding debts to a Member State ?
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Pierrot Schiltz, 4 Rue Béatrix de Bourbon.
                                                                         — Question 2a :
The appellant claims that the Court should :
                                                                             Is it of any significance for the answer to question 1
 1 , annul the part of the judgment of the Court of First                    whether the amount of aid under Community law is
       Instance of 24 January 1995 which dismissed the                       attached in advance by the Member State which has only
       application for the annulment of the Commission                       a claim to be reimbursed for the aid paid out, provided
       decision of 12 November 1992, which referred the
                                                                             that the rules of Community law on payment are
       matter back to the national courts f 1 );
                                                                             satisfied, and which must itself defray the expenditure
                                                                             involved in the administration of the support system ?
2 , pursuant to Article 54 of the Statute of the Court of
       Justice ,
                                                                          — Question 2b :
       — annul the Commission decision of 12 December
           1994 in so far as it rejects the complaint and refers             Is it of any significance for the answer to question 1 that
           the matter to the national courts ,                                under the Member State's rules on set-off it is a
                                                                             condition for effecting set-off that there be reciprocity
       — hold :                                                               between the debtor under the principal claim and the
                                                                             creditor under the counterclaim ?
           — that the Commission must notify to Sacem the
                 objections which are inexorably to be inferred           — Question 2c :
                 from the conclusions of the report of
                 7 November 1991 ,
                                                                              Is it of any significance for the answer to question 1 that
                                                                              the Member State's practice with regard to certain trade
           — in the alternative, that the Commission must                     and environmental subsidies is established in such a way
                 resume the procedure at the point at which it                as to permit set-off in an amount not exceeding 20 % of
                 discontinued it, with a view to issuing a                    the said State subsidies ?
                 statement of objections at the same time as
                 considering the restrictive agremeent;
                                                                          — Question 2d :
 3 , order the Commission to pay the costs .
                                                                              Is it of any significance for the answer to question 1 what
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                          legal basis exists for the outstanding debt to the State
                                                                              against which set-off is to be effected ?
 Breach of Community law.
                                                                              An answer is desired in particular to the question
 i 1 ) Case T-5/93 ( OJ No C 74 , 25 . 3 . 199 5 , p . 10 ).                  whether the Member States have a further facility to
                                                                              effect set-off if all or part of the sum to be set off
                                                                              constitutes part of the Community's own income ?
 ---pagebreak---  22 . 7. 95                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 189/7
— Question 3 :                                                           Appeal brought on 27 April 1995 by Vereniging
                                                                         van Samenwerkende Prijsregelende Organisaties in de
       If questions 1 and 2a to 2d are answered to the effect that       Bouwnijverheid ( SPO ) and 28 others against the judgment
       set-off is in general possible, or possible subject to            delivered on 21 February 1995 by the Court of First Instance
       certain conditions , is Article 15 ( 3 ) of Council               of the European Communities in Case T-29/92 between
       Regulation ( EEC ) No 1765/92 of 30 June 1992                     Vereniging van Samenwerkende Prijsregelende Organisaties
       establishing a support system for producers of certain            in de Bouwnijverheid ( SPO ) and 28 others and the
       arable crops (*) to be interpreted as meaning that a                        Commission of the European Communities
       Member State is precluded from requiring a national                                        Case C-137/95 P )
       intervention agency to effect set-off in the case of a
       beneficiary of compensatory payments with outstanding                                        ( 95/C 189/14
       debts to the State which could otherwise be involved in
       set-off ?                                                         An appeal against the judgment delivered on 21 February
                                                                         1 995 by the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                         Communities in Case T-29/92 between Vereniging van
— Question 4 :
                                                                         Samenwerkende Prijsregelende Organisaties in de
       Is Article 10 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1765/92 to be        Bouwnijverheid ( SPO ) and 28 others and the Commission
       interpreted as meaning that the sums of compensation              of the European Communities was brought before the
       in question are to be paid over immediately the                   Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 April
       intervention agency has concluded the procedure                   1995 by Vereniging van Samenwerkende Prijsregelende
       with regard to the beneficiary's application, or is it            Organisaties in de Bouwnijverheid ( SPO ) and 28 others ,
       permissible to delay the payment for an investigation as          represented by L. H. van Lennep, of The Hague Bar, and
       to whether the State has outstanding claims against the           E. H. Pijnacker Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, with an
       beneficiary in respect of which it wishes to effect a             address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of L.
       set-off, provided always that the payment is effected at          Frieden, 62 Avenue Guillaume .
       the latest by 31 December of the relevant support                 The appellants claim that the Court should :
       year ?
                                                                         — set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
 f 1 ) OJ No L 181 , 1 . 7 . 1992 , p . 12 .                                 the European Communities of 21 February 1995 in Case
                                                                             T-29/92 ( l ),
                                                                         — annul, wholly or at least in part, Commission Decision
                                                                             92/204/EEC of 5 February 1992 relating to a proceeding
                                                                             pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty ( IV/31.572 and
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de                          32.571 — Building and construction industry in the
Cassation Française ( Chambre Sociale ) by judgment of                       Netherlands ),
28 March 1995 in the case of Caisse Nationale d'Assurance
Vieillesse des Travailleurs Salariés ( CNAVTS ) v. Evelyne              — order the Commission to pay the costs of the
                                 Thibault                                    proceedings before the Court of First Instance and of
                            ( Case C-136/95 )
                                                                             the appeal .
                               95/C 189/ 13 )                            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        — Infringement and/or misapplication of Articles 85 ( 3 ),
                                                                             173 and/or 190 of the EC Treaty and/or of Article 9 ( 1 )
European Communities by a judgment of the Cour de
                                                                             of Regulation No 17/62 , and in any event of the general
Cassation Française ( Chambre Sociale ) ( French Court of
                                                                             principles of Community law requiring reasons to be
Cassation, Social Affairs Chamber ) of 28 March 1995 ,
                                                                             given for (judicial ) decisions, alternatively of the right to
which was received at the Court Registry on 28 April 1995 ,
                                                                             a fair hearing, in that the Court of First Instance wrongly
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Caisse Nationale                     considered and decided the matters stated and set forth
d'Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs Salariés ( CNAVTS )
                                                                             in paragraphs 266 , 267, 286 to 300 inclusive and 310 to
v. Evelyne Thibault on the following question:
                                                                             314 inclusive of its contested judgment, since, in thus
                                                                             considering and ruling on the case in the course of its
Must Articles 1 ( 1 ), 2 ( 1 ), 5 ( 1 ) and, if relevant, 2 (4 ) of          review of the evaluation by the Commission of the
Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the                       appellants ' application for exemption, the Court of First
implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men                   Instance :
and women as regards access to employment, vocational
training and promotion, and working conditions ( ! ) be                      ( a ) limited its review of the legality of the decision of the
interpreted as meaning that a woman may not be deprived                            Commission to the Commission's appraisal of the
of the right to an assessment of performance, and                                  rules in the light of the second and third conditions
consequently to the possibility of an advancement in career,                       of exemption contained in Article 85 ( 3 ) of the EC
on the ground that she was absent from work by reason of                           Treaty, without establishing the benefits and
maternity leave ?                                                                  objectives of those rules, and consequently without
                                                                                determining the relevant facts needing to be
H OJ No L 39 , 14 . 2 . 1976 , p . 40 .                                            established for the purposes of an assessment in the
                                                                                light of the second and third conditions contained in
                                                                                Article 85 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty;


title: Case C-255/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kecskeméti Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 27 May 2014  — Robert Michal Chmielewski v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél alföldi Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága

text:
               8.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kecskeméti Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 27 May 2014 — Robert Michal Chmielewski v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél alföldi Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága
   (Case C-255/14)
   2014/C 303/15
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Kecskeméti Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Robert Michal Chmielewski

      Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél alföldi Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága

      Questions referred

               1)

               Does the amount of the fine imposed by Paragraph 5/A of Law XLVIII of 2007 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on controls of cash entering or leaving the Community (1) (‘the national implementing law’) fulfil the requirement in Article 9(1) of that Regulation, according to which the penalties laid down by national law must be effective, dissuasive and, at the same time proportionate to the infringement and to the objective pursued?…

               2)

               Does Paragraph 5/A of the national implementing law not infringe, as a result of the amount of the fines it provides for, the prohibition on disguised restrictions on the free movement of capital in the Treaty on European Union and in Article 65(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 309, p. 9.


title: Case T-42/07: Action brought on 16 February 2007 — Dow Chemical and Others v Commission

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/47

         Action brought on 16 February 2007 — Dow Chemical and Others v Commission
   (Case T-42/07)
   (2007/C 82/100)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: The Dow Chemical Company (Midland, United Sates of America), Dow Deutschland Inc. (Schwalbach, Germany), Dow Deutschland Anlagengesellschaft mbH (Schwalbach, Germany), Dow Europe GmbH (Horgen, Switzerland) (represented by: D. Schroeder, P. Matthey, T. Graf, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               The Dow Chemical Company respectfully requests the Court to annul the decision insofar as it relates to it;

               —

               Dow Deutschland Inc. respectfully requests the Court to annul Article 1 of the decision insofar as it finds that Dow Deutschland Inc. infringed Articles 81 EC and 53 EEA from 1 July 1996;

               —

               all applicants (and the Dow Chemical Company in the alternative) respectfully request the Court to substantially reduce their fines;

               —

               all applicants respectfully request the Court

                           —

                           to order the Commission to pay the applicants' legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter as well as the costs incurred by the applicants in providing a bank guarantee in lieu of the applicants' fines pending judgment by this Court; and

                           —

                           to take any other measures that this Court considers appropriate.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By means of their application, the applicants seek partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 5700 final of 29 November 2006 in Case COMP/F/38.638 — Butadiene Rubber and Emulsion Styrene Butadiene Rubber, by which the Commission found that the applicants, together with other undertakings had infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA by agreeing on price targets for the products, sharing customers by non-aggression agreements and exchanging sensitive commercial information relating to prices, competitors and customers in the Butadiene Rubber and Emulsion Styrene Butadiene Rubber sectors.
   In support of their application, the applicants advance three principal pleas:

               By the first plea, divided into three branches, The Dow Chemical Company (hereinafter ‘TDCC’) submits that the Commission erred in law; a) in finding that TDCC had committed an infringement based on the assumption that a wholly-owned subsidiary essentially follows the instructions given by the parent company without verifying whether the parent company had in fact exercised such power; b) in imposing a fine on it, holding it responsible for infringements committed by its subsidiaries; and c) without exercising its discretion, in deciding whether or not to address its decision to TDCC.

               By the second plea, the Dow Deutschland Inc. and TDCC contend that the Commission erred in fact and law in determining the duration of Dow Deutschland Inc.'s participation in the infringement by choosing 1 July 1996 as the starting date of the infringement.

               By the third plea, the applicants claim that the Commission made factual and legal errors in calculating the basic amount of the fines imposed on them. Precisely, errors were allegedly made in relation to the assessment of the gravity of the infringement, the differential treatment applied by the Commission to the starting amounts, the multiplier applied by the Commission in order for the fines to have sufficient deterrent effect and, finally, to the increase of the starting amount of the fines in view of the duration of the infringement.


title: Case C-167/13: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil régional d'expression française de l'ordre des médecins vétérinaires (Belgium)) — Disciplinary proceedings against Jean Devillers (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Conseil régional d'expression française de l'ordre des médecins vétérinaires — Concept of ‘court or tribunal of a Member State’ within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
               7.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/10

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil régional d'expression française de l'ordre des médecins vétérinaires (Belgium)) — Disciplinary proceedings against Jean Devillers
   (Case C-167/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Conseil régional d'expression française de l'ordre des médecins vétérinaires - Concept of ‘court or tribunal of a Member State’ within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court))
   2014/C 102/12
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil régional d'expression française de l'ordre des médecins vétérinaires

      Party to the main proceedings

   Jean Devillers

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Conseil regional d’expression française de l’ordre des médecins vétérinaires (Belgium) — Interpretation of Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97 (OJ 2005 L 3, p. 1) — Question referred for a preliminary ruling by a professional association — Concept of court or tribunal within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU — Jurisdiction of the Court — Insufficient as to facts and law — Admissibility of the question.

      Operative part of the order

   The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the question referred by the Conseil regional d’expression française de l’ordre des médecins vétérinaires (Belgium) in its decision of 23 March 2013.

      (1)  OJ C 164, 8.6.2013.


title: Case T-111/04: Actionbrought on 15 March 2004 by OJSC Bratsk AluminiumPlant against the Council of the European Union

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/87

         Action brought on 15 March 2004 by OJSC Bratsk Aluminium Plant against the Council of the European Union
   (Case T-111/04)
   (2004/C 106/171)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 15 March 2004 by OJSC Bratsk Aluminium Plant, Bratsk, Russia, represented by Dr K. Adamantopoulos, lawyer and Mr J. Branton,Solicitor.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Council Regulation (EC) No. 2229/2003 of 22 December 2003 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of silicon originating in Russia, published on 24 December 2003 in the Official Journal of the European Union, OJ L 339, 24/12/2003, p. 3, insofar as it relates to the applicant

               —

               Order that all the costs occasioned by these proceedings be borne by the defendant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The contested measure, Council Regulation (EC) No. 2229/2003 (1), imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of silicon originating in Russia and as part of that imposed a 22.7 % duty on silicon originating in Russia. The applicant, a Russian company producing silicon, requests the annulment of this application.
   In support of its application the applicant contends that the Council violated article 2 paragraphs 8 and 9 of Regulation 384/1996 (2), committed a manifest error of assessment and breached a fundamental procedural requirement by failing to accept that the applicant and its trader in the British Virgin Islands are related. The applicant further contends that it was denied its right to a fair hearing since the Council failed to conduct an additional verification visit in respect to that allegation. According to the applicant the Council also violated Article 18 paragraph 4 of regulation 384/1996 when it rejected evidence supplied by the applicant. The applicant also invokes a violation of article 20 paragraph 4 of Regulation 384/1996 consisting in the Council's failure to provide a proper statement of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was proposed to impose definitive measures. The applicant finally submits that the contested regulation mistakenly considered the applicant's domestic sales as unprofitable and inflated the assessment of dumping, by rejecting the applicant's electricity costs and adjusting them upwards by reference to irrelevant factors. On this basis the applicant contends that the contested regulation violated Article 2 paragraphs 5 and 7 (b and c) of Regulation 384/1996, committed a manifest error of assessment and failed to state proper reasons.

      (1)  Official Journal L 339, 24/12/2003 P. 3-13.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community, Official Journal L 056, 06/03/1996 P. 1-20.


title: Case T-233/08: Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2010 — MPDV Mikrolab v OHIM (ROI ANALYZER) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark ROI ANALYZER — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/34

      Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2010 — MPDV Mikrolab v OHIM (ROI ANALYZER)
      (Case T-233/08) (1)

      (Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark ROI ANALYZER - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
      (2010/C 288/65)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicants: MPDV Mikrolab GmbH, Mikroprozessordatenverarbeitung und Mikroprozessorlabor (Mosbach, Germany) (represented by: W. Göpfert, lawyer)

         Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 April 2008 (Case R 1525/2006-4) concerning the registration of the word sign ROI ANALYZER as a Community trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  orders MPDV Mikrolab GmbH, Mikroprozessordatenverarbeitung und Mikroprozessorlabor to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.


title: Case F-84/15: Action brought on 2 June 2015 — ZZ v Council

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/60

         Action brought on 2 June 2015 — ZZ v Council
   (Case F-84/15)
   (2015/C 279/77)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the decision not to promote the applicant to the next higher grade (AD 12) in the Council of the European Union’s 2014 promotion procedure.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 12 in the 2014 promotion procedure;

               —

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


title: Case T-312/07: Action brought on 24 July 2007 — Dimos Peramatos v Commission

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/29

         Action brought on 24 July 2007 — Dimos Peramatos v Commission
   (Case T-312/07)
   (2007/C 283/53)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Dimos Peramatos (Municipality of Perama, Greece) (represented by: G. Gerapetritis and P. Petropoulos)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the contested measure so that any obligation owed by the applicant to refund sums paid within the framework of the project LIFE97/ENV/GR/000380 ceases or, in the alternative, amend the contested measure so as to oblige the applicant to pay EUR 93 795,32, the sum calculated to be the ineligible expenditure, as the Commission itself has acknowledged;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings and in particular the costs incurred by the applicant on lawyers' fees.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   This application seeks the annulment of the Commission decision of 7 December 2005, served by bailiff on the applicant for the purposes of enforcement on 17 May 2007, relating to Debit Note No 3240504536 which was issued to the Municipality of Perama to recover the financial contribution which had been paid by the Commission in the context of the subsidy granted to the Municipality of Perama by Commission Decision C(97)/1997/29 final.
   The applicant pleads an error of fact and incorrect interpretation of the Commission decision. More specifically, the applicant infers that its obligation was exclusively to plant the trees and did not in any event involve their subsequent survival, since any subsequent destruction of the trees could not be attributed to the municipality. Therefore, it considers that its legal obligation was exhausted with regard to provision of the works and it was not possible in that connection to seek the payment of sums from it, except where the documentation submitted did not meet the eligibility conditions laid down by the decision.
   Also, the applicant submits that the contested measure infringes the general principle requiring reasons to be stated for measures of the Community institutions and the general principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.


title: Action brought on 19 September 1996 by Howard Batho against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-147/96)

text:
 No C 354/30           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   23 . 11 . 96
 1996 by Maria Graga de Abreu, residing in Luxembourg,               Action brought on 19 September 1996 by Howard Batho
 represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and                 against the Commission of the European Communities
 Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for                                    ( Case T-147/96 )
 service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
 Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .                                                                   ( 96/C 354/60 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
 The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
— annul the decision of the Court of Justice appointing the          Communities was brought before the Court of First
     applicant to the post of typist in Grade C4 in so far as it     Instance of the European Communities on 19 September
     places her in the third step of that grade;                     1996 by Howard Batho, residing at Kraainem ( Belgium ),
                                                                     represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and
                                                                     Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                             service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
                                                                     Sari , 30 Rue de Cessange .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support                  The applicant claims that the Court should :
The applicant, an official of the Court of Justice, contests the    — annul the decision of the appointing authority
decision of the appointing authority appointing her as a                 confirming, following re-examination of his
probationary official in Grade C4 , step 3 .                             administrative status, the applicant's classification in
                                                                         grade A7,
Originally recruited by the defendant as a member of the            — order the defendant to pay the costs .
temporary staff in Grade C4, she was promoted on 15 July
1993 to Grade C3 , step 4 . After passing open competition
EUR/C/22 , she was finally made a probationary official by          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
virtue of the contested decision . Thus, although recruited to
the post she already occupied, she was not appointed as a
probationary official in the grade which she held before her        The applicant contests the appointing authority's decision
appointment.                                                        confirming his classification in grade A7 upon his
                                                                    appointment as a probationary official in consequence of
                                                                    the placing of his name on the list of suitable candidates in
The applicant claims, in support of her application, that           open competition COM/A/762 . Prior to that appointment,
Council Regulation ( EEC, Euratom, ECSC ) No 3947/92 is             the applicant had worked for the defendant institution in the
unlawful in that Article 8 thereof requires a member of the         respective positions of national expert on secondment,
temporary staff to be appointed as an official in his or her        temporary agent and member of the auxiliary staff. In the
existing grade in order to be entitled to maintain his or her       context of his duties in the latter post, he had been classified ,
former step . In her opinion, that system of appointment:           in view of his professional experience , in grade A5 , step 3 .
                                                                    He had submitted an initial complaint against his
— penalizes members of the temporary staff who have been            appointment to grade A7; that complaint was expressly
    promoted on their merits, as compared with colleagues           rejected by a decision which had become final . In
    of less merit who, for their part, retain their seniority in    consequence of the judgment of the Court of First Instance
                                                                    of 5 October 1995 in Case T-17/95 Alexopoulou v.
    step ,
                                                                    Commission , the applicant applied for revision of the
                                                                    decision classifying him in grade A7 . The rejection of that
— contravenes the principle of career development, since it         application forms the subject-matter of the present
    runs counter to the obligation to encourage, through            dispute .
    promotion, the professional ambitions of the most
    meritorious, best qualified and most experienced
    members of the temporary staff,                                 In support of his claim, he pleads a manifest error of
                                                                    assessment. He points out in that regard that he was
                                                                    recruited as a probationary official in order to perform the
— also contravenes the principle of sound administration            duties attaching to the post occupied by him as a temporary
    since it limits the career prospects of temporary staff in      agent and subsequently as a grade A5 member of the
    the event of their being awarded a promotion, which             auxiliary staff. He considers that, in view of his recruitment
    demotivates the best qualified and most efficient staff         to his post, and having regard to the five years and eleven
    members .
                                                                    months of additional professional experience gained by him ,
                                                                    it is not open to the Commission to assert that the specific
                                                                    needs of the service did not require the recruitment of an
                                                                    official with particular qualifications to perform the duties
                                                                    attaching to the post at issue .
 ---pagebreak--- 23 . 11 . 96          EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 354/31
The applicant maintains, in any event, that, at the time of his       22 February 1993 , despite the declaration of annulment in
recruitment, he possessed exceptional qualifications                  the abovementioned judgment.
justifying, in accordance with the judgment in Alexopoulou,
recruitment to a higher grade within the career bracket.              In support of his claims, he alleges breach of Articles 26 and
                                                                      35 of the Staff Regulations and of Articles 176 and 179 of
                                                                      the Treaty of Rome, and of general principles of law, such as
                                                                      that conferring the authority of res judicata on a final
                                                                      decision against which no appeal lies . In his view, in
                                                                      confirming a decision which had been annulled and by
                                                                      taking no notice of the conditions for complying with the
Action brought on 20 September 1996 by Ernesto Brognieri              judgment and the consequences necessarily entailed, the
  against the Commission of the European Communities                  contested decision did not comply with the operative part of
                         Case T-148/96 )                              the judgment of 8 June 1995 in Case T-583/93 P v. the
                                                                      Commission of the European Communities .
                          ( 96/C 354/61 )
                                                                      In that respect, the applicant considers that the appointing
                (Language of the case: French)                        authority did not take the contested decision in the interests
                                                                      of the service or its organization , but misused its powers in
                                                                      order to inflict a disguised disciplinary penalty on the
An action against the Commission of the European                      applicant.
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 20 September 1996 by Ernesto
Brognieri, residing at Barasso ( Italy ), represented by Eric         His final allegation against the defendant is that his personal
Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in         file does not contain all the documents concerning his
Luxembourg at the chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort            administrative status, since material used by the
Rheinsheim .                                                          Commission to support its case has neither been
                                                                      communicated to the applicant nor included in his personal
                                                                      file, which demonstrates the existence of a parallel file .
The applicant claims that the Court should :
— annul the decision of 28 November 1995 in which the
    appointing authority informed the applicant that it
    confirmed the decision of 22 February 1993
    withdrawing him from shift-work in the fire service and
    that he could not be reinstated in the fire station , even to     Action brought on 24 September 1996 by Austin Rowan
    work days,                                                          against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-l 50/96
— order the defendant to pay the applicant the sum of Lit                                       ( 96/C 354/62 )
    2 000 000 by way of compensation for non-material
    damage , together with interest at the rate prescribed by
    law of 8 % as from the date of the decision to be given                           (Language of the case: French)
    until full payment is made,
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
— order the defendant to pay to the applicant damages and             Communities was brought before the Court of First
    interest corresponding to the sums which he ought to              Instance of the European Communities on 24 September
    have    received  as     shift work   allowance    as   from
                                                                      1 996 by Austin Rowan, residing at Overijse , represented by
    28 November 1995 , the date of the contested decision ,          Marc-Albert Lucas , of the Liege Bar, with an address for
    until a valid and lawful decision regularizing his                service in Luxembourg at the chambers of Evelyne Korn,
    administrative situation is adopted, together with               21 Rue Nassau .
    default interest at the rate of 8 % per annum to run from
    22 February 1996 , the date on which the applicant
    lodged his complaint,                                            The applicant claims that the Court should :
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                             — annul the Commission 's decision of 25 October 1995
                                                                           inasmuch as it classifies him in Grade B 5 and, in so far as
                                                                           necessary, the Commission 's decision of 19 June 1996
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                        rejecting his complaint of 20 February 1996 ,
The applicant, who is employed by the defendant as a                 — order the defendant to pay the costs .
fireman at the Ispra Centre, is the same as in Case T-583/93 ,
which was settled by judgment of 8 June 1995 annulling the
decision of the appointing authority of 22 February 1993 ,            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
by which the applicant had been excluded from shift work in
the fire-fighting service . This action challenges the decision      The applicant, an official in Grade B 4 at the Commission,
of the defendant institution confirming the decision of              challenges the refusal of the appointing authority to review


title: Case C-213/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht by order of that court of 10 February 2005 in Wendy Geven v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

text:
               6.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht by order of that court of 10 February 2005 in Wendy Geven v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen
   (Case C-213/05)
   (2005/C 193/16)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Bundessozialgericht of 10 February 2005, received at the Court Registry on 17 May 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Wendy Geven and Land Nordrhein-Westfalen on the following question:
   Does it follow from Community law (in particular from Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 (1) of the Council on freedom of movement for workers within the Community) that the Federal Republic of Germany is precluded from excluding a national of that State who lives in another Member State and is in minor employment (between 3 and 14 hours a week) in Germany from receiving German child-raising allowance because she does not have a residence or habitual place of stay in Germany?

      (1)  OJ, English Special Edition1968 (II), p. 475.


title: Case F-25/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 26 February 2016 — McArdle v Commission

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/49

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 26 February 2016 — McArdle v Commission
   (Case F-25/13) (1)

   (2016/C 136/70)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 156, 1/6/2013, p. 55.


title: Case C-241/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 16 May 2014  — Roman Bukovansky v Finanzamt Lörrach

text:
               8.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 16 May 2014 — Roman Bukovansky v Finanzamt Lörrach
   (Case C-241/14)
   2014/C 303/11
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Roman Bukovansky

      Defendant: Finanzamt Lörrach

      Question referred

   Are the provisions of the Agreement of 21 June 1999 between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons (1) (BGBl. II 2001, 810 et seq.), which was adopted as a Law by the German Bundestag on 2 September 2001 (BGBl. II 2001, 810) and entered into force on 1 June 2002 (‘the Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons’), in particular the preamble thereto, Articles 1, 2 and 21 thereof and Articles 7 and 9 of Annex I thereto, to be interpreted as meaning that a worker who has moved from Germany to Switzerland, who is not a Swiss national and who, since moving to Switzerland, has been a ‘reverse frontier worker’ within the meaning of Article 15a(1) of the DBA-Schweiz 1971/2002 (Swiss-German Double Taxation Agreement) cannot be made subject to tax by Germany pursuant to Article 4(4), in conjunction with the fourth sentence of Article 15a(1), of the DBA-Schweiz 1971/2002?

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 114, p. 6.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 9 July 1997 in Case T-156/95: Diego Echauz Brigaldi and Others v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Decisions of the Commission refusing special leave for elections and travelling time - Admissibility)

text:
16 . 8 . 97            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 252/27
3 . orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.
                                                                                of 9 July 1997
(') OJ No C 290 , 6 . 11 . 1992 .                                     in Case T-4/96: S v. Court of Justice of the European
                                                                                Communities ( ! )
                                                                      (Officials — Occupational disease — Medical Committee
                                                                      — Basis for calculating the benefits provided for by
                                                                                Article 73 (2) of the Staff Regulations)
                                                                                ( 97/C 252/59 )
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                           of 9 July 1997                                             (Language of the case: French)
in Case T-156/95 : Diego Echauz Brigaldi and Others v.
         Commission of the European Communities (')
                                                                      In Case T-4/96 : S v. Court of Justice of the European
(Officials — Decisions of the Commission refusing special             Communities ( Agent: Timothy Millett), application for,
    leave for elections and travelling time — Admissibility)          first, the annulment of the decision of the Court of Justice
                                                                      of 11 April 1995 , in so far as it adopted an invalidity rate
                           ( 97/C 252/58 )                            of 6 % for the purpose of calculating the lump sum
                                                                      provided for in Article 73 of the Staff Regulations of
                                                                      Officials of the European Communities; secondly,
                 (Language of the case: English)                      acknowledgement of the applicant's right to that lump
                                                                      sum calculated on the basis of an invalidity rate of 30% ;
                                                                      and, thirdly, compensatory interest — the Court of First
In Case T-156/95 : Diego Echauz Brigaldi, Jose Luis                   Instance ( Fourth Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts,
Buendía Sierra, Cesar Montoliu Garcia, Maria Jesus Ruiz               President, P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; A. Mair,
Monroy, Carmen Ochoa de Michelena, Victoria                           Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 July
Pagadigorria Wicke, Miguel Abellan Lopez, Inmaculada                   1997, in which it:
Gil Tardón, Antonio Garcia Velazquez, Maria Carmen
Labrador Rubio, Carmen Casado Salinas, Diego Gonzalez
Marin, Eva Maria Rasines Martin, Julio Vizcarra Soriano                1 . dismisses the application;
and Leopoldo Fabra Utray, officials of the Commission of
the European Communities, represented by Ramon
García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier, of the Burgos Bar, with an              2 . orders each party to bear its own costs.
address for service in Brussels at the Chambers of J. and
B. Cremades and Associates, 391 Avenue Louise, against
Commission of the European Communities ( Agents : Ana                  (') OJ No C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .
Maria Alves Vieira and Blanca Vila Costa ) — application
for annulment of the decisions of the Commission of
2 May 1995 refusing to grant the applicants special leave
for elections and travelling time in order to enable them to
exercise their right to vote in Spain, where they had
retained official residence and where they went to vote in
the elections to the European Parliament in June 1994,                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
and for an order that the Commission grant each official
the number of days' travelling time used by them in order                                        of 9 July 1997
to go to vote in Spain or pay them the amount                                 in Case T-92/96: Roberto Monaco v. European
corresponding to the number of days used — the Court of                                           Parliament (M
First Instance ( Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenarts,
President, P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio                (Officials — Appointment — Classification in grade —
Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a                     Infringement of the notice of competition and notice of
judgment on 9 July 1997, in which it:                                  vacancy — Principle of the protection of legitimate
                                                                       expectations — Article 31 (2) of the Staff Regulations —
                                                                        Principle of equality of treatment and non-discrimination)
 1 . dismisses the application;
                                                                                ( 97/C 252/60 )
 2 . orders the parties each to bear their own costs.                                  (Language of the case: French)
 O OJNoC 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .
                                                                       In Case T-92/96 : Roberto Monaco, an official of the
                                                                       European Parliament, residing at Capellen ( Luxembourg),
                                                                       represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and


title: Case C-583/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 October 2013 — Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v European Parliament, Council of the European Union, Kingdom of the Netherlands, European Commission (Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 — Trade in seal products — Restrictions on importing and marketing such products — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Right of natural or legal persons to institute proceedings — Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Concept of ‘regulatory act’ — Legislative act — Fundamental right to effective judicial protection)

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/14

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 October 2013 — Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v European Parliament, Council of the European Union, Kingdom of the Netherlands, European Commission
   (Case C-583/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 - Trade in seal products - Restrictions on importing and marketing such products - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Right of natural or legal persons to institute proceedings - Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Concept of ‘regulatory act’ - Legislative act - Fundamental right to effective judicial protection)
   2013/C 344/22
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, Nattivak Hunters and Trappers Association, Pangnirtung Hunters’ and Trappers’ Association; Jaypootie Moesesie; Allen Kooneeliusie, Toomasie Newkingnak; David Kuptana; Karliin Aariak; Canadian Seal Marketing Group, Ta Ma Su Seal Products Inc., Fur Institute of Canada (Ottawa); NuTan Furs Inc., GC Rieber Skinn AS, Inuit Circumpolar Council Greenland (ICC-Greenland), Johannes Egede, Kalaallit Nunaanni Aalisartut Piniartullu Kattuffiat (KNAPK) (represented by: J. Bouckaert, H. Viaene and D. Gillet, avocats)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: I. Anagnostopoulou, D. Gauci and L. Visaggio, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Moore and K. Michoel, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver, E. White and K. Mifsud Bonnici, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 September 2011 in Case T-18/10 Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v Parliament and Council whereby the General Court dismissed an action for the annulment of Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on trade in seal products (OJ 2009 L 286, p. 36, ‘the contested regulation’) Concept of ‘regulatory act’ — Requirement that contested regulation be of individual concern

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, Nattivak Hunters and Trappers Association, Pangnirtung Hunters’ and Trappers’ Association, Mr Jaypootie Moesesie, Mr Allen Kooneeliusie, Mr Toomasie Newkingnak, Mr David Kuptana, Ms Karliin Aariak, Canadian Seal Marketing Group, Ta Ma Su Seal Products Inc., Fur Institute of Canada, NuTan Furs Inc., GC Rieber Skinn AS, Inuit Circumpolar Council Greenland (ICC Greenland), Mr Johannes Egede and Kalaallit Nunaanni Aalisartut Piniartullu Kattuffiat (KNAPK) to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 58, 25.2.2012.


title: Case C-245/12: Order of the President of the Court of 23 July 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/53

         Order of the President of the Court of 23 July 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-245/12) (1)

   2013/C 344/91
   Language of the case: Polish
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 200, 7.7.2012.


title: Case C-30/10: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 February 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Linköpings tingsrätt — Sweden) — Lotta Andersson v Staten genom Kronofogdemyndigheten i Jönköping, Tillsynsmyndigheten (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 80/987/EEC — Article 10(c) — National provision — Guarantee of payment of employees’ outstanding claims — Exclusion of persons who, more recently than six months before the lodgement of the application for the declaration of insolvency of the company which employed them, were owners of an essential part of that company and had considerable influence on it)

text:
               2.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/9

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 February 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Linköpings tingsrätt — Sweden) — Lotta Andersson v Staten genom Kronofogdemyndigheten i Jönköping, Tillsynsmyndigheten
   (Case C-30/10) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 80/987/EEC - Article 10(c) - National provision - Guarantee of payment of employees’ outstanding claims - Exclusion of persons who, more recently than six months before the lodgement of the application for the declaration of insolvency of the company which employed them, were owners of an essential part of that company and had considerable influence on it)
   2011/C 103/13
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Linköpings tingsrätt

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Lotta Andersson

      Defendant: Staten genom Kronofogdemyndigheten i Jönköping, Tillsynsmyndigheten

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Linköpings tingsrätt — Interpretation of Article 10(c) of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, as amended by Directive 2002/74/EC — National legislation excluding from the guarantee of payment of employees’ outstanding claims persons who, more recently than six months before the lodgement of the application for the declaration of insolvency of the company which employed them, were owners of an essential part of that company and had considerable influence on it

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 12(c) of Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (Codified version) must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national law which excludes an employee from entitlement under the guarantee of payment of employees’ outstanding claims on the ground that the employee, alone or together with close relatives, within the six months preceding the application for a declaration of insolvency, was the owner of an essential part of the undertaking or business concerned and had a considerable influence on its activities.

      (1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.


title: Case C-400/06: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 September 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — Codirex Expeditie BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Tariff classification — Subheading 0202 30 50 — Cuts of frozen boned meat from a part of the forequarter of bovine animals)

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/16

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 September 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — Codirex Expeditie BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-400/06) (1)

   (Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff classification - Subheading 0202 30 50 - Cuts of frozen boned meat from a part of the forequarter of bovine animals)
   (2007/C 269/30)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Codirex Expeditie BV

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   Re:
   Preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlandem — Interpretation of Additional Note 1.A.(h)(11) to Chapter 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2204/1999 of 12 October 1999 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1999 L 278, p. 1) — Frozen boned meat derived from a part of the forequarter
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2204/1999 of 12 October 1999, must be interpreted as meaning that pieces of frozen boned meat from the forequarter part of the bovine animal come under subheading 0202 30 50 of the Combined Nomenclature.

               2.

               Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87, as amended by Regulation No 2204/1999, must be interpreted as meaning that pieces of frozen boned meat from the forequarter of the bovine animal do not have to satisfy any other conditions, and in particular, do not have to come from the same animal, in order to be classified under subheading 0202 30 50.

      (1)  JO C 310, 16.12.2006.


title: Case T-516/10: Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2015 — France v Commission (EAGGF — ‘Guidance’ Section — Reduction of financial aid — Community initiative programme Leader+ — Failure to comply with the time-limit for adoption of a decision — Infringement of an essential procedural requirement)

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2015 — France v Commission
   (Case T-516/10) (1)

   ((EAGGF - ‘Guidance’ Section - Reduction of financial aid - Community initiative programme Leader+ - Failure to comply with the time-limit for adoption of a decision - Infringement of an essential procedural requirement))
   (2015/C 279/33)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: French Republic (represented initially by: E Belliard, B. Cabouat, G. de Bergues, D. Colas and C. Candat, and subsequently by: D. Colas, C. Candat and J.-S. Pilczer, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 5724 Final of 23 August 2010 on the application of financial corrections to assistance from the EAGGF, ‘guidance’ section, allocated to the Community initiative programme CCI 2000.FR.060.PC.001 (France — Leader+)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision C(2010) 5724 Final of 23 August 2010 on the application of financial corrections to assistance from the EAGGF, ‘guidance’ section, allocated to the Community initiative programme CCI 2000.FR.060.PC.001 (France — Leader+);

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the French Republic.

      (1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2011.


title: Case C-612/11: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 February 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Vincenzo Veneruso (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Betting and gaming — Collection of bets on sporting events — Licensing requirement — Consequences of an infringement of European Union law in the awarding of licences — Award of 16300 additional licences — Principle of equal treatment and the obligation of transparency — Principle of legal certainty — Protection of holders of earlier licences — National legislation — Mandatory minimum distances between betting outlets — Whether permissible — Cross-border activities analogous to those engaged in under the licence — Prohibition under national legislation — Whether permissible)

text:
               26.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/14

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 February 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Vincenzo Veneruso
   (Case C-612/11) (1)

   (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Betting and gaming - Collection of bets on sporting events - Licensing requirement - Consequences of an infringement of European Union law in the awarding of licences - Award of 16 300 additional licences - Principle of equal treatment and the obligation of transparency - Principle of legal certainty - Protection of holders of earlier licences - National legislation - Mandatory minimum distances between betting outlets - Whether permissible - Cross-border activities analogous to those engaged in under the licence - Prohibition under national legislation - Whether permissible)
   2012/C 151/23
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Milano

      Criminal proceedings against

   Vincenzo Veneruso

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale ordinario di Milano — Free movement of persons — Freedom to provide services — Activity of collecting bets — Domestic legislation making the exercise of that activity conditional upon the obtaining of a public security authorisation and permit — Protection afforded to persons obtaining authorisations and permits by means of award procedures that unlawfully excluded other operators from the same sector — Whether compatible with Articles 43 EC and 49 EC (now Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Articles 43 EC and 49 EC and the principles of equal treatment and effectiveness must be interpreted as precluding a Member State which, in breach of European Union law, has excluded a category of operators from the award of licences to engage in a particular economic activity and which seeks to remedy that breach by putting out to tender a significant number of new licences, from protecting the market positions acquired by the existing operators, by providing inter alia that a minimum distance must be observed between the establishments of new licence holders and those of existing operators.

               2.

               Articles 43 EC and 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding the imposition of penalties for engaging in the organised activity of collecting bets without a licence or police authorisation on persons who are linked to an operator which was excluded, in breach of European Union law, from an earlier tendering procedure, even following the new tendering procedure intended to remedy that breach of European Union law, in so far as that tendering procedure and the subsequent award of new licences have not in fact remedied the exclusion of that operator from the earlier tendering procedure.

               3.

               It follows from Articles 43 EC and 49 EC, the principle of equal treatment, the obligation of transparency and the principle of legal certainty that the conditions and detailed rules of a tendering procedure such as that at issue in the case before the referring court and, in particular, the provisions concerning the withdrawal of licences granted under that tendering procedure, such as those laid down in Article 23(2)(a) and (3) of the model contract between the Independent Authority for the Administration of State Monopolies and the successful tenderer for the licence for betting on events other than horse races, must be drawn up in a clear, precise and unequivocal manner, a matter which it is for the referring court to verify.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 03.03.2012.


title: Case C-428/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Child and Family Agency v J. D. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and in the matters of parental responsibility — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Article 15 — Transfer of a case to a court of another Member State — Scope — Conditions under which applicable — Court better placed — Best interests of the child)

text:
               9.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/21

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Child and Family Agency v J. D.
   (Case C-428/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and in the matters of parental responsibility - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Article 15 - Transfer of a case to a court of another Member State - Scope - Conditions under which applicable - Court better placed - Best interests of the child))
   (2017/C 006/25)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Supreme Court

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Child and Family Agency

      Defendant: J. D.

      Other party to proceedings: R. P. D.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that it is applicable where a child protection application brought under public law by the competent authority of a Member State concerns the adoption of measures relating to parental responsibility, such as the application at issue in the main proceedings, where it is a necessary consequence of a court of another Member State assuming jurisdiction that an authority of that other Member State thereafter commence proceedings that are separate from those brought in the first Member State, pursuant to its own domestic law and possibly relating to different factual circumstances.

               2.

               Article 15(1) of Regulation No 2201/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that:

                           —

                           in order to determine that a court of another Member State with which the child has a particular connection is better placed, the court having jurisdiction in a Member State must be satisfied that the transfer of the case to that other court is such as to provide genuine and specific added value to the examination of that case, taking into account, inter alia, the rules of procedure applicable in that other Member State;

                           —

                           in order to determine that such a transfer is in the best interests of the child, the court having jurisdiction in a Member State must be satisfied, in particular, that that transfer is not liable to be detrimental to the situation of the child.

               3.

               Article 15(1) of Regulation No 2201/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that the court having jurisdiction in a Member State must not take into account, when applying that provision in a given case relating to parental responsibility, either the effect of a possible transfer of that case to a court of another Member State on the right of freedom of movement of persons concerned other than the child in question, or the reason why the mother of that child exercised that right, prior to that court being seised, unless those considerations are such that there may be adverse repercussions on the situation of that child.

      (1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.


title: Case T-520/15 P: Appeal brought on 7 September 2015 by Filip Mikulik against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 25 June 2015 in Case F-67/14, Mikulik v Council

text:
               26.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 354/51

         Appeal brought on 7 September 2015 by Filip Mikulik against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 25 June 2015 in Case F-67/14, Mikulik v Council
   (Case T-520/15 P)
   (2015/C 354/62)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Filip Mikulik (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of 25 June 2015 in Case F-67/14, Filip Mikulik v Council of the European Union and itself give judgment in the matter;

               —

               in the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal and the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on eight pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an infringement of EU law and of overarching principles of law such as the principle of good administration and principle of equal treatment, in so far as the General instructions on the preparation of staff reports, concerning the general implementing provisions on reports, are not applicable by analogy to the procedure for appraising the performance of a probationary official at the time of his establishment.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a distortion of the facts and of the evidence, as the Civil Service Tribunal (‘the CST’) considered that the third company whose consultant was involved in the process of evaluating the official had not seen his position consolidate within the Council.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of EU law and in particular of the case-law concerning Article 34 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) and of the duty of care, as the CST found that the probationary period and the appraisal had taken place under normal conditions, although the applicant had been supervised and evaluated by external consultants and did not have the benefit of mentoring.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of equal treatment, in so far as the Council did not apply in the present case the rules concerning mentoring set out in the internal guidelines.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging a distortion of the facts and of the evidence, as the CST considered that mentoring and micromanagement were not two separate concepts on the basis of the internal guidelines.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging an infringement of EU law and in particular of Article 34 of the Staff Regulations, as the CST found that the failure to send the first opinion to the line management was not contrary to that article.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging a distortion of the facts and of the evidence, as the CST did not check if the opinion of the Reports Committee had been communicated to the line management on time.

               8.

               Eighth plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 34 of the Staff Regulations, as the CST found that it could not assume the role of the institution in the appraisal of the applicant’s performance.


title: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 May 2001 in Case C-345/00 P: Fédération Nationale d'Agriculture Biologique des Régions de France (FNAB) and Others v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Regulation (EEC) No 1804/1999 — Prohibition of using indications suggesting an organic method of production in the labelling and advertising of products not obtained by that production method — Temporary derogation for existing trade-marks — Application for annulment — Inadmissible — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

text:
14.7.2001                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 200/37
An action for rescission of a contract for the sale of land and            Articles I and XIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
consequential damages is not within the scope of the rules on exclusive    1994, in Annex 1A to the Agreement establishing the World Trade
jurisdiction in proceedings which have as their object rights in rem       Organisation, approved on behalf of the European Community, as
in immovable property under Article 16(1) of the Convention of             regards matters within its competence, by Council Decision
27 September 1968 between the Member States of the European                94/800/EC of 22 December 1994, are not such as to create rights
Economic Community on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judg-            which individuals may rely on directly before a national court in order
ments in civil and commercial matters, as amended by the Convention        to oppose the application of the second subparagraph of Article
of 9 October 1978 on the accession of the Kingdom of Denmark,              18(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February
Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern               1993 on the common organisation of the market in bananas, as
Ireland and by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the accession          amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1637/98 of 20 July 1998.
of the Hellenic Republic.
(1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000                                                    (1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999
                     ORDER OF THE COURT
                            of 2 May 2001
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
in Case C-307/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Finanzgericht Hamburg, Germany): OGT Fruchthand-                                                (Fifth Chamber)
elsgesellschaft mbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-St. Ann-
                                 en (1)
                                                                                of 10 May 2001
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Bananas —
Common organisation of the market — GATT — Direct
effect — First paragraph of Article 234 of the EC Treaty                   in Case C-345/00 P: Fédération Nationale d’Agriculture
 (now, after amendment, first paragraph of Article 307 EC))                Biologique des Régions de France (FNAB) and Others v
                                                                                Council of the European Union (1)
                           (2001/C 200/67)
                                                                           (Appeal — Regulation (EEC) No 1804/1999 — Prohibition
                                                                           of using indications suggesting an organic method of pro-
                   (Language of the case: German)                          duction in the labelling and advertising of products not
                                                                           obtained by that production method — Temporary dero-
                                                                           gation for existing trade-marks — Application for annul-
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published        ment — Inadmissible — Appeal manifestly unfounded)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (2001/C 200/68)
In Case C-307/99: reference to the Court under Article 234
EC from the Finanzgericht (Finance Court) Hamburg for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between OGT Fruchthandelsgesellschaft mbH and                                            (Language of the case: French)
Hauptzollamt Hamburg-St. Annen — on the interpretation of
Articles I and XIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade 1994, in Annex 1A to the Agreement establishing the
World Trade Organisation, approved on behalf of the Euro-                  (Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published
pean Community, as regards matters within its competence,                                 in the Reports of Cases before the Court)
by Council Decision 94/800/EC of 22 December 1994 (OJ
1994 L 336, p. 1) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez
Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet and            In Case C-345/00 P Fédération Nationale d’Agriculture Biolo-
V. Skouris (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward,                        gique des Régions de France (FNAB), established in Paris,
J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur),           France, Syndicat Européen des Transformateurs et Distrib-
F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and              uteurs de Produits de l’Agriculture Biologique (SETRAB),
C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General;                   established in Paris, France, Est Distribution Biogam Sàrl,
R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 2 May 2001, in                   established in Château-Salins, France, represented by the
which it has ruled:                                                        lawyer D. Leermakers and C. Hatton, Solicitor, with an address
 ---pagebreak--- C 200/38                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       14.7.2001
for service in Luxembourg — appeal against the order of the                (3) In the assessment of the distinctive character of a specific
Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third                        colour as a trade mark, must account be taken of whether,
Chamber) of 11 July 2000 in Case T-268/99 Fédération                              with regard to that colour, there is a general interest in
Nationale d’Agriculture Biologique des Régions de France and                      availability, such as can exist in respect of signs which
Others v Council [1999] ECR II-2893, seeking to have that                         denote a geographical origin?
order set aside, the other party to the proceedings being
Council of the European Union (Agents F. Anton and                         (4) When considering the question whether a sign, for which
J. Monteiro), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of A. La                        registration as a trade mark is sought, possesses the
Pergola, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, D.A.O. Edward                     distinctive character referred to at the beginning of Article
(Rapporteur), S. von Bahr and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges,                          3(1) and in Article 3(1)(b) of the Directive, must the BMB
Advocate General: C. Stix-Hackl, R. Grass, Registrar, made an                     confine itself to an assessment in abstracto of distinctive
order on 10 May 2001, the operative part of which is as                           character or must it take account of all the actual facts of
follows:                                                                          the case, including the use made of the sign and the
                                                                                manner in which the sign is used?
1.   The appeal is dismissed.
2.   It is unnecessary to give a decision on the applications for leave
     to intervene.                                                         (1) OJ L 40 of 11.2.1989, p. 1.
3.   Fédération Nationale d’Agriculture Biologique des Régions de
     France (FNAB), Syndicat Européen des Transformateurs et
     Distributeurs de Produits de l’Agriculture Biologique (SETRAB)
     and Est Distribution Biogam Sàrl are to pay the costs.
4.   CLESA SA, Danone SA and Compagnie Gervais Danone SA
     are to bear their own costs.
(1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.
                                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-
                                                                           richtshof by order of 29 March 2001 of that court in
                                                                           the case of Cookies World Vertriebsges. m.b.H. i.L. v
                                                                                Finanzlandesdirektion fur Tirol
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad,
Netherlands, by order of that court of 23 February 2001                                              (Case C-155/01)
in the case of Libertel Groep B.V. against Benelux-
                          Merkenbureau
                                                                                (2001/C 200/70)
                         (Case C-104/01)
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                         (2001/C 200/69)                                   European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichtsh-
                                                                           of (Higher Administrative Court) of 29 March 2001, received
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     at the Court Registry on 11 April 2001, for a preliminary
European Communities by order of the Hoge Raad (High                       ruling in the case of Cookies World Vertriebsges. m.b.H. i.L. v
Court), Netherlands, of 23 February 2001, received at the                  Finanzlandesdirektion fur Tirol on the following question:
Court Registry on 5 March 2001, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Libertel Groep B.V. against Benelux-Merkenbureau
on the following questions:                                                Is it compatible with the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC
(1) Is it possible for a single specific colour which is                   of 17 May 1977 (1) on the harmonisation of the laws of the
     represented as such or is designated by an internationally            Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system
     applied body of rules to acquire a distinctive character for          of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, in particular
     certain goods or services within the meaning of the                   Articles 5 and 6 thereof, for a Member State to treat the
     opening words of Article 3(1) and of Article 3(b) of                  following event as a taxable transaction: the incurring of
     Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 (1)?                 expenditure relating to services supplied abroad that, if they
                                                                           had been supplied within the national territory to the trader,
(2) If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative:             would not entitle the trader to a deduction of input tax?
     (a)    in what circumstances may it be accepted that a
            single specific colour possesses a distinctive charac-
            ter in the sense used above?                                   (1) OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.
     (b) does it make any difference if registration is sought
            for a wide range of goods and/or services, rather
            than for a specific product or service, or category of
            goods or services respectively?