title: Case T-92/07 P: Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 May 2008 — Frankin and Others v Commission (Appeal — Civil Service — Officials and members of the temporary staff — Pension — Transfer of pension rights — Appeal manifestly inadmissible — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/36

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 May 2008 — Frankin and Others v Commission
   (Case T-92/07 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil Service - Officials and members of the temporary staff - Pension - Transfer of pension rights - Appeal manifestly inadmissible - Appeal manifestly unfounded)
   (2008/C 171/66)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellants: Jacques Frankin (Sorée, Belgium) and the 482 other officials and members of the temporary staff of the Commission of the European Communities whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and D. Martin, agents)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 16 January 2007 in Frankin and Others v Commission (Case F-3/06, not yet published in the ECR) seeking the annulment of that judgment.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed;

               2.

               Mr Jacques Frankin and the 482 other officials and members of the temporary staff of the Commission whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment shall bear their own costs and the costs incurred by the Commission in the context of the present instance.

      (1)  OJ C 117 of 26.5.2007.


title: Case T-232/08: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2011 — Luxembourg v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — Expenses excluded from Community financing — Rural development measures — ‘Less favoured areas’ and ‘agroenvironment’ — National systems for management, monitoring and sanctions — Flat-rate financial correction)

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2011 — Luxembourg v Commission
   (Case T-232/08) (1)

   (EAGGF - Guarantee Section - Expenses excluded from Community financing - Rural development measures - ‘Less favoured areas’ and ‘agroenvironment’ - National systems for management, monitoring and sanctions - Flat-rate financial correction)
   2012/C 32/32
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: F. Probst, Agent, assisted by M. Theisen and K. Spitz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially T. van Rijn, subsequently F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and F. Jimeno Fernández, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2008/321/EC of 8 April 2008 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) (OJ 2008 L 109, p. 35).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 15.8.2008.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 January 2005 in Case C-356/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof): Elisabeth Mayer v Versorgungsanstalt des Bundes und der Länder (Equal treatment for men and women — Maternity leave — Acquisition of pension rights)

text:
               5.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 57/11

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 13 January 2005
   in Case C-356/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof): Elisabeth Mayer v Versorgungsanstalt des Bundes und der Länder (1)

   (Equal treatment for men and women - Maternity leave - Acquisition of pension rights)
   (2005/C 57/20)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-356/03: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany), made by decision of 9 July 2003, received at the Court on 18 August 2003, in the proceedings between Elisabeth Mayer and Versorgungsanstalt des Bundes und der Länder – the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), K. Schiemann and E. Juhász, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 January 2005, in which it has ruled:
   Article 6(1)(g) of Council Directive 86/378/EEC of 24 July 1986 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in occupational social security schemes, as amended by Council Directive 96/97/EC of 20 December 1996, must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes national rules under which a worker acquires no rights to an insurance annuity which is part of a supplementary occupational pension scheme during statutory maternity leave paid in part by her employer because the acquisition of those rights is conditional upon the worker's receiving taxable pay during the maternity leave.

      (1)  OJ C 264 of 01.11.2003.


               25.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 334/33

         Action brought on 17 July 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
   (Case E-14/14)
   (2014/C 334/14)
   An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 17 July 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Markus Schneider and Janne Tysnes Kaasin, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               Declare that by failing to adopt, and/or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith of, all the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 1a of Chapter XXIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2009/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 on the safety of toys), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by way of Protocol 1 and by Joint Committee Decision No. 127/2012 thereto, within the time prescribed, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement.

               2.

               Order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.

      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than 5 May 2014, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 5 March 2014 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Directive 2009/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 on the safety of toys (‘the Act’), as referred to at point 1a of Chapter XXIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 54 of the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to adopt, and/or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority of, all the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.


title: Case C-168/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil Constitutionnel (France) lodged on 4 April 2013 — Jeremy F. v Premier ministre

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/24

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil Constitutionnel (France) lodged on 4 April 2013 — Jeremy F. v Premier ministre
   (Case C-168/13)
   2013/C 156/38
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil Constitutionnel

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Jeremy F.

      Defendant: Premier ministre

      Question referred

   Must Articles 27 and 28 of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (1) be interpreted as precluding the Member States from providing for an appeal suspending execution of the decision of the judicial authority which rules, within a period of 30 days from receipt of the request, in order either to consent to the prosecution, sentencing or detention of a person with a view to the carrying out of a custodial sentence or detention order for an offence committed prior to his surrender pursuant to a European arrest warrant, other than that for which he was surrendered, or to consent to the surrender of a person to a Member State other than the executing Member State pursuant to a European arrest warrant issued for an offence committed prior to his surrender?

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1.


title: Case T-32/02: Action brought on 14 February 2002 by José Cuenda Guĳarro against the Council of the European Union

text:
4.5.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 109/55
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:            The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     Annul the defendant’s decision of 11 June 2001 to reset            —     annul the decisions taken by the Commission in relation
      at zero the applicant’s tally of promotion points after his              to commencing proceedings before the United States
      promotion in 2000;                                                       District Court for the Eastern District of New York, with
                                                                               Docket Number CV-02-0164, on 9 January 2002, in the
                                                                               name of the European Community against the applicants;
—     Order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                         —     order that the Commission pay the costs of the present
                                                                               proceedings, including those of the applicants and any
                                                                               intervening parties.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant objects to the decision of the European Parlia-
ment to reset at zero the applicant’s stock of promotion points
following his promotion in 2000, thereby preventing the
                                                                         The applicants are the defendants in legal proceedings brought
applicant from carrying over to his new grade the promotion
                                                                         by the European Commission before a United States Court, in
points that he acquired over and above the relevant threshold
                                                                         which it is seeking damages in respect of allegedly unpaid
for promotion.
                                                                         customs duties and VAT, and relief in respect to other
                                                                         economic and non-economic injuries arising therefrom. The
                                                                         payment of these customs duties and VAT has allegedly been
The resetting at zero is the result of a transitional scheme prior       avoided by the smuggling of cigarettes into the European
to the implementation of a new promotion system in the                   Union. This is the third time that the European Commission
European Parliament. Under that transitional scheme the tally            has commenced such proceedings (1). In the current proceed-
of promotion points is automatically reset at zero following             ings, the Commission is also acting as agent for Member States
a promotion, whereas the definitive scheme provides that                 in the recovery of these taxes allegedly owed to them.
promotion points acquired over and above the relevant
threshold are carried over to the new grade.
                                                                         The grounds and arguments are similar to those arising in Case
                                                                         T-260/01 (2).
According to the applicant, the contested decision infringes
Article 45 of the Staff Regulations as well as the principle
prohibiting discrimination.                                              (1) The decision to commence the first proceedings is being contested
                                                                             in Case T-379/00 (OJ C 79 of 10..3.2001) and the decision to
                                                                             commence the second proceedings in Cases T-260/01 and
                                                                             T-272/01 (OJ C 3 of 5.1.2002, p. 39 and p. 45).
                                                                         (2) OJ C 3 of 5.1.2002, p. 39.
Action brought on 15 February 2002 by Japan Tobacco,
Inc. and JT International S.A. against the Commission of
                 the European Communities                                Action brought on 14 February 2002 by José Cuenda
                                                                             Guijarro against the Council of the European Union
                         (Case T-31/02)
                                                                                (Case T-32/02)
                       (2002/C 109/106)
                                                                                (2002/C 109/107)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               An action against the Council of the European Union was
European Communities on 15 February 2002 by Japan                        brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Tobacco, Inc. and JT International S.A., represented by                  Communities on 14 February 2002 by José Cuenda Guijarro,
Mr Onno W. Brouwer and Mr Paul Lomas of Freshfields                      residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis, lawyer,
Bruckhaus Deringer, London (United Kingdom).                             with an address for service in Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 109/56               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         4.5.2002
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Pleas in law and main arguments
—     annul the Council’s decision refusing to allow the appli-
      cant access to his medical file;
—     order the Council to pay the costs.
                                                                         The applicant contests the above-mentioned Decision in which
                                                                         the Commission found that the applicant and five other
                                                                         undertakings had infringed the provisions of Article 81(1) of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          the Treaty and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement by
                                                                         participating in continuing agreement and/or concerted prac-
                                                                         tices in the zinc phosphate sector. A fine of EUR 3.37 million
According to the applicant, the documents contained in                   was imposed on the applicant following a reduction of 10 %
an official’s medical file are directly connected with his               of the fine pursuant to Section D(2) of the Leniency Notice.
administrative and legal situation and must therefore be
included in his personal file, whilst observing the guarantees
provided for in Article 26 of the Staff Regulations, in particular
the right of access to those documents. The applicant disputes
the assertion that the possibility of consulting his medical file
through the intermediary of his doctor constitutes adequate              The applicant submits that the Commission infringed
access to the documents or a necessary measure in accordance             Article 15(2) of Regulation No. 17/62 by referring in the
with the principle of medical confidentiality. He maintains that         Decision to the applicant’s turnover for the business year
he must be given the chance to consult in person any                     ending 30 June 1996 when applying the limit fixed at 10 % of
document in his medical file.                                            turnover, instead of referring to its business year preceding the
                                                                         adoption of the Decision, and by thus determining that a fine
                                                                         of EUR 3.75 million did not exceed the upper limit of the fine
                                                                         that could be imposed. By referring to a business year
                                                                         other than the business year preceding the Decision for the
                                                                         mentioned calculation, the Commission departed from its
                                                                         previous practice and thus infringed the general principle of
Action brought on 21 February 2002 by Britannia Alloys                   equal treatment.
and Chemicals Limited against the Commission of the
                    European Communities
                          (Case T-33/02)
                                                                         The applicant alleges that by referring to the last entire year of
                                                                         ‘normal economic activity’ instead of the business year preced-
                        (2002/C 109/108)                                 ing the Decision, the Decision discriminated between undertak-
                                                                         ings in essentially the same situation and thus breached the
                   (Language of the case: English)                       general principle of equal treatment. It also breached the
                                                                         general principle of proportionality by imposing a fine on the
                                                                         applicant which does not reflect the applicant’s financial
                                                                         standing at the time of the Decision.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 21 February 2002 by Britannia
Alloys and Chemicals Limited, represented by Ms Samantha
Mobley and Ms Helen Bardell of Baker & McKenzie, London
(United Kingdom).                                                        Furthermore, the applicant submits that, insofar as the
                                                                         Decision relates to the applicant, the Commission infringed
                                                                         the general principle of legal certainty by referring to a business
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              year other than the financial year preceding the Decision for
                                                                         the purposes of calculating the limit fixed at 10 % of turnover.
—     annul Article 3 of the Commission Decision of 12 Decem-            Such a way of proceeding makes it impossible for undertakings
      ber 2001 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the          to predict the way in which penalties might be imposed on
      EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case                them with sufficient certainty. In accordance with the above-
      COMP/E-1/37.027 — Zinc Phosphate) insofar as it                    mentioned principle, Article 15(2) of Regulation No. 17/62
      pertains to the applicant;                                         must be interpreted strictly so that the 10 % limit is always
                                                                         applied to the business year immediately prior to the adoption
—     in the alternative, modify Article 3 of the Decision insofar       of the Decision.
      as it pertains to the applicant, so as to annul or
      substantially reduce the fine imposed on the applicant
      therein; and
—     order the Commission to pay all the costs of the
      proceedings.


title: Case T-264/15: Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2017 — Gameart v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to a procedure for failure to fulfil obligations — Documents drawn up by a Member State — Request for access to documents made to the Member State — Request forwarded to the Commission — Refusal of access — Competence of the Commission — Document originating from an institution — Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001)

text:
               19.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2017 — Gameart v Commission
   (Case T-264/15) (1)

   ((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to a procedure for failure to fulfil obligations - Documents drawn up by a Member State - Request for access to documents made to the Member State - Request forwarded to the Commission - Refusal of access - Competence of the Commission - Document originating from an institution - Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001))
   (2017/C 195/24)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Gameart sp. z o.o. (Bielsko-Biała, Poland) (represented by: P. Hoffman, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux, A. Buchet and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, M. Kamejsza and M. Pawlicka, acting as Agents), European Parliament (represented by: D. Warin and A. Pospíšilová Padowska, acting as Agents) and Council of the European Union (represented initially by J.-B. Laignelot, K. Pleśniak and E. Rebasti, and subsequently by J.-B. Laignelot and E. Rebasti, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the Commission of 18 February 2015 in so far as it refused the request for access to documents drawn up by the Republic of Poland, a request which was forwarded to it by the Republic of Poland on the basis of the second paragraph of Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 18 February 2015 in so far as it refused a request for access to documents drawn up by the Republic of Poland, a request which was forwarded to it by the Republic of Poland on the basis of the second paragraph of Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Republic of Poland, the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 254, 3.8.2015.


title: Case T-163/05: Action brought on 27 April 2005 by Bundesverband deutscher Banken e.V. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               25.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/28

         Action brought on 27 April 2005 by Bundesverband deutscher Banken e.V. against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-163/05)
   (2005/C 155/54)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 27 April 2005 by Bundesverband deutscher Banken e.V. (Federal Association of German Banks) Berlin, represented by H.-J. Niemeyer and K.-S. Scholz, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision C(2004) 3931 fin. COR — Landesbank Hessen — Thüringen — Girozentrale of 20 October 2004;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant objects to Commission Decision C(2004) 3931 fin. COR of 20 October 2004 concerning an aid measure of the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of Landesbank Hessen — Thüringen — Girozentrale (Helaba). In the contested decision the Commission asserts, inter alia, that the waiver of a ‘reasonable remuneration’ of 0.3 % p.a. in respect of the part of the capital transferred by Land Hessen to Helaba amounts to aid incompatible with the common market.
   The applicant submits that the contested decision infringes Article 87(1) EC since:

               —

               the Commission applied the wrong assessment period for the examination of what remuneration is to be considered as usual in the market and thus incorrectly applied the market-economy capital-investment test;

               —

               the legal and economic classification of the capital investment was erroneous;

               —

               the determination of the relevant capital base to be remunerated was erroneous;

               —

               the Commission incorrectly determined ‘reasonable remuneration’ for the Helaba capital investment.

         The applicant claims in addition that the contested decision should be annulled as it infringes the obligation to state reasons under Article 253 EC. The applicant contends that insufficient reasons were given for deducting Helaba's full refinancing costs on the ground that the capital investment was not liquid. According to the applicant, this deduction of the refinancing costs also infringes Article 87(1) EC.


title: Case C-198/10: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’appello di Milano (Italy)) — Cassina S.p.A v Alivar Srl, Galliani Host Arredamenti Srl (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Industrial and commercial property — Directive 98/71/EC — Legal protection of designs — Article 17 — Obligation concerning the cumulation of design protection with copyright protection — National law precluding copyright protection in the case of designs which entered the public domain before its entry into force)

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/21

      Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’appello di Milano (Italy)) — Cassina S.p.A v Alivar Srl, Galliani Host Arredamenti Srl
      (Case C-198/10) (1)

      (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Industrial and commercial property - Directive 98/71/EC - Legal protection of designs - Article 17 - Obligation concerning the cumulation of design protection with copyright protection - National law precluding copyright protection in the case of designs which entered the public domain before its entry into force)
      (2012/C 25/35)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Corte d’appello di Milano

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Cassina S.p.A

         Defendants: Alivar Srl, Galliani Host Arredamenti Srl

         Re:

      Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte d’appello di Milano — Interpretation of Articles 17 and 19 of Directive 98/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection of designs — National legislation which transposed the directive into national law by introducing copyright protection for designs — Right of a Member State to extend the conditions for the grant of such protection

         Operative part of the order

      Article 17 of Directive 98/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection of designs, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which either excludes, either completely or within the limits of prior use, from protection by the law of copyright of that Member State designs which have entered the public domain before the entry into force of that legislation, with regard to all third parties who have previously manufactured or marketed in the national territory products based on those designs before that date.

         (1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.


title: Case T-453/08: Action brought on 3 October 2008 — Timsas v Commission

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/59

         Action brought on 3 October 2008 — Timsas v Commission
   (Case T-453/08)
   (2008/C 301/97)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Timsas Srl (Arezzo, Italy) (represented by: D. Dodaro, S. Pinna and S. Cianciullo, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Forms of order sought

               —

               Annul the Decision in so far as it:

                           (a)

                           states that ‘[t]he [S]tate aid granted in accordance with Regional Act No 9 of 1998, unlawfully put into effect by Italy in Resolution (deliberazione) No 33/6 and in the first call for applications, is incompatible with the common market unless the recipient of the aid submitted an application for aid under the scheme before starting work on an initial investment project’ (Article 1 of the Decision);

                           (b)

                           orders that ‘[t]he Italian Republic shall recover the incompatible aid granted under the scheme referred to in Article 1 from the recipients’ (Article 2(1) of the Decision);

                           (c)

                           orders that ‘[t]he The Italian Republic shall cancel all outstanding payments of aid under the scheme referred to in Article 1 with effect from the date of adoption of this Decision’ (Article 2(4) of the Decision).

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The contested decision in the present case is the same as that at issue in Case T-394/08 Regione Sardegna v Commission, Case T-408/08 S.F. Turistico Immobiliare v Council and Commission and Case T-436/08 Studio Vacanze v Commission.
   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in those cases.


title: Case F-38/13: Action brought on 26 April 2013 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/59

         Action brought on 26 April 2013 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-38/13)
   2013/C 207/101
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, J.-N. Louis and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision to calculate the applicant’s accredited pension rights, acquired before he took up his post, on the basis of the new General Implementing Provisions.

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare unlawful Article 9 of the General Implementing Provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations;

               —

               annul the decision of 18 June 2012 to calculate accredited pension rights acquired by the applicant before he took up his post, in connection with the transfer of those rights into the pension scheme of the institutions of the European Union, on the basis of the General Implementing Provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


               9.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 186/61

         Action brought on 4 April 2007 by Private Barnehagers Landsforbund against the EFTA Surveillance Authority
   (Case E-5/07)
   (2007/C 186/10)
   An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 4 April 2007 by Private Barnehagers Landsforbund, represented by Peter Dyrberg and Ingvald Falch, Advokatfirmaet Schjødt, Dronning Mauds gt 11, Oslo, Norway.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul the decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority No 39/07/COL of 27 February 2007 on public financing of municipal day-care institutions in Norway; and

               2.

               order the EFTA Surveillance Authority to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The applicant is the association of private kindergartens in Norway,

               —

               The applicant contends that Norway's system for the funding of kindergartens entails State aid which is incompatible with the EEA Agreement,

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority's Decision No 39/07/COL of 27 February 2007 declared that the system at issue did not entail such State aid, arguing first that kindergartens cannot be considered as undertakings, and second that the measure did not have an effect on cross-border trade. Moreover, in case aid should be involved, the EFTA Surveillance Authority found that it would be compatible with the EEA Agreement under Article 59(2) of the Agreement;

               —

               The applicant claims that the EFTA Surveillance Authority:

                           —

                           violated its obligation to initiate formal investigation proceedings,

                           —

                           wrongfully interpreted and applied Articles 59(2) and 61(1) EEA,

                           —

                           violated Article 16 SCA on the obligation to state reasons for a decision, and principles of good administration, in particular the obligation to conduct an impartial and diligent examination of the case.


title: Case T-340/08 P: Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 June 2009 — Timmer v Court of Auditors (Appeal — Staff cases — Officials — Staff reporting — New and substantial facts — Appeal manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly unfounded in part)

text:
               26.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 233/17

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 June 2009 — Timmer v Court of Auditors
   (Case T-340/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Staff cases - Officials - Staff reporting - New and substantial facts - Appeal manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly unfounded in part)
   2009/C 233/30
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Marianne Timmer (Saint-Sauves-d’Auvergne, France) (represented by: F. Rollinger, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Court of Auditors of the European Communities (represented by: T. Kennedy, J.-M. Steiner and G. Corstens, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 5 June 2008 in Case F-123/06 Timmer v Court of Auditors, not yet published in the ECR, and seeking annulment of that order.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Ms Marianne Timmer is ordered to bear her own costs and to pay those of the Court of Auditors of the European Communities in the present proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 285, 8.11.2008.


title: Case C-365/00: Action brought on 2 October 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
9.12.2000                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 355/11
Must the prohibition of discrimination in the first paragraph             Action brought on 2 October 2000 by the Commission
of Article 12 EC be applied in cases where a foreign author               of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
had already died when the Treaty entered into force in the
State of which he was a national, if otherwise the consequence,
under national law, would be unequal treatment as regards the
term of protection of the foreign author’s works and of those                                      (Case C-365/00)
of a national author who also died before the entry into force
of the Treaty?
                                                                                (2000/C 355/21)
                                                                          An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                          Court of Justice of the European Communities on 2 October
                                                                          2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          represented by Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal Adviser,
Action brought on 3 October 2000 by the Commission                        and Roberto Amorosi, Magistrato di Tribunale, on secondment
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the                    to the Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for
                             Netherlands                                  service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Carlos Gómez de
                                                                          la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                           (Case C-364/00)
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                           (2000/C 355/20)
                                                                          —     declare that, by adopting and keeping in force Article 28
An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought                    of Law No 128 of 24 April 1998, which makes it a
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                         requirement that the labels of cosmetic products state
on 3 October 2000 by the Commission of the European                             whether the fragrances or perfume essences contained in
Communities, represented by Th. Van Rijn, Legal Adviser,                        them are of natural or artificial origin, has failed to fulfil
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                   its obligations under Council Directive 76/768/EEC of
the office of C. Gómez de la Cruz, of the Commission’s Legal                   27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of
Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                              the Member States relating to cosmetic products (1), as
                                                                                amended for the sixth time by Council Directive
                                                                                93/35/EEC of 14 June 1993 (2), in particular by the third
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     subparagraph of Article 6(1)(g) of that directive;
—     Declare that, by failing to bring into force within the             —     order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
      prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative
      provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
      97/70/EC (1) of 11 December 1997 setting up a harmon-
      ised safety regime for fishing vessels of 24 metres in
      length and over, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has                 Pleas in law and main arguments
      failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty;
                                                                          The Commission argues that, because the Italian law in
—     Order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.              question prevents the free movement within Italian territory
                                                                          of cosmetic products which carry no indication of whether the
                                                                          fragrances or perfume essences contained in them are of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           natural or artificial origin, that law introduces an additional
                                                                          requirement not contemplated by Directive 76/768/EEC and
                                                                          thus prohibited by it. Furthermore, the Italian authorities
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in               themselves have demonstrated that they are aware of this
Case C-335/00 (2); the period for implementation expired on               matter, albeit that they have shown themselves unable to
1 January 1999.                                                           resolve the problem.
(1) OJ 1998 L 34, pp. 1-29.                                               (1) OJ L 262 of 27.9.1976, p. 169.
(2) OJ C …                                                                (2) OJ L 151 of 23.6.1993, p. 32.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Ufficio del Giudice di Pace, Genoa, by order of that court of 8 August 1995 in the case of Safety Hi-Tech Srl v. S. & T. Srl (Case C-284/95)

text:
No C 268/18              iENl                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      14 . 10 . 95
nothing to prevent the Commission from persisting in its                 ( a ) Is Council Regulation ( EC ) No 3093/94 ( ] ) to be
inaction, perpetuating the failure to act, or at least to give                  interpreted ( given that it must comply with Article 130r
deliberately ambiguous replies.                                                 of the Treaty ) as permitting the free use of halons ( that
                                                                                is, products which have a serious impact on the
The appellant will rely on all the arguments put forward                        environment ), subject only to limitations on their
before the Court of First Instance in the application and in                    production or on their use by producers, and not on
the reply .                                                                     their importation, but as prohibiting absolutely the use
                                                                                ( and hence both the production and the importation ) of
                                                                                HCFCs (that is, of products which have little impact on
                                                                                the environment )        for purposes not stated in
                                                                                Article 5 ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht                ( b) Is not the provision in point in Regulation (EC )
Baden-Wiirttemberg by order of that court of 21 August                          No 3093/94 in substance a measure having equivalent
1995 in the case of Karlheinz Fischer v. Finanzamt                              effect to a quantitative restriction in so far as, in the
                            Donaueschingen                                      absence of any of the grounds of justification under
                           ( Case C-283/95 )                                    Article 36 of the Treaty, it restricts the free movement
                                                                                of a product throughout the Community ?
                              ( 95/C 268/38 )
                                                                         (c ) Does not the conduct of the Community and of its
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          institutions, in adopting Regulation ( EC ) No 3093/94 ,
European Communities by an order of the Finanzgericht                           and particularly at the stages subsequent to its
Baden-Wiirttemberg ( Finance Court of the Land                                  adoption, constitute action of a public-law nature
Baden-Wiirttemberg) of 21 August 1 995 , which was                              designed to reinforce the dominant position of certain
received at the Court Registry on 25 August 1995 , for a                        operators, such action constituting in itself an instance
preliminary ruling in the case of Karlheinz Fischer v.                          of serious abuse for the purposes of Article 86 of the
Finanzamt Donaueschingen on the following questions :                           Treaty ?
1 . Is Article 2 ( 1 ) of the Sixth Directive ( 1 ) to be interpreted    ( d ) May legislation for the protection of the environment
      as meaning that services which the organizer of unlawful                  — and particularly Regulation ( EC ) No 3093/94 —
      and punishable games of chance provides to the players                    derogate ( be interpreted as derogating ) from the
      are not taxable ?                                                         Community rules on competition ( by thus permitting
                                                                                or facilitating restrictive agreements or the abuse of a
2 . If Question 1 is to be answered in the negative :                           dominant position ) or are the prohibitions under those
                                                                                rules unconditional and not subject to derogation,
      Is Article 11 A ( 1 ) ( a ) of the Sixth Directive to be                  precluding derogations or restrictions, whether
      interpreted as meaning that, in the case of unlawful                      introduced by the Community or by individual
      gaming in the form of roulette, the basis of assessment                   Member States ?
      for the operator's services to the players is the amount
      retained by the operator during a tax period ?                     (') OJ No L 333 , 22. 12 . 1994, p. 1 .
3 . If Question 2 is to be answered in the negative :
      How is the basis of assessment to be determined in cases
      described under Questions 1 and 2 ?
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
( ] ) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 ( OJ             Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin by order of that court of
      No L 145 , p . 1 ).                                                   11 August 1995 in the case of Suat Kol v. Land Berlin
                                                                                ( Case C-285/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 268/40 )
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Ufficio del                  European Communities by order of the Eighth Chamber of
Giudice di Pace, Genoa, by order of that court of 8 August              the Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin ( Higher Administrative
     1995 in the case of Safety Hi-Tech Sri v. S> &c T. Sri              Court, Berlin ) of 1 1 August 1995 , which was received at the
                             Case C-284/95 )                             Court Registry on 28 August 1 995, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                         in the case of Suat Kol v . Land Berlin on the following
                             ( 95/C 268/39 )                             questions :
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   1 . Are periods of employment spent in a Member State by a
European Communities by an order of the Ufficio del                            Turkish worker on the basis of a residence permit
Giudice di Pace ( Magistrate's Office ), Genoa , of 8 August                   obtained by wilful and criminal deceit to be recognized
1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on                             as legal employment within the meaning of Article 6(1 )
28 August 1 995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Safety               of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Council of
Hi-Tech Sri v. S. & T. Sri on the following questions :                        Association ?


title: Case C-410/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Giessen (Germany) lodged on 3 September 2007 — Olaf Amadeus Wilhelm Happel v Wetteraukreis

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Giessen (Germany) lodged on 3 September 2007 — Olaf Amadeus Wilhelm Happel v Wetteraukreis
   (Case C-410/07)
   (2007/C 283/27)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgericht Giessen
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Olaf Amadeus Wilhelm Happel

      Defendant: Wetteraukreis
   Questions referred

               1.

               Are Articles 43 and 49 EC to be interpreted as precluding a national monopoly on certain gaming, such as sports betting, where there is no consistent and systematic policy to limit gaming in the Member State concerned as a whole, in particular because the operators which have been granted a licence within that Member State encourage participation in other gaming — such as State-run lotteries and casino games — and, moreover, other games with the same or a higher suspected potential danger of addiction — such as betting on certain sporting events (e.g. horse racing) and slot machines — may be provided by private service providers?

               2.

               Are Articles 43 and 49 EC to be interpreted as meaning that authorisations to operate sports betting, granted by State bodies specifically designated for that purpose by the Member States, which are not restricted to the particular national territory, entitle the holder of the authorisation and third parties appointed by it to make and implement offers to conclude contracts also in other Member States without any additional national authorisations being required?


title: Action brought on 17 January 1997 by Unifrigo Gadus Srl against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-10/97)

text:
22 . 3 . 97            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 94/19
Action brought on 17 January 1997 by Unifrigo Gadus Sri               applicant to pay the outstanding duties. The defendant, in
   against the Commission of the European Communities                 turn, adopted the contested decision pursuant to the
                          (Case T-10/97)                              procedure referred to in Article 5 (2 ) of Council
                                                                      Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 of 24 July 1979 on the
                           ( 97/C 94/40 )
                                                                      post-clearance recovery of import duties or export duties
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                      which have not been required of the person liable for
                                                                      payment on goods entered for a customs procedure
An action against the Commission of the European                      involving the obligation to pay such duties (2 ).
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 17 January                    The applicant first of all submits that no reasons
1997 by Unifrigo Gadus Sri, having its registered office in           whatsoever are given for the alleged invalidity of the
Naples (Italy), represented by Giuseppe Celona, of the                EUR 1 certificates, in so far as the decision overlooks the
Milan Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at               fact that the Norwegian Court of Cassation has set aside
the Chambers of Georges Margue, 20 rue Philippe II.                   the decision imposing liability precisely on the issue of the
                                                                      origin of the goods, and has confirmed only that the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           health-inspection certificates were invalid.
primarily:                                                            Second, the applicant considers that, by excluding the
                                                                      possibility that an error on the part of the customs
— declare the application admissible in as much as it                 authorities can ever affect the validity of the certificate of
     seeks the annulment of a decision that adversely                 origin, in as much as the risk relating to such validity
     affects the applicant directly and individually,                 always falls to be borne by the importer, constituting, as it
                                                                      does, part of the commercial risk, the Commission is
— annul Commission Decision No C(96 ) 2780 of                         acting contrary to Article 220 (2 ) ( b ) of the Community
     8 October 1996 0 ),                                              Customs Code ( 3 ), which lays down the principle of good
                                                                      faith on the part of the person concerned . There is no
— order the defendant to pay to the applicant all costs
                                                                      exception which excludes an error as to the validity of the
     associated with these proceedings;
                                                                      certificates of origin from the scope of that rule. The
in the alternative :                                                  interpretation which the Commission advocates would
                                                                      reduce the relevant errors to those of carelessness or
— find and declare that the said decision does not affect             calculation .
     the applicant's right not to have to pay the post
     clearance duties in question;                                    Third, the applicant also submits that Commission
                                                                      Regulation ( EEC ) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down
in the further alternative :                                          provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation
                                                                      ( EEC ) No 2913/92 (4 ) is invalid in so far as it confers
— in the event that, for whatever reason, the above                   unlimited power on the Commission to decide on post
     decision should not be annulled, order the                       clearance entry in the accounts of uncollected duties,
     Commission to reimburse the applicant for the entire             setting aside the right on which an importer is entitled to
     amount that the latter will be required to pay in                rely in the case where the conditions laid out in Article 220
     respect of post-clearance duties, penalties and ancillary        ( 2 ) ( b ) of the Customs Code obtain . In this connection,
     charges; in any event, annul the contested decision in           reliance is also placed on the principle of legitimate
     so far as it relates to interest payments .                      expectation and the general principle of fairness.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   (') Unpublished.
                                                                      ( 2 ) OJNoL 197, 3 . 8 . 1979 , p . 1 .
The applicant company, which trades in fish products,                 ( 3 ) Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
contests the defendant's decision finding that it is                        establishing the Community Customs Code ( OJ No L 302,
necessary to effect post-clearance recovery of customs                      19 . 10 . 1992 , p. 1 ).
import duties in the amount of Lit 148 890 000 owing in               (4 ) OJ No L 253 , 11 . 10 . 1993 , p . 1 .
respect of a number of operations in which cod from
Norway was imported through the customs office in
Verona . On presentation of EUR 1 movement certificates
issued by the relevant Norwegian exporting company, the
applicant took advantage, for those import transactions,
of the preferential customs treatment provided for under              Action brought on 17 January 1997 by CPL Imperial 2
Community legislation .                                               Spa against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
The Norwegian customs authorities subsequently informed                                              ( Case T-ll/97)
the Italian authorities that, pursuant to independent                                                   97/C 94/41
investigations, they had ascertained that the Norwegian
exporter had not been in a position to establish that the                                 (Language of the case: Italian)
fish used to produce the cod fillets had originated in
Norway. They accordingly contested the validity of the                An action against the Commission of the European
EUR 1 certificates on which the preferential tariff                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
treatment had been based. Proceeding on the basis of that             Instance of the European Communities on 17 January
notification, the customs office in Verona requested the               1997 by CPL Imperial 2 Spa, having its registered office


title: Case T-152/10: Action brought on 30 March 2010 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/44

         Action brought on 30 March 2010 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM
   (Case T-152/10)
   2010/C 148/73
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: El Corte Inglés SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Rivas Zurdo, M. López Camba and E. Seijo Veiguela, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Azzedine Alaïa (Paris, France)

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM;

               —

               order the party or parties which oppose this action to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘ALIA’ (application No 3 788 999) for goods in Classes 3, 14, 18 and 25.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The French company Azzedine Alaïa.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: International word mark ‘ALAÏA’ (No 773 126) for goods in Classes 3, 18 and 25, Community figurative mark which contains the verbal element ‘ALAÏA’ (No 3 485 166), for goods and services in Classes 16, 20 and 25, and the earlier unregistered mark ‘ALAÏA’ for the manufacture, sale of clothing, articles for women and fashion accessories.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

      Pleas in law: Incorrect interpretation of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark.


title: Case T-339/12: Action brought on 30 July 2012 — Gandia Blasco v OHIM — Sachi Premium — Outdoor Furniture (Armchairs)

text:
               29.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 295/28

         Action brought on 30 July 2012 — Gandia Blasco v OHIM — Sachi Premium — Outdoor Furniture (Armchairs)
   (Case T-339/12)
   2012/C 295/50
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Gandia Blasco, SA (Valencia, Spain) (represented by: I. Sempere Massa, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sachi Premium — Outdoor Furniture, Lda (Estarreja, Portugal)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs) of 25 May 2012 (R 970/2011-3) Declare the contested Community Design No 1512633-0001 invalid; and

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: A design for ‘armchairs, loungers’ — registered Community design No 1512633-0001

      Proprietor of the Community design: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: The applicant

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The applicant requested the invalidation of the RCD based on Articles 4 to 9 of Council Regulation No 6/2002; Community design registration No 52113-0001, for ‘armchairs’

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the application for a declaration of invalidity

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 4 to 9 of Council Regulation No 6/2002


title: Case T-360/17: Action brought on 2 June 2017 — Jana shoes and Others v Commission

text:
               31.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/42

         Action brought on 2 June 2017 — Jana shoes and Others v Commission
   (Case T-360/17)
   (2017/C 249/57)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Jana shoes GmbH & Co. KG (Detmold, Germany), Novi International GmbH & Co. KG (Detmold), shoe.com GmbH & Co. KG (Detmold), Wendel GmbH & Co. KG Schuhproduktionen International (Detmold) and Wortmann KG Internationale Schuhproduktionen (Detmold) (represented by: A. Willems and S. De Knop, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               declare the application admissible;

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/423 of 9 March 2017 re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam and produced by Fujian Viscap Shoes Co. Ltd, Vietnam Ching Luh Shoes Co. Ltd, Vinh Thong Producing-Trading-Service Co. Ltd, Qingdao Tae Kwang Shoes Co. Ltd, Maystar Footwear Co. Ltd, Lien Phat Company Ltd, Qingdao Sewon Shoes Co. Ltd, Panyu Pegasus Footwear Co. Ltd, PanYu Leader Footwear Corporation, Panyu Hsieh Da Rubber Co. Ltd, An Loc Joint Stock Company, Qingdao Changshin Shoes Company Limited, Chang Shin Vietnam Co. Ltd, Samyang Vietnam Co. Ltd, Qingdao Samho Shoes Co. Ltd, Min Yuan, Chau Giang Company Limited, Foshan Shunde Fong Ben Footwear Industrial Co. Ltd and Dongguan Texas Shoes Limited Co. implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 (OJ 2017, L 64, p. 72);

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on five pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that without a valid legal basis, Regulation 2017/423 violates the principle of conferral under Articles (5)(1) and 5(2) TUE and, in any event, the principle of institutional balance under Article 13(2)TEU.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that by failing to take the necessary measures to comply with judgment in joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14, C&J Clark International, Regulation 2017/423 violates Article 266 TFEU.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that by imposing an anti-dumping duty on imports of Footwear ‘which took place during the period of application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 and Council Regulation (EU) 1294/2009’, Regulation 2017/423 violates Article 1(1) and 10(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 (1), and the principle of legal certainty (non-retroactivity).

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that by imposing an anti-dumping duty without conducting a fresh Union interest assessment, Regulation 2017/423 violates Article 21 of Regulation 2016/1036 and that in any event, it is manifestly erroneous to conclude that the imposition of the anti-dumping duty was in the Union interest.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that by adopting an act that exceeds what is necessary to achieve its objective; Regulation 2017/423 violates Article 5(1) and 5(4) TEU.

      (1)  Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ 2016, L 176, p. 21).


title: Case T-120/17: Action brought on 20 February 2017 — M&T Emporia Ilektrikon-Ilektronikon Eidon v. EUIPO (fluo.)

text:
               18.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/46

         Action brought on 20 February 2017 — M&T Emporia Ilektrikon-Ilektronikon Eidon v. EUIPO (fluo.)
   (Case T-120/17)
   (2017/C 121/66)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: M&T Emporia Ilektrikon-Ilektronikon Eidon AE (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: A. Spyridonos, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘fluo’ — Application for registration No 14 664 486

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 December 2016 in Case R 863/2016-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in the part that it has rejected the trade mark in question and allow the trade mark to be registered for all the goods of class 9 of the Nice classification applied for;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the overall costs of the proceedings of all instances.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-201/13: Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — Rubinum v Commission (Public health — Food safety — Additive for use in animal nutrition — Preparation of Bacillus cereus var. toyoi — Commission decision to suspend the authorisations of that preparation — Risk to health — Error of Law — Precautionary principle)

text:
               6.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/9

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — Rubinum v Commission
   (Case T-201/13) (1)

   ((Public health - Food safety - Additive for use in animal nutrition - Preparation of Bacillus cereus var. toyoi - Commission decision to suspend the authorisations of that preparation - Risk to health - Error of Law - Precautionary principle))
   (2015/C 221/12)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Rubinum, SA (Rubí, Spain) (represented by: C. Bittner and P.-C. Scheel, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 288/2013 of 25 March 2013 concerning the suspension of the authorisations of the preparation of Bacillus cereus var. toyoi (NCIMB 40112/CNCM I-1012) as provided for by Regulations (EC) No 256/2002, (EC) No 1453/2004, (EC) No 255/2005, (EC) No 1200/2005, (EC) No 166/2008 and (EC) No 378/2009 (OJ 2013 L 86, p. 15).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Rubinum, SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 164, 8.6.2013.


title: Case F-49/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 12 October 2010 — Wendler v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Retirement pension — Payment of pension — Obligation to open a bank account in country of residence — Freedom to provide services — Plea involving a matter of public policy — Principle of equal treatment)

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/37

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 12 October 2010 — Wendler v Commission
   (Case F-49/09) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Retirement pension - Payment of pension - Obligation to open a bank account in country of residence - Freedom to provide services - Plea involving a matter of public policy - Principle of equal treatment)
   2011/C 13/72
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Eberhard Wendler (Laveno Mombello, Italy) (represented by: M. Müller-Trawinski, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Martin and B. Eggers, agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and K. Zieleśkiewicz, agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the Commission’s request that the applicant designate a bank account in his country of residence for his pension payments.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses Mr Wendler’s action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Wendler to bear his own costs and to pay the costs of the European Commission;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 167 of 18.07.2009, p. 27.


title: Case C-356/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichtshof by order of that Court of 9 July 2003 in the case of Dr Elisabeth Mayer against Versorgungsanstalt des Bundes und der Länder

text:
C 264/18               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        1.11.2003
7.    Does the right of ownership set out in Article 1 of                      the conclusion of the contract were held in a doorstep-
      Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human                        selling situation, as defined in Paragraph 1 of the Gesetz
      Rights (The Rome Convention of 1950) and taken up in                     über den Widerruf von Haustürgeschäften und ähnlichen
      Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the                   Geschäften (Law on the cancellation of doorstep trans-
      European Union proclaimed in Nice in October 2000                        actions and analogous transactions), both as regards the
      also cover intellectual property in the names of the places              contract for the purchase of the immovable property
      of origin of wines and the exploitation of those names,                  and the loan agreement serving solely to finance that
      and, consequently, does the principle expressed by that                  purchase?
      law preclude application of the agreement set out in the
      exchange of letters annexed to the Agreement between                2.   Are the requirements of the rule concerning a high
      the European Community and the Republic of Hungary                       level of protection in the field of consumer protection
      on reciprocal protection and control of wine names (OJ                   (Article 95(3) EC) and the effectiveness of consumer
      1994 L 337), but not included in the body of that                        protection safeguarded by Directive 85/577/EEC satisfied
      agreement, under which wine-producers of the Friuli-                     by a national legal system or the interpretation thereof
      Venezia Giulia region are not permitted to use the name                  which limits merely to the reversal of the loan agreement
      ‘Tocai Friulano’, particularly in view of the total lack of              the legal effects of the revocation of the declaration of
      any compensation to the wine-producers of Friuli-Vene-                   intent to enter into a loan agreement, even in connection
      zia Giulia thus dispossessed, the lack of any general public             with such capital investment models in which the loan
      interest justifying their dispossession and the evident                  would not have been granted at all without the acquisition
      disregard for the principle of proportionality?                          of the immovable property?
8.    In the event that it is held that the Community laws                3.   Is a national rule on the legal effects of cancelling a loan
      contained in the Community Agreement between the                         agreement to the effect that the cancelling consumer
      European Community and the Republic of Hungary on                        must pay back the loan proceeds to the financing bank,
      the protection and control of wine names of 29 Novem-                    even though according to the plan drawn up for the
      ber 1993 (OJ 1993 L 337) and/or the exchange of letters                  capital investment the loan serves solely to finance the
      annexed thereto are unlawful to the extent described in                  immovable property and is paid directly to the vendor of
      the preceding questions, must the provisions of Regu-                    the immovable property, consistent with the protective
      lation (EC) No 753/2002 (2), under which use of the                      purpose of the rule on cancellation laid down in
      name ‘Tocai Friulano’ is to be prohibited after 31 March                 Article 5(2) of Directive 85/577/EEC?
      2007 (Article 19(2)) be regarded as invalid and of no
      effect?                                                             4.   Where a legal effect of cancellation, under national law,
                                                                               results in the consumer being required, after declaring
                                                                               cancellation, immediately to pay back — in accordance
(1) Read: 23 November 1993.                                                    with the plan drawn up for the capital investment — the
(2) OJ L 118 of 4.5.2002, p. 1.                                                loan proceeds which have thus far not been redeemed at
                                                                               all, plus interest thereon at the normal market rate, is this
                                                                               effect contrary to the rule concerning a high level of
                                                                               protection in the field of consumer protection
                                                                               (Article 95(3) EC) and to the principle of the effectiveness
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht                          of consumer protection enshrined in Directive 85/577/
Bochum by order of that Court of 29 July 2003 in the                           EEC?
proceedings between 1. Mrs Elisabeth Schulte, 2. Mr Wolf-
   gang Schulte and Deutsche Bausparkasse Badenia AG                      (1) OJ L 372, p. 31.
                         (Case C-350/03)
                         (2003/C 264/28)
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichts-
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    hof by order of that Court of 9 July 2003 in the case of
European Communities by order of the Landgericht Bochum                   Dr Elisabeth Mayer against Versorgungsanstalt des Bundes
(Bochum Regional Court) of 29 July 2003, received at the                                            und der Länder
Court Registry on 11 August 2003, for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings between 1. Mrs Elisabeth Schulte, 2. Mr Wolf-                                      (Case C-356/03)
gang Schulte and Deutsche Bausparkasse Badenia AG on the
following questions:                                                                               (2003/C 264/29)
1.    Does Article 3(2)(a) of Council Directive 85/577/EEC (1)
      of 20 December 1985 to protect the consumer in respect              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      of contracts negotiated away from business premises also            European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshof
      cover such contracts for the purchase of immovable                  (Federal Court of Justice) of 9 July 2003, received at the Court
      property which must be regarded as merely a component               Registry on 18 August 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the
      of a credit-financed capital investment model and in the            case of Dr Elisabeth Mayer against Versorgungsanstalt des
      case of which the contract negotiations conducted up to             Bundes und der Länder on the following questions:
 ---pagebreak--- 1.11.2003               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 264/19
1.    Do Article 119 of the EC Treaty and/or Article 11(2)(a)                    EC of 7 April 1998 on the protection of the health and
      of Directive 92/85/EEC (1) and Article 6(1)(g) of Directive                safety of workers from the risks related to chemical agents
      86/378/EEC (2), as amended by Directive 96/97/EC (3),                      at work (14th individual Directive within the meaning of
      preclude provisions of statutes governing a supplemen-                     Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (1), the Republic
      tary occupational pension scheme of the kind at issue in                   of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      this case under which an employee, during statutory                        Article 14 of that directive;
      maternity leave (in this case from 16 December 1992 to
      5 April 1993 and from 17 January to 22 April 1994),                  2.    Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the
      acquires no deferred rights to an insurance annuity which,                 proceedings.
      in the event of her early departure from the compulsory
      insurance scheme, may be claimed monthly from the time
      the insurance contingency (pensionable age, occupational
      disability or invalidity) materialises, because the accrual of
      such rights is conditional upon the employee’s receiving             Pleas in law and main arguments
      taxable pay during the relevant period, but the benefits
      paid to her during maternity leave do not constitute
      taxable pay under the provisions of national law?                    The period for transposition expired on 5 May 2001.
2.    Is this the case in particular if account is taken of the fact
                                                                           (1) OJ 1998 L 131, p. 11.
      that the insurance annuity is not — like the occupational
      pension which would be paid if the insurance contingency
      materialised whilst she was still in the compulsory
      pension scheme — intended to cover the employee in
      old age or in the event of invalidity but to reimburse the
      contributions made in respect of her during the period of
      compulsory insurance?
                                                                           Action brought on 19 August 2003 by the Commission
(1) OJ L 348 [1992], p. 1.                                                 of the European Communities against the Republic of
(2) OJ L 225 [1986], p. 40.                                                                              Austria
(3) OJ L 46 [1997], p. 20.
                                                                                (Case C-358/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 264/31)
Action brought on 19 August 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Republic of                        An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
                               Austria                                     before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                           on 19 August 2003 by the Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities, represented by Denis Martin, Member of the
                          (Case C-357/03)                                  Legal Service of the European Commission, and Horstpeter
                                                                           Kreppel, seconded to the Commission’s Legal Service within
                         (2003/C 264/30)                                   the framework of an exchange with national officials, with an
                                                                           address for service in Luxembourg.
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 19 August 2003 by the Commission of the European                        1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt or at any rate to
Communities, represented by Denis Martin, Member of the                          notify the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
Legal Service of the European Commission, and Horstpeter                         necessary fully to comply with Council Directive 90/269/
Kreppel, seconded to the Commission’s Legal Service within                       EEC of 29 May 1990 on the minimum health and safety
the framework of an exchange with national officials, with an                    requirements for the manual handling of loads where
address for service in Luxembourg.                                               there is a risk particularly of back injury to workers
                                                                                (fourth individual Directive within the meaning of
                                                                                Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (1), the Republic
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                      of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9
                                                                                of that directive;
1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt or at any rate to
      notify the laws, regulations and administrative provisions           2.    Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the
      necessary fully to comply with Council Directive 98/24/                    proceedings.


title: Case T-221/08: Action brought on 6 June 2008 — Strack v Commission

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/45

         Action brought on 6 June 2008 — Strack v Commission
   (Case T-221/08)
   (2008/C 223/79)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Guido Strack (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decisions, particularly the decision of 19 May 2008, adopted by the Commission — either actually or in the form of a deemed refusal under Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — in the context of the processing of the applicant's application for access to documents of 18 January 2008 and 19 January 2008 and his confirmatory application of 22 February 2008, 18 April 2008 and, in particular, 21 April 2008, in so far as they refuse those applications either in part or in full;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the applicant compensation for the immaterial and moral damage suffered by the applicant as a result of the processing of his application, of an appropriate amount, but at least symbolic damages in the amount of 1 Euro;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs of the procedure

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   On 18 and 19 January 2008, the applicant applied to the Commission for access to numerous documents. The applicant brings the present application because he was not granted access to those documents, at least partly, within the period provided for.
   In support of his application, the applicant submits, in particular, that the defendant infringed Article 255 EC as well as Regulation No 1049/2001 (1). In addition, the applicant claims that there has been an infringement of the principles of good administration, Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the principles governing the obligation to state reasons for refusal decisions laid down in Article 253 EC.

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


title: Case T-69/06 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 2 August 2006 — Aughinish Alumina Ltd v Commission (Application for interim measures — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — State aid — Urgency)

text:
               14.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/10

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 2 August 2006 — Aughinish Alumina Ltd v Commission
   (Case T-69/06 R)
   (Application for interim measures - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - State aid - Urgency)
   (2006/C 249/27)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Aughinish Alumina Ltd (Askeaton, Ireland) (represented by: J. Handoll and C. Waterson, solicitors)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Khan and K. Walkerová, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for suspension of the operation of Commission Decision 2006/323/EC of 7 December 2005 concerning the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Gardanne, in the Shannon region and in Sardinia, respectively implemented by France, Ireland and Italy (OJ 2006 L 119, p. 12) in so far as it relates to the applicant
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case T-570/08: Order of the General Court of 14 July 2010 — Deutsche Post v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Information injunction — Non-actionable measure — Inadmissibility)

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/35

         Order of the General Court of 14 July 2010 — Deutsche Post v Commission
   (Case T-570/08) (1)

   (Action for annulment - State aid - Information injunction - Non-actionable measure - Inadmissibility)
   2010/C 234/63
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Deutsche Post AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: J. Sedemund and T. Lübbig, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Martenczuk, Agent)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of the decision contained in the Commission’s letter of 30 October 2008, requiring information to be provided in the proceedings relating to State aid to Deutsche Post AG (C 36/2007 (ex NN 25/2007)).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Deutsche Post AG shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.


               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/33

         Removal from the register of Case C-159/05 (1)

   (2006/C 60/71)

      (Language of the case: French)

   By order of 8 December 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-159/05: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.

      (1)  OJ C 132, 28. 05. 2005.


C 94/36               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       28.3.98
Court of Justice, must not be borne by an official assigned           In contesting that rejection, the applicant pleads, first,
to a non-member State. The result of the contested                    infringement of Article 25(2) of the Staff Regulations,
decisions is to unjustly enrich the institutions whereas the          stating that the defendant did not provide him with the
applicant actually incurred costs for accommodation for               means to enable him to assess whether the contested
which she was reimbursed. The fact that she owns the                  decision was well-founded.
building which she occupies is of no effect on the
genuineness of the cost of accommodation incurred.
                                                                      The applicant also alleges infringement of Article 12 of
                                                                      the Conditions of employment of other servants and that
Moreover, there is no provision of the Staff Regulations or
                                                                      the vacancy notice is unlawful inasmuch as the exclusion
of Annex X to the Staff Regulations which authorises an
                                                                      criterion relied on by the APCC to justify rejecting his
institution to refuse to reimburse the cost of
                                                                      candidature, which in any event is not expressly stated in
accommodation of an official assigned to a non-member
                                                                      the vacancy notice, does not constitute a proper means for
State who owns the accommodation which he or she
                                                                      achieving the objective pursued by the abovementioned
occupies in the place where the institution has sent him or
                                                                      provisions, namely, securing for the institution the services
her solely in the interest of the service.
                                                                      of officials of the highest standard of ability, efficiency and
Finally, the contested decisions breach the general                   integrity.
principle that all officials must be treated equally
inasmuch as they are based on internal directives which               Finally, the applicant argues that the APCC committed a
do not taken into consideration the accommodation factor              manifest error of assessment when it considered that his
when determining the weighting where an official becomes              candidature could not be taken into consideration for the
the owner of the flat or building which he occupies.                  post for which he had applied, whereas his qualifications,
                                                                      training and experience perfectly match the job profile for
                                                                      the post.
Action brought on 19 January 1998 by Carlos Alberto
Leite Mateus against the Commission of the European
                         Communities
                        (Case T-21/98)                                Action brought on 21 January 1998 by the Scottish Soft
                                                                      Fruit Growers Limited against the Commission of the
                         (98/C 94/84)                                                     European Communities
               (Language of the case: French)                                                 (Case T-22/98)
                                                                                (98/C 94/85)
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 19 January                                    (Language of the case: English)
1998 by Carlos Alberto Leite Mateus, residing at
Zaventem (Belgium), represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis,                  An action against the Commission of the European
Ariane Tornel and FrancËoise Parmentier, of the Brussels              Communities was brought before the Court of First
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at Fidu-               Instance of the European Communities on 21 January
ciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.                                1998 by the Scottish Soft Fruit Growers Limited,
                                                                      represented by Fergus Randolph, with an address for
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           service in Luxembourg at the offices of Arendt &
                                                                      Medernach, 8Ð10, rue Matthias Hardt.
Ð annul the decision of the Commission of 11 March
    1997 to reject the applicant's candidature for post
    NPPR/2002/96,                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.                               Ð annul the decision of the Commission, received by the
                                                                          applicant on 12 November 1997, refusing to accede to
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                          a request made by the Scottish Office concerning the
                                                                          repayment of start-up grant by the applicant, and
The applicant, an official in Grade B at the Commission
since 1988, put forward his candidature in response to a
call for expressions of interest published on 14 October              Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
1996 with a view to employing temporary staff in
Research' budgetary posts. By memorandum of 11 March
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
1997 he was informed that his candidature had been
rejected. Following the complaint lodged against that
decision, the authority with the power to conclude                    The applicant explains that it was formed in 1992 to carry
contracts (APCC) stated that the rejection of the                     on business as the producers' organisation for raspberries
applicant's candidature was based on the fact that he                 in the United Kingdom. As such, under Article 2(2) of
could not participate in a selection procedure for                    Council Regulation (EEC) 1991/92, establishing a special
temporary staff members since he was already an official.             scheme for raspberries intended for processing (OJ L 199,