title: Case T-172/02: Action brought on 30 May 2002 by Laurent Druet against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 180/34              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     27.7.2002
Action brought on 30 May 2002 by Laurent Druet against                  Action brought on 4 June 2002 by Micole Wieme against
         Commission of the European Communities                                  Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-174/02)
                        (Case T-172/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 180/59)
                        (2002/C 180/58)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                  (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
                                                                        European Communities on 4 June 2002 by Micole Wieme,
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        residing in Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot, lawyer, with
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        an address for service in Luxembourg.
European Communities on 30 May 2002 by Laurent Druet,
residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Etienne
Marchal and Albert, Coolen, lawyers, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.                                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        —     annul the decision of the appointing authority of 13 July
                                                                              2001 not to accept the applicant’s application for the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   post of Head of Unit DG TAXUD/A/3;
—     annul the decisions of the Promotions Committee not to            —     annul the express rejection of the complaint, receipt of
      include the applicant’s name on the list of officials                   which was acknowledged by the applicant on 8 March
      deemed most deserving of promotion and that of the                      2002;
      Commission not to promote him to Grade B 4 in the
      2001 promotions procedure, according to the publication           —     annul the appointment to the post of Head of Unit DG
      in Administrative Information No 71/2001 of 10 August                   TAXUD/A/3, implying in particular rejection of the
      2001 of the list of officials deemed most deserving of                  applicant’s application for the vacant post;
      promotion and No 72/2001 of the list of officials
      promoted to that grade;
                                                                        —     order, in any event, the defendant to pay the costs.
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         In support of the present action, the applicant pleads infringe-
                                                                        ment of Articles 29(1)(a) and 45(1) of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                        irregularity of the procedure, misuse of powers and disregard
                                                                        for general principles of law such as legitimate expectations,
In support of his application, the applicant pleads breach of           equal treatment, the principle that officials should have
the obligation to give adequate reasons and infringement of             reasonable career prospects, equal opportunities and equal
Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, breach of the principles of        treatment of men and women.
equal treatment, that officials should have reasonable career
prospects, good administration and sound management.
                                                                        The applicant claims in particular that by rejecting the
                                                                        application for the post and appointing someone else, the
According to the applicant, the defendant decided to promote            defendant has not applied the Staff Regulations properly or
instead certain officials who were clearly less deserving than          the abovementioned general principles of law, basing its
he.                                                                     decision instead on reasons which are inaccurate both in fact
                                                                        and law.


title: Case T-544/15: Order of the General Court of 13 September 2016 — Terna v Commission (Action for annulment — Union list of projects of common interest — EU financial aid in two projects in the area of trans-European energy networks — Reduction of the financial aid initially granted following an audit — Preparatory measure — Measure not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)

text:
               31.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/46

         Order of the General Court of 13 September 2016 — Terna v Commission
   (Case T-544/15) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Union list of projects of common interest - EU financial aid in two projects in the area of trans-European energy networks - Reduction of the financial aid initially granted following an audit - Preparatory measure - Measure not open to challenge - Inadmissibility))
   (2016/C 402/54)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Terna — Rete elettrica nazionale SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Police, L. Di Via, F. Covone and D. Carria, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet, L. Di Paolo and A. Tokár, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of the decision which contained the Commission’s letter, of 6 July 2015, reducing the financial aid initially granted in the context of two projects (projects 2009-E255/09-ENER/09/TEN-E-S12.564583 and 2007-E 221/07/2007-TREN/07TEN-E-S07.91403) in the area of trans-European energy networks.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Terna — Rete elettrica nazionale SpA shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 363, 3.11.2015.


title: Case C-231/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 14 May 2012 — Vodafone Omnitel Nv v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

text:
               21.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 14 May 2012 — Vodafone Omnitel Nv v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri
   (Case C-231/12)
   2012/C 217/20
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Vodafone Omnitel Nv

      Defendant: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

      Question referred

   Are the Community provisions in the sector, and in particular the provisions of Directive No 2002/20/EC, (1) to be interpreted as precluding the national rules referred to, in particular Law No 266 of 2005, as those provisions are actually applied by regulation included.

      (1)  Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive); OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21.


title: Case C-334/17 P: Appeal brought on 5 June 2017 by the Republic of Estonia against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 24 March 2017 in Case T-117/15 Republic of Estonia v European Commission

text:
               7.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/18

         Appeal brought on 5 June 2017 by the Republic of Estonia against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 24 March 2017 in Case T-117/15 Republic of Estonia v European Commission
   (Case C-334/17 P)
   (2017/C 256/17)
   Language of the case: Estonian

      Parties

      Appellant: Republic of Estonia (represented by: N. Grünberg)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Republic of Latvia

      Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2017 in Case T-117/15 in so far as it dismissed the action of the Republic of Estonia of 4 March 2015 as inadmissible;

               —

               remit the claims made in Estonia’s action of 4 March 2015 to the General Court for decision;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

               1.

               The General Court infringed EU law by finding that the judgments in Pimix, (1)
                  Czech Republic v Commission
                   (2) and Lithuania v Commission
                   (3) could not be treated as substantial new facts within the meaning of the case-law and therefore declaring inadmissible the action brought by the Republic of Estonia on 4 March 2015 for the annulment of the decision contained in the European Commission’s letter of 22 December 2014 (Ares(2014)4324235).

               2.

               Secondly, in paragraphs 13 and 84 its judgment of 24 March 2017, the General Court wrongly stated as the date of publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of Regulation No 60/2004 (4) in Estonian 4 July 2004 instead of the actual date 4 July 2005. The General Court thereby reached, on the basis of wrong factual elements, a conclusion concerning the possibility of charging operators the levy on the non-elimination of excess sugar stocks solely on the basis of national law.

               3.

               Thirdly, the General Court infringed the obligation to state reasons. More precisely, the General Court did not deal with the obligation to declare excess stocks of sugar as at 1 May 2004, so that the General Court’s conclusion that the failure to publish Regulation No 60/2004 in the Official Journal in Estonian in due time did not prevent the Republic of Estonia from relying on national law to charge operators the levy on the non-elimination of excess sugar stocks is not comprehensible.

      (1)  Judgment in Pimix, C-146/11, EU:C:2012:450.

      (2)  Judgment in Czech Republic v Commission, T-248/07, EU:T:2012:170.

      (3)  Judgment in Lithuania v Commission, T-262/07, EU:T:2012:171.

      (4)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 60/2004 of 14 January 2004 laying down transitional measures in the sugar sector by reason of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (OJ 2004 L 9, p. 8).


title: Case T-292/11: Action brought on 9 June 2011 — Cemex and Others v Commission

text:
               13.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/23

         Action brought on 9 June 2011 — Cemex and Others v Commission
   (Case T-292/11)
   2011/C 238/42
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Cemex S.A.B. de C.V. (Monterrey, Mexico), New Sunward Holding BV (Amsterdam, The Netherlands), Cemex España, SA (Madrid, Spain), CEMEX Deutschland AG (Düsseldorf, Germany), Cemex UK (Egham, United Kingdom), CEMEX Czech Operations s.r.o. (Prague, Czech Republic), Cemex France Gestion (Rungis, France), CEMEX Austria AG (Langenzersdorf, Austria) (represented by: J. Folguera Crespo, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul Article 1 of the Commission's decision of 30 March 2011; in the alternative, partially annul that article so as to exonerate the applicants from the requirement to provide information in response to the questions in Annex I to the decision with respect to all aspects which go beyond the limits of the rules and principles applicable to the Commission under European Union law;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The action has been brought against the Commission's decision of 30 March 2011 in proceedings pursuant to Article 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, adopted in relation to Case COMP/39.520 — Cement and related products.
   In support of their action, the applicants rely on six pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.

                           —

                           The applicants submit in this regard that the Commission went beyond the limits of its powers laid down in that provision and the case-law of the Court of Justice, even going as far as requesting information which it knew that the applicants did not hold. Moreover, that request required the applicants not only to produce, but also to process, millions of items of data of an economic nature, thereby transferring to them the investigatory role incumbent upon the Commission.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.

                           —

                           According to the applicants, the Commission required information to be provided which was not necessary for the investigation of the alleged restrictive practices identified in the contested decision. That information bears no relation to the purpose of the investigation, is public information, or is information which has already been provided in response to earlier requirements, or amounts to data processing.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of proportionality.

                           —

                           The applicants claim in this respect that the Commission requested the applicants to provide information whose collection or processing was not only unnecessary in many instances but also led to their incurring an excessive and disproportionate burden. Moreover, an extremely short time limit was imposed within which to reply and their applications to have that time limit extended were rejected.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, based on an infringement of Article 296 TFEU in that the Commission has not given sufficient reasons regarding the necessity and proportionality of the requested information.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, based on an infringement of the principle of legal certainty, in so far as the wording of the contested decision is uncertain and imprecise.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, based on a failure to have regard to Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1/1958 which lays down the language regime of the European Economic Community.

                           —

                           The applicants submit in this regard that the Commission refused to transmit the contested decision to the subsidiaries to which it applies in the language of the Member States which have jurisdiction over them, thereby knowingly making the task of data collection more difficult.


title: Case C-314/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 29 May 2017 — Geocycle Bulgaria EOOD v Direktor na direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Veliko Tarnovo, pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

text:
               7.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 29 May 2017 — Geocycle Bulgaria EOOD v Direktor na direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Veliko Tarnovo, pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite
   (Case C-314/17)
   (2017/C 256/13)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Varhoven administrativen sad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Geocycle Bulgaria EOOD

      Respondent: Direktor na direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Veliko Tarnovo, pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

      Question referred

               1.

               Is there a breach of the principles of fiscal neutrality and effectiveness of the common system of value added tax under the provisions of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax if, in a case such as that in the main proceedings, VAT is levied twice on the same supply, once under the general rules, by the supplier showing the tax in the sales invoice, and a second time, by the customer being charged by means of a tax adjustment notice according to the reverse charge mechanism, and if in practice the right to deduct input VAT is refused and national law makes no provision for the VAT shown in the supplier’s invoice to be rectified following the conclusion of the tax audit procedure?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case C-427/06: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 September 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Birgit Bartsch v Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte (BSH) Altersfürsorge GmbH (Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Article 13 EC — Directive 2000/78/EC — Occupational pension scheme excluding the right to a pension of a spouse more than 15 years younger than the deceased former employee — Age discrimination — Link with Community law)

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/6

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 September 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Birgit Bartsch v Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte (BSH) Altersfürsorge GmbH
   (Case C-427/06) (1)

   (Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Article 13 EC - Directive 2000/78/EC - Occupational pension scheme excluding the right to a pension of a spouse more than 15 years younger than the deceased former employee - Age discrimination - Link with Community law)
   (2008/C 301/10)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesarbeitsgericht
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Birgit Bartsch

      Defendant: Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte (BSH) Altersfürsorge GmbH
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesarbeitsgericht — Interpretation of the principle of no discrimination on the ground of age in Article 13 EC and Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) — Occupational pension scheme (betriebliche Altersversorgung) excluding a right to retirement pension (Ruhegeld) for a surviving spouse 15 years younger than the deceased former employee — Application of the principle of no discrimination on the ground of age in the absence of a link to a situation envisaged by other provisions of Community law
   Operative part of the judgment
   The application, which the courts of Member States must ensure, of the prohibition under Community law of discrimination on the ground of age is not mandatory where the allegedly discriminatory treatment contains no link with Community law. No such link arises either from Article 13 EC, or, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, from Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000, establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, before the time-limit allowed to the Member State concerned for its transposition has expired.

      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 12 May 2004 in Case T-198/01 R [III]: Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (Proceedings for interim measures — State aid — Obligation to recover aid — Prima facie case — Urgency — Weighing up of interests — Exceptional circumstances)

text:
               25.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/22

      ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 12 May 2004
   in Case T-198/01 R [III]: Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH v Commission of the European Communities
   (Proceedings for interim measures - State aid - Obligation to recover aid - Prima facie case - Urgency - Weighing up of interests - Exceptional circumstances)
   (2004/C 239/48)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case T-198/01 R [III]: Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH, established in Ilmenau (Germany), represented initially by G. Schohe and C. Arhold, and subsequently by C. Arhold and N. Wimmer, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: V. Di Bucci and V. Kreuschitz), supported by Schott Glas, established in Mainz (Germany), represented by U. Soltész, lawyer — application for extension of the suspension of operation of Article 2 of Commission Decision 2002/185/EC of 12 June 2001 on State aid implemented by Germany for Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH (OJ 2002 L 62, p. 30) ordered in the present case by orders of the President of the Court of First Instance of 4 April 2002 and 1 August 2003 — the President of the Court of First Instance made an order on 12 May 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The operation of Article 2 of Commission Decision 2002/185/EC of 12 June 2001 on State aid implemented by Germany for Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH is suspended pending delivery of the judgment ruling on the main action.

               2.

               The costs, including those of the intervener, are reserved.


title: Case T-461/11: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2012 — Natura Selection v OHIM — Ménard (natura) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark natura — Prior Community word mark NATURA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               9.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2012 — Natura Selection v OHIM — Ménard (natura)
   (Case T-461/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark natura - Prior Community word mark NATURA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 38/35
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Natura Selection, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: E. Sugrañes Coca, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. García Murillo and D. Botis, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Ernest Ménard SA (Bourseul, France)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 June 2011 (Case R 2454/2010-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Ernest Ménard SA and Natura Selection, SL.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Natura Selection, SL to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 340, 19.11.2011.


title: Case C-254/06: Order of the President of the Court of 18 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Zürich Versicherungs-Gesellschaft v Office Benelux de la propriété intellectuelle formerly known as Bureau Benelux des Marques

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/28

         Order of the President of the Court of 18 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Zürich Versicherungs-Gesellschaft v Office Benelux de la propriété intellectuelle formerly known as Bureau Benelux des Marques
   (Case C-254/06) (1)

   (2007/C 96/56)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.


title: Case C-52/08: Action brought on 12 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/15

         Action brought on 12 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-52/08)
   (2008/C 107/22)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and P. Andrade, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to transpose, with regard to access to the profession of notary, Directive 2005/36/EC (1), which repealed and replaced Directive 89/48/EEC (2), the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligation under Directive 2005/36/EC.

               —

               order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission considers that, by failing to permit notaries from other Member States to exercise their profession in Portugal although they have the right to exercise that profession in a Member State in which it is a regulated profession or where they have exercised that profession in accordance with the applicable rules in a Member State in which it is not a regulated profession, the Portuguese State has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13 of Directive 2005/36.
   In any event, by requiring those intending to practise as notaries to have a degree in law from a Portuguese university or an academic qualification equivalent to that required under the Portuguese law, Portugal has also failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 13 and 14 of that directive.
   Moreover, by requiring that, before commencing their training, those intending to practise as notaries should pass public examinations intended to test their general knowledge of law, the Portuguese State has also failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(3) and 14(3)(h) of Directive 2005/36.
   The Commission therefore considers that the Portuguese State has failed to transpose into its domestic law Directive 2005/36 so far as concerns the profession of notary.

      (1)  Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22).

      (2)  OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16.


title: Case C-616/12 P: Appeal brought on 31 December 2012 by Ellinika Nafpigia AE and 2. Hoern Beteiligungs GmbH against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) made on 19 October 2012 in Case T-466/11 Ellinika Nafpigia AE and 2. Hoern Beteiligungs GmbH v European Commission

text:
               23.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/7

         Appeal brought on 31 December 2012 by Ellinika Nafpigia AE and 2. Hoern Beteiligungs GmbH against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) made on 19 October 2012 in Case T-466/11 Ellinika Nafpigia AE and 2. Hoern Beteiligungs GmbH v European Commission
   (Case C-616/12 P)
   2013/C 55/11
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellants: Ellinika Nafpigia AE, 2. Hoern Beteiligungs GmbH (represented by: K. Khrisogonos and A. Kaidatzis, dikigori)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the order of the General Court of 19 October 2012;

               —

               uphold the action brought, in accordance with the stated form of order sought by it;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the appellants’ costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               —

               The General Court misinterpreted the application initiating proceedings, with the result that it impermissibly changed the subject-matter of the case, in that it found the documents and other matters on the file in respect of the decision of 1 December 2010 — which is in reality the only contested measure — also to be contested measures or part of the contested measure.

               —

               The General Court misapplied Article 44(1) of the Rules of Procedure, in that it held that the contested measure was not defined in its entirety since the documents and other matters on the file in respect of the decision of 1 December 2010 — which in reality, however, are neither part of the contested measure nor other contested measures — were not specified individually. As a result of that ruling, the appellants’ right to judicial protection was impermissibly restricted and the fundamental principle of procedural equality was infringed.

               —

               The General Court misapplied the sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU in dismissing the action against the decision of 1 December 2010 as out of time although the appellants had not — and continue not to have — acquired full knowledge of that decision and, therefore, when the action was brought the two-month time-limit for initiating proceedings had not even begun. As a result of that ruling, the right to judicial protection and the right of actual access to a court were impermissibly restricted.

               —

               The General Court misapplied Articles 64 and 65 of the Rules of Procedure in rejecting the application for adoption of measures of organisation of procedure and measures of inquiry, because it held that the documents and matters on the file in respect of the decision of 1 December 2010 — the items whose production was sought — were part of the contested measure, whereas in reality they merely provide reasons for it. As a result of that ruling, the appellants’ right to judicial protection was impermissibly restricted and the fundamental principle of procedural equality was infringed.


title: Case T-153/15: Action brought on 27 March 2015 — Hamcho and Hamcho International v Council

text:
               8.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/22

         Action brought on 27 March 2015 — Hamcho and Hamcho International v Council
   (Case T-153/15)
   (2015/C 190/25)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Mohamed Hamcho (Damascus, Syria) and Hamcho International (Damascus) (represented by: A. Boesch, D. Amaudruz and M. Ponsard, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Order the production of the file in Case T-43/12;

               —

               Reserve the applicants the right to reply and, on this occasion, to produce new documents and to call witnesses;

               —

               Annul, in so far as these measures concern the applicants:

                           —

                           Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2015/108 of 26 January 2015;

                           —

                           Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) No 2015/117 of 26 January 2015;

               —

               Order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-653/11 Jaber v Council
       (1).

      (1)  OJ 2012, C 58, p. 12.


title: Case T-28/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 October 2007 — Ekabe International v OHIM — Ebro Puleva (OMEGA 3) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative trade mark OMEGA 3 — Earlier national word mark PULEVA-OMEGA 3 — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/39

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 October 2007 — Ekabe International v OHIM — Ebro Puleva (OMEGA 3)
   (Case T-28/05) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative trade mark OMEGA 3 - Earlier national word mark PULEVA-OMEGA 3 - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2007/C 297/80)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Ekabe International SCA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: C. de Haas, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Ebro Puleva SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: P. Casamitjana Lleonart, lawyer)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 October 2004 (Case R 117/2001-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Puleva SA (now Ebro Puleva SA) and Ekabe International SCA
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Ekabe International SCA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.


title: Case T-18/14: Action brought on 6 January 2014 — Aguas de Valencia v Commission

text:
               1.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/18

         Action brought on 6 January 2014 — Aguas de Valencia v Commission
   (Case T-18/14)
   2014/C 61/33
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Aguas de Valencia, SA (Valencia, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to that decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid;

               —

               annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of the private contracts between the investors and other entities; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward in Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.


title: Case F-61/06: Action brought on  12 May 2006  — Sapara v Eurojust

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/35

         Action brought on 12 May 2006 — Sapara v Eurojust
   (Case F-61/06)
   (2006/C 165/71)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Cathy Sapara (The Hague, The Netherlands) (represented by: G. Vandersanden and C. Ronzi, lawyers)

      Defendant: Eurojust
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision of 6 July 2005 to terminate the applicant's contract and order her reintegration in Eurojust from that date;

               —

               order the compensation of the prejudice suffered by the applicant, evaluated on a provisional basis ex aequo et bono at EUR 200 000 for the moral prejudice and the payment of the salary of the applicant from July 2005 to 15 October 2009 for the material prejudice;

               —

               order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, a former temporary agent of Eurojust, challenges the decision to terminate her contract at the end of the probationary period.
   In support of her claims, she relies on the following pleas:

               —

               infringement of Article 14 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the Communities (CEOS) and of Article 9 of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               breach of the general principle of law imposing the motivation of any act affecting the applicant's interests;

               —

               flagrant errors in the appraisal of facts leading to errors in law;

               —

               breach of the general principle of good administration and of the rights of defence;

               —

               misuse of power.

         As regards the request for compensation, the applicant considers that she has been the victim of harassment an that she has been defamed on several occasions.


title: Case T-430/12: Judgment of the General Court of 13 March 2014  — Heinrich v OHIM — Commission (European Network Rapid Manufacturing) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative mark European Network Rapid Manufacturing — Absolute ground for refusal — Imitation of the emblem of an international intergovernmental organisation — Article 7(1)(h) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 6b of the Paris Convention)

text:
               28.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 March 2014 — Heinrich v OHIM — Commission (European Network Rapid Manufacturing)
   (Case T-430/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark European Network Rapid Manufacturing - Absolute ground for refusal - Imitation of the emblem of an international intergovernmental organisation - Article 7(1)(h) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 6b of the Paris Convention))
   2014/C 129/26
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Heinrich Beteiligungs GmbH (Witten, Germany) (represented by: A. Theis, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: European Commission

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 July 2012 (Case R 793/2011-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between the European Commission and Heinrich Beteiligungs GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders Heinrich Beteiligungs GmbH to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

      (1)  OJ C 355, 17.11.2012.


title: Case T-9/14: Order of the General Court of 27 June 2014  — Mogyi v OHIM (Just crunch it...) (Community trade mark — Revocation of the decision of the Board of Appeal — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/63

         Order of the General Court of 27 June 2014 — Mogyi v OHIM (Just crunch it...)
   (Case T-9/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Revocation of the decision of the Board of Appeal - No need to adjudicate))
   2014/C 315/106
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Parties

      Applicant: Mogyi Kft (Csávoly, Hungary) (represented by: Zs. J. Klauber, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 September 2013 (Case R 1922/2012-1) concerning an application for registration of the figurative mark Just crunch it... as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no further need to adjudicate on the present action.

               2.

               The defendant shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the applicant.

      (1)  OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.


title: Case C-117/06: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 October 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin — Germany) — Proceedings brought by Gerda Möllendorf and Christiane Möllendorf-Niehuus (Common foreign and security policy — Specific restrictive measures directed against persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban — Freezing of funds and economic resources — Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 — Articles 2(3) and 4(1) — Prohibition on making economic resources available to persons listed in Annex I to that Regulation — Scope of prohibition — Sale of immovable property — Contract concluded before inclusion of a buyer in the list in Annex I — Application for registration of the transfer of ownership in the Land Register subsequent to that inclusion)

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/9

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 October 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin — Germany) — Proceedings brought by Gerda Möllendorf and Christiane Möllendorf-Niehuus
   (Case C-117/06) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Specific restrictive measures directed against persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 - Articles 2(3) and 4(1) - Prohibition on making economic resources available to persons listed in Annex I to that Regulation - Scope of prohibition - Sale of immovable property - Contract concluded before inclusion of a buyer in the list in Annex I - Application for registration of the transfer of ownership in the Land Register subsequent to that inclusion)
   (2007/C 297/13)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Kammergericht Berlin
   Party in the main proceedings
   Gerda Möllendorf, Christiane Möllendorf-Niehuus
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Kammergericht Berlin — Interpretation of Articles 2(3) and 4(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan (OJ 2002 L 139, p. 9) — Prohibition on making economic resources available to persons listed in Annex I — Refusal of the registration in the Land Register necessary for the transfer of ownership of a property following a contract of sale concluded prior to listing of the buyer in Annex I.
   Operative part of the judgment
   In a situation where both the contract for the sale of immovable property and the agreement on transfer of ownership of that property have been concluded before the date on which the buyer is included in the list in Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 561/2003 of 27 March 2003, and where the sale price has also been paid before that date, Article 2(3) of Regulation No 881/02, as amended by Regulation No 561/2003, must be interpreted as prohibiting the final registration, in performance of that contract, of the transfer of ownership in the Land Register subsequent to that date.

      (1)  OJ C 108, 6.5.2006.


title: Case T-260/05: Action brought on 14 July 2005 by Peter Strobl against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/28

         Action brought on 14 July 2005 by Peter Strobl against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-260/05)
   (2005/C 229/60)
   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 14 July 2005 by Peter Strobl, residing in Greifenberg-Beuern (Germany), represented by H.-J. Rüber, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of the Commission of 7 October 2004 with regard to the inclusion of the applicant in grade A*6;

               2.

               declare that the appointment must be made at grade A*10;

               3.

               in the alternative, declare that the appointment must be made at grade A*8;

               4.

               in the alternative, declare that the appointment must be made at grade A*7;

               5.

               order the Commission to place the applicant in the financial position he would be in if he had been correctly classified, i.e. pay the difference;

               6.

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the present action, the applicant contests his appointment at grade A*6 upon recruitment by the defendant in October 2004.
   The applicant bases his claim on three grounds. Firstly, he submits that there is infringement of the principle of legitimate expectation. In the applicant's view, the notice itself, the procedure followed on similar notices and the rules of the old Staff Regulations in force at the time of the notice raised in the applicant the well-founded expectation that, were he to be recruited, it would be at grade A7/A6 or their equivalent under the new Staff Regulations, namely grades A*8 or A*10 in accordance with Article 12 of Annex XIII. His recruitment at grade A*6 on the basis of Article 12 of Annex XIII to the new Staff Regulations was unlawful. The consequence to the applicant of the application of the new Staff Regulations by the Appointing Authority is an infringement of the general requirement of transparency, fails to satisfy the requirement of certainty and does not comply with the principle that measures should not be retroactive.
   As the second ground of his complaint, the applicant submits that there is discrimination against him because of his age. His classification at grade A*6 ought to have been made without any reference to the age of the applicant.
   Finally, the applicant submits that application of Article 12 of Annex XIII to the new Staff Regulations leads to inequality of treatment of the applicant in comparison with colleagues from other selection competitions and in other job placements who are placed in a higher grade.


title: Case C-485/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 5 November 2007 — Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen v H. Akdas and Others

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/24

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 5 November 2007 — Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen v H. Akdas and Others
   (Case C-485/07)
   (2008/C 22/46)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Centrale Raad van Beroep
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen

      Defendants: H. Akdas and Others
   Questions referred

               1.

               Having regard to the wording, objective and nature of Article 6(1) of Decision 3/80 (1) and to the objective and nature of the Association Agreement (2), does that provision contain a clear and accurately defined obligation whose fulfilment and effect does not require any supplementary measures, it therefore being appropriate for that provision to have direct effect?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is affirmative:

                           2.1

                           In the application of Article 6(1) of Decision 3/80, must account be taken in any way of the amendments to Regulation No 1408/71 (3), such as those which have been made since 19 September 1980 with respect to special benefits which are not based on the payment of premiums or contributions?

                           2.2

                           In this connection, is Article 59 of the Additional Protocol (4) to the Association Agreement of significance?

               3.

               Must Article 9 of the Association Agreement be interpreted as precluding the application of a Member State's legislation, such as Article 4a of the Netherlands TW, which results in an indirect distinction being made on grounds of nationality,

                           —

                           firstly, because the number of nationals of countries other than the Netherlands, including a large group of Turkish nationals, who are not, or no longer, entitled to a supplementary benefit because they are no longer resident in the Netherlands, is higher than such persons having Dutch nationality, and

                           —

                           secondly, because the supplementary benefits of Turkish nationals resident in Turkey have been withdrawn since 1 July 2003, whereas the phasing out of the supplementary benefits of nationals of a Member State of the EU and of third countries, provided that they are resident in the territory of the EU, did not begin until 1 January 2007?

      (1)  Decision 3/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the application of the social security schemes of the Member States of the European Communities to Turkish workers and members of their families (OJ 1983 C 110, p. 60).

      (2)  Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, which was signed in Ankara on 12 September 1963 by the Republic of Turkey on the one hand and the Member States of the EEC and the Community on the other hand and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963 (OJ 1973 C 133, p. 1).

      (3)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ, English special edition 1971 (II), p. 416).

      (4)  Additional Protocol signed at Brussels on 23 November 1970 and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 of 19 December 1972 (OJ 1973 C 133, p. 17).


2.8.2003              EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                   C 184/29
       Removal from the register of Case C-405/00 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case C-345/01 (1)
                         (2003/C 184/54)                                                        (2003/C 184/58)
By order of 9 April 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the               By order of 14 April 2003 the President of the Court of
register of Case C-405/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling          Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
by the Consiglio di Stato): Coopsette Scrl v ANAS, Impresa             from the register of Case C-345/01: Commission of the
Mambrini Costruzioni srl.                                              European Communities v Republic of Austria.
(1) OJ C 372 of 23.12.2000.                                            (1) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.
       Removal from the register of Case C-432/00 (1)
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-466/01 (1)
                         (2003/C 184/55)
                                                                                (2003/C 184/59)
By order of 13 May 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the               By order of 6 May 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
register of Case C-432/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling          of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
by the Tribunale Amminstrativo Regionale per la Lombardia):            register of Case C-466/01: Commission of the European
Europetrol SpA v Azienda Lombarda Edilizia Residenziale                Communities v Hellenic Republic.
Milano (A.L.E.R.), Orion SCRL.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 84 of 06.04.2002.
(1) OJ C 28 of 27.01.2001.
Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-66/01 and
                            C-74/01 (1)                                       Removal from the register of Case C-146/02 (1)
                         (2003/C 184/56)                                                        (2003/C 184/60)
By order of 19 March 2003 the President of the Court of                By order of 6 May 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
from the register of Joined Cases C-66/01 and C-74/01 (Refer-          register of Case C-146/02: Commission of the European
ence for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwal-              Communities v Republic of Austria.
tungssenat): Dr Manfred Hückel.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 131 of 01.06.2002.
(1) OJ C 118 of 21.04.2001.
       Removal from the register of Case C-179/01 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case C-267/02 (1)
                         (2003/C 184/57)
                                                                                (2003/C 184/61)
By order of 9 April 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the               By order of 16 April 2003 the President of the Court of
register of Case C-179/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling          Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
by the Consiglio di Stato): Impresa Binda & C. s.p.a. v Comune         from the register of Case C-267/02: Commission of the
di Torino, ED.ART. s.r.l.                                              European Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 200 of 14.07.2001.                                            (1) OJ C 219 of 14.09.2002.


title: Case T-628/14: Action brought on 20 August 2014 — Hewlett Packard Development Company v OHIM (FORTIFY)

text:
               13.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 361/26

         Action brought on 20 August 2014 — Hewlett Packard Development Company v OHIM (FORTIFY)
   (Case T-628/14)
   2014/C 361/39
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Hewlett Packard Development Company LP (Dallas, United States) (represented by: T. Raab and H. Lauf, lawyers)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 June 2014 given in Case R 249/2014-2.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘FORTIFY’ for goods in Class 9 — Community trade mark application No. 1 1 7 71  037

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the CTM application in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (2) CTMR.


title: Action brought on 1 July 1997 by Exportslachterij Chris Hogeslag BV and Groninger Vleeshandel BV against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-198/97)

text:
16 . 8 . 97           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 252/41
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    — order the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                              to pay the costs.
The applicant contests the abovementioned decision of the
Commission in which it decides against acting upon the                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
applicant's request under Article 3 of Regulation No 17
for a finding of infringements of the Community rules on               The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to
competition in the EC Treaty and the EEA agreement                     those in Case T-197/97 (').
relating to reorganization rules and a levy to finance
those rules . The levy is imposed by regulation of the
                                                                       f 1 ) See p. 40 of this Official Journal .
Productschap Veen en Vlees ( PW) and the arrangements
are made and administered by the Stichting
Saneringsfonds Runderslachterijen ( SSR).
The applicant claims that the reorganization measures
concern decisions of associations of undertakings or                   Action brought on 4 July 1997 by Manuel Francisco
agreements between undertakings which restrict                         Caballero Montoya against Commission of the European
competition and ( may) adversely affect trade beteween                                                Communities
Member States. Those measures and primarily the
                                                                                ( Case T-201 /97 )
financing are made possible and safeguarded by the
authorities .                                                                                ( 97/C 252/86 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of Justice on
Action brought on 1 July 1997 by Exportslachterij Chris                4 July by Manuel Francisco Caballero Montoya, residing
Hogeslag BV and Groninger Vleeshandel BV against the                   in Brussels, represented by Juan Ramon Iturriagoitia
          Commission of the European Communities                       Basses, of the Madrid Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                       Brussels at the Chambers of Mr Iturriagoitia Basses, 93
                       ( Case T-198/97 )
                                                                       Rue de la Corrége .
                         ( 97/C 252/ 85 )
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance
                                                                       should :
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                       — annul the Commission decisions of 10 September 1996
An action against the Commission of the European                              and 15 October 1996 in so far as they withhold the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                             award of an allowance for a person treated as a
Instance of the European Communities on 1 July 1997 by                        dependent child, such decisions lacking an adequate
Exportslachterij Chris Hogeslag BV, established in Holten,                    statement of the reasons of which they are based, as
and Groninger Vleeshandel BV, established in Groningen,                       required by the provisions in force,
represented by A. P. J. M. de Bruyn, of the Zutphen Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                       — declare         that   the     annulment    of an administrative
Chambers of L. Frieden, 6 Avenue Guillaume .
                                                                              measure renders void any subsequent measure deriving
                                                                              from an earlier measure that has been annulled; and
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                       — order the European Commission to pay the costs,
                                                                              pursuant to Article 87 ( 2 ) or if appropriate Article 88
— declare void the decision of the Commission of the                          of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First
     European Communities contained in the Commission 's                       Instance of the European Communities, and to
     letter to the applicant dated 23 April 1997 in Case                       reimburse the costs borne by the applicant in
     No IV/35.634/F3 Hogeslag — Groninger / PW+SSR,                           connection with these proceedings, such as the costs of
                                                                              travel , accommodation in Luxembourg and lawyer's
                                                                               fees, as provided for by Article 91 of those rules .
— find that the rules and agreements for the
     reorganization of the Netherlands' cattle slaughtering
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     sector infringe Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty,
                                                                        The applicant in these proceedings is the same as in Case
— order all other measures considered to be necessary,                  T-573/93 , which was determined by judgment of 19 June


title: Case T-132/03: Action brought on 15 April 2003 by Paola Casini against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 146/42               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          21.6.2003
Action brought on 11 April 2003 by Akzo Nobel Chemi-                      In support of their application, the applicants submit that the
cals Ltd. and Akcros Chemicals Ltd. against the Com-                      Commission has committed an infringement of the Treaty, an
            mission of the European Communities                           infringement of general principles of Community Law and has
                                                                          violated Regulation 17/62 as interpreted by the European
                                                                          Courts.
                         (Case T-125/03)
                        (2003/C 146/75)                                   More specifically, the applicants claim that the Commission
                                                                          has violated the principle of legal professional privilege by
                                                                          violating the procedures relating to the application of the
                  (Language of the case: English)                         principle as set out by the European Courts. Furthermore, the
                                                                          applicant submits that the Commission violated the principle
                                                                          of legal professional privilege by its unjustified and immediate
                                                                          denial of its application during the on the spot investigation
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 and the seizure of some of the documents. Finally, the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                applicants submit that the Commission violated the applicants’
European Communities on 11 April 2003 by Akzo Nobel                       fundamental rights, such as the right to privacy.
Chemicals Ltd., Hersham, United Kingdom, and Akcros
Chemicals Ltd., Hersham, United Kingdom, represented by
Mr C. Swaak, lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     to review under Article 230 the legality of the Decision
      in as far as it has been interpreted by the Commission              Action brought on 15 April 2003 by Paola Casini against
      as legitimating and/or constituting the basis of the                       the Commission of the European Communities
      Commission’s action (which is not severable from the
      Decision), of seizing and/or reviewing and/or reading
      documents covered by legal professional privilege;                                           (Case T-132/03)
—     to annul under Article 231 the Decision in as far as it has                                  (2003/C 146/76)
      been interpreted by the Commission as legitimating and/
      or constituting the basis of the Commission’s action
      (which is not severable from the Decision), of seizing                                  (Language of the case: French)
      and/or reviewing and/or reading documents covered by
      legal professional privilege;
—     to require that the Commission, to comply with the
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      judgement annulling the Decision, return documents
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      covered by legal professional privilege and not to use
                                                                          European Communities on 15 April 2003 by Paola Casini,
      their contents in any way;
                                                                          residing in Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden,
                                                                          avocat.
—     to order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs in
      the present proceedings.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —     order the list of officials promoted to Grade A 6 which
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                was published on 18 August 2002 to be annulled in so
                                                                                far as the applicant’s name is not included on that list;
Pursuant to Commission Decision C(2003)559/4 of 10 Febru-
ary 2003, the Commission conducted an on the spot investi-                —     order compensation to be paid to the applicant in respect
gation on the premises of the applicants in Eccles, Manchester,                 of the material and non-material damage which she has
United Kingdom. In the course of the investigation, the                         suffered, provisionally estimated at a total of EUR 20 000,
Commission reviewed, copied and seized several documents.                       in respect of which the material damage relates to
                                                                                the financial readjustment of the applicant’s salary to
                                                                                correspond to Grade A 6 from the date of publication of
Some of these documents became the object of a disagreement                     the list of those promoted (increased by default interest
between the applicants and the Commission. According to the                     fixed at 7 % per annum);
applicants, the seizure of those documents violated the general
principle of legal professional privilege.                                —     order the defendant to pay all of the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 21.6.2003             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 146/43
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Action brought on 28 April 2003 by Nuova Agricast S.r.l.
                                                                            against the Commission of the European Communities
In support of her action, the applicant pleads failure to state
reasons, breach of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and                                          (Case T-139/03)
infringement of the principle of non-discrimination, manifest
errors of assessment, breach of the duty of care and infringe-
ment of the principle of sound administration, infringement                                         (2003/C 146/78)
of the principle of equality of opportunity and, finally, misuse
of powers.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Action brought on 22 April 2003 by Robert Charles                         European Communities on 28 April 2003 by Nuova Agricast
  Schochaert against the Council of the European Union                    S.r.l., represented by Michele Arcangelo Calabrese, avvocato.
                         (Case T-136/03)
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        (2003/C 146/77)
                                                                          —      Annul the contested measures;
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          —      Order the European Commission to pay the costs.
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 22 April 2003 by Robert Charles Schochaert,                Pleas in law and main arguments
residing in Brussels, represented by Jean A. Martin, avocat.
                                                                          By its action, the applicant company is challenging:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—      order the Council to pay to the applicant EUR 225 702,94           1.     the Commission’s letter *D/50721, COMP/G1 D(03)142/
       by way of compensation, and order it to pay the costs.                    PI/cpb dated 3 February 2003 (concerning consultations
                                                                                with the authorities of the Member State which had
                                                                                drawn up the documents);
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           2.     Commission document SG.B.2/MM D(2003) sent by fax
                                                                                on 14 March 2003;
The applicant, a former Council official, seeks by way of the
present action to recover compensation in respect of the                  3.     the Commission’s letter *D/51652, COMP/G1/PI/
damage which he claims to have suffered through the defend-                      cpb D(03) dated 12 March 2003.
ant’s refusal to promote him to Grade B 1 during the course of
promotions from 1978 to 2000.
                                                                          In support of its claims, the applicant submits as follows:
The applicant contends that the defendant has refused, since
1978, to promote him on the ground that his duties did not                —      by consulting the authorities of the Member State which
involve the exercise of responsibilities justifying promotion                    had drawn up the documents requested, and in so doing
vis-à-vis other candidates for such promotion, this being a                      even though it was already clear to it that the documents
ground which, in the applicant’s view, is unlawful and amounts                   in issue were excluded from the right of access as being
to a misuse of power for which the Council must incur                            ‘covered’ by the exception ‘inspections and investigations’,
liability.                                                                       the Commission breached the procedural guarantees
                                                                                conferred on individuals by Article 4(4) of Regulation
                                                                                (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of
The applicant further alleges that he has been the victim of                     the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to
exclusion and non-physical harassment by a number of his                         European Parliament, Council and Commission docu-
hierarchical superiors.                                                          ments (OJ 2001 L 145 of 31 May 2001, p. 43) and the
                                                                                similarly-worded Article 5(2) of the relevant updating
                                                                                provisions. The Commission thus infringed its own


title: Case C-34/17: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) made on 24 January 2017 — Eamonn Donnellan v The Revenue Commissioners

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/35

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) made on 24 January 2017 — Eamonn Donnellan v The Revenue Commissioners
   (Case C-34/17)
   (2017/C 104/51)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court (Ireland)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Eamonn Donnellan

      Defendant: The Revenue Commissioners

      Questions referred

   Is the High Court of Ireland precluded by Article 14(1) and (2) of Directive 2010/24/EU (1) when determining the enforceability in Ireland of a ‘uniform instrument permitting enforcement’ issued on 14th November, 2012 by the customs office of Patras for administrative penalties and fines in the sum of EUR 1 097 505,00 imposed on 15th July, 2009 for alleged smuggling on 26th July, 2002[, which was increased to EUR 1 507 971,88 by virtue of interest and penalties] from:

               (i)

               applying the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial within a reasonable time for a citizen of Ireland and of the European Union in relation to the enforcement request [(see Article 47 of the Charter and Articles 6 and 13 of the ECHR which correspond with rights for citizens under Articles 34, 38 and 40.3 of the Irish Constitution), in circumstances where the procedure involved was only first explained to Mr. D in a ‘non-official translation’ into English (an official language of Ireland where Mr. D has always resided) in a letter dated 29 December 2015 from the Ministry of Finance of the Hellenic Republic at Piraeus to the Irish Revenue and the solicitors in Ireland for Mr. D];

               (ii)

               taking account of the objectives of Directive 2010/24/EU to provide mutual assistance (recital 20 to Directive 2010/24) and to abide by the obligation to provide wider assistance ensuing from the ECHR (recital 17 of Directive 2010/24) such as the right to an effective remedy for citizens under Article 47 of the Charter and Article 13 of the ECHR;

               (iii)

               considering the full effectiveness of community law for its citizens [and particularly paragraph 63 of [the judgment of 14 January 2010, Kyrian v Celní úřad Tábor, C-233/08, EU:C:2010:11].

      (1)  Council Directive 2010/24/EU of 16 March 2010 concerning mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to taxes, duties and other measures (OJ 2010, L 84, p. 1).


title: Removal from the register of C-174/95

text:
No C 199/ 18              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   28 . 6 . 97
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                 Removal from the register of C-282/94 ( ')
                                                                                ( 97/C 199/35 )
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of                       By order of 17 April 1997, the President of the Court of
Article 5 of the EC Treaty requires Member States to                      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
adopt the measures necessary to transpose directives                      removal from the register of Case C-282/94 : French
addressed to them into their domestic law before the
                                                                          Republic v. Commission of the European Communities .
expiry of the period prescribed for doing so and forthwith
to inform the Commission thereof. That period, which is
                                                                          (') OJ No C 351 , 10 . 12 . 1994 .
laid down in Article 21 of the Directive, expired without
the Portuguese Republic having brought into force the
necessary provisions.
H OJNoL20, 26 . 1 . 1980 , p . 43 .
                                                                                Removal from the register of C- 174/95 ( ] )
                                                                                97/C 199/36 )
                                                                          By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
Action brought on 16 May 1997 by the Commission of                        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
the European Communities against the Kingdom of                           from the register of Case C-l 74/95 ( Reference for a
                                   Belgium                                preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
                                                                          Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District
                             ( Case C-190/97 )
                                                                          Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings
                               ( 97/C 199/34 )                            against Siro Mattei .
                                                                          ( ] ) OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 16 May 1997 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Gotz zur Hausen, acting as
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,                                    Removal from the register of C-175/95 (')
Kirchberg.
                                                                                ( 97/C 199/37 )
The Commission of the European Communities claims
that the Court should :                                                    By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
                                                                          Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                           from the register of Case C-175/95 ( Reference for a
— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                  preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
       and administrative provisions necessary to comply                   Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District
       with     Commission          Directives    93/72/EEC ( l ) . of     Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings
       1 September 1993 and 93/101 /EC (2 ) of 11 November                 against Bruno Belli .
       1993 adapting to technical progress for the 19th and
       20th time respectively Council Directive 67/548/EEC                 H OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
       on the approximation of the laws, regulations and
       administrative provisions relating to the classification,
       packaging and labelling of dangerous substances ( 3 ),
       the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
       obligations under those Directives, and
                                                                                Removal from the register of C-l 76/95 (')
 — order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .                                                       ( 97/C 199/38 )
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                           By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
                                                                           Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
 The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                  from the register of Case C-l 76/95 ( Reference for a
 put forward in Case C-l 86/97: the relevant time-limits                   preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
 expired on 1 July 1994 and 1 January 1995 respectively.                   Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District
                                                                           Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings
 (') OJ No L 258 , 16 . 10 . 1993 , p . 29 .                               against Armando Scrocca .
 ( 2 ) OJ No L 13 , 15 . 1 . 1994 , p . 1 .
 ( 3 ) OJ, English Special Edition 1967, p. 234 .                          (') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .


title: Case C-437/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te ’s Hertogenbosch (Netherlands), lodged on 1 October 2012 — X; Other party: Voorzitter van het managementteam van het onderdeel Belastingdienst/Z van de rijksbelastingdienst

text:
               22.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te ’s Hertogenbosch (Netherlands), lodged on 1 October 2012 — X; Other party: Voorzitter van het managementteam van het onderdeel Belastingdienst/Z van de rijksbelastingdienst
   (Case C-437/12)
   2012/C 399/19
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Gerechtshof te ’s Hertogenbosch

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: X

      Other party: Voorzitter van het managementteam van het onderdeel Belastingdienst/Z van de rijksbelastingdienst

      Questions referred

               1.

               In the appraisal of the question — to be answered in the context of Article 110 TFEU — as to whether the amount of the levy in 2010 in respect of the registration of the passenger car [concerned] is (not) higher than the residual amount of the levy which is incorporated in the value of similar used passenger cars already registered within national territory, should the following be considered to be similar for purposes of determining that residual amount:

                           —

                           a comparable passenger car which, in the year in which the passenger car [concerned] was first put into service (2006), was registered as an unused passenger car, or

                           —

                           also the (other) passenger cars which were available on the market for second-hand passenger cars in 2010, and which, like the passenger car [concerned], were first put into service on 30 May 2006 and are otherwise comparable, but which were (imported and) registered as used passenger cars after 30 May 2006 (after 30 May 2006 and up to 2009), and/or

                           —

                           also the (other) passenger cars which were available on the market for second-hand passenger cars in 2010, and which, unlike the passenger car [concerned], were first put into service after 30 May 2006, but are otherwise comparable, and which were (imported and) registered as unused or used passenger cars after 30 May 2006 (after 30 May 2006 and up to 2009)?

               2.

               In the appraisal of the question as to whether Article 110 TFEU precludes the levying of BPM (1) in respect of the registration of the passenger car in 2010 in so far as that levy is based on the CO2 emission (in accordance with the tables in Article 9(1) of the Wet BPM (Netherlands Law on passenger-car and motorcycle tax), should that part of the levy be deemed to be a new tax, to be distinguished from the BPM up to 1 February 2008, which was based solely on the list price, with the result that, to the extent to which the levy is based on the CO2 emission, a comparison with (similar) second hand passenger cars which were registered before 1 January 2010 is not relevant?

               3.

               If there is no question of a new tax as contemplated in Question 2: is the levying of BPM in respect of the registration of the passenger car in 2010, in so far as that levy is based on the CO2 emission (in accordance with the tables in Article 9(1) of the Wet BPM), precluded by the fact that, pursuant to Article 110 TFEU, the levy based on the CO2 emission (under Article 9ba of the Wet BPM applicable at the time) was not imposed in respect of passenger cars comparable to the passenger car [concerned] which were first put into service before 1 February 2008 and which, in the period from 1 February 2008 to 31 December 2009, were imported and registered as used passenger cars, whereas that levy based on the CO2 emission was imposed in respect of the registration, in the aforementioned period, of passenger cars which were first put into service after 1 February 2008 but were otherwise comparable to the passenger car [concerned]?

      (1)  Belasting personenauto’s en motorrijwielen (Netherlands passenger-car and motorcycle tax).


title: Case T-398/10: Action brought on 8 September 2010 — Fapricela — Indústria de Trefilaria v Commission.

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/52

         Action brought on 8 September 2010 — Fapricela — Indústria de Trefilaria v Commission.
   (Case T-398/10)
   ()
   2010/C 301/83
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Fapricela — Indústria de Trefilaria, SA (Ançã, Portugal) (represented by: M. Gorjão-Henriques and S. Roux, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Article 1 and Article 2 of the Commission Decision of 30 June 2010, relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38344 — Prestressing steel), with respect to the applicant;

               —

               Substantially reduce the fine;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The decision contested by the applicant is the same decision contested in the case T-385/10, ArcelorMittal Wire France and Others v Commission.
   The applicant submits to the Court:

               (i)

               Defects of reasoning in the contested decision that affect the rights of defence of Fapricela and have led to a rectification of the decision. The applicant claims that this rectification must be deemed void, as the recognition of material errors by the Commission prejudices the full exercise by Fapricela of its rights of defence and undermines the purpose of the present action, furthermore giving the European Commission the additional option of issuing the new amending decision having regard to the submissions of law and fact of the companies in this action.

               (ii)

               The European Commission has not established that Fapricela was aware, or should reasonably have been aware, of the existence of non-Iberian cartels and therefore cannot hold Fapricela responsible for the single continuing infringement identified in the contested decision;
               Alternatively,

               (iii)

               The Commission infringed the principle of proportionality and the principle of equal treatment by fixing the fine applied to this company in the way it did and the fine should be reduced accordingly;

               (iv)

               The Commission incorrectly calculated the duration of the involvement of Fapricela in the infringement and did not take into account a temporary period of distancing; and

               (v)

               The Commission committed errors of fact and infringed the principle of equal treatment by refusing to recognise Fapricela’s inability to pay the fine.


title: Case T-493/14: Judgment of the General Court of 17 February 2017 — Mayer v EFSA (Seconded national expert — EFSA rules on SNEs — Decision not to extend the secondment — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Refusal to grant access — Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual — Protection of personal data — Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 — Applications for a declaration and seeking the issue of directions — Written pleadings supplementing the originating application — Amendments to the heads of claim — Admissibility)

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/41

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 February 2017 — Mayer v EFSA
   (Case T-493/14) (1)

   ((Seconded national expert - EFSA rules on SNEs - Decision not to extend the secondment - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual - Protection of personal data - Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 - Applications for a declaration and seeking the issue of directions - Written pleadings supplementing the originating application - Amendments to the heads of claim - Admissibility))
   (2017/C 104/57)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Ingrid Alice Mayer (Ellwangen, Germany) (represented by: T. Mayer, lawyer)

      Defendant): European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (represented by: D. Detken, acting as Agent, R. Van der Hout and A. Köhler, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought under Article 263 TFEU challenging the decisions of EFSA, first, dismissing the applicant’s request to extend her secondment as a national expert at EFSA and, second, refusing her request for access to documents held by EFSA

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

               2.

               Orders Ingrid Alice Mayer to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures;

      (1)  OJ C 329, 22.9.2014.


title: Case C-76/08: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Malta (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Admissibility — Conservation of wild birds — Directive 79/409/EEC — Spring hunting — Prohibition — Derogation from the system of protection — Condition that there be no other satisfactory solution — Legitimate expectations)

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/16

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Malta
   (Case C-76/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Admissibility - Conservation of wild birds - Directive 79/409/EEC - Spring hunting - Prohibition - Derogation from the system of protection - Condition that there be no ‘other satisfactory solution’ - Legitimate expectations)
   2009/C 267/27
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Recchia, D. Lawunmi and P. Oliver, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Malta (represented by: S. Camilleri, D. Mangion, acting as Agents and J. Bouckaert, advocaat)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Article 9 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1) — Failure to comply with the criteria laid down by the Directive for the grant of a derogation authorising hunting in spring of quail and turtle doves

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by authorising the opening of a hunting season for quails (Coturnix coturnix) and turtle doves (Streptopelia turtur) during the spring migration period in the years 2004 to 2007, without complying with the conditions laid down in Article 9(1) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, as amended, in respect of 2004 to 2006, by Council Regulation (EC) No 807/2003 of 14 April 2003, and, in respect of 2007, by Council Directive 2006/105/EC of 20 November 2006, the Republic of Malta has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Malta to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.


title: Case F-46/07: Action brought on 18 May 2007 — Tzirani v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/42

         Action brought on 18 May 2007 — Tzirani v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case F-46/07)
   (2007/C 170/81)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Marie Tzirani (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the European Commission of 30 August 2006 to reappoint Mr X to the post of Director of the Directorate ‘Staff Regulations: Policy, Management and Advisory Services’ of the Directorate-General ‘Personnel and Administration’ and consequently to reject the applicant's candidature for that post;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay, in compensation for non-material and material damage and impairment to the applicant's career, a sum of EUR 25 000, with interest at the rate of 7 % per annum since 29 November 2006, the date of the complaint;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, after requesting and obtaining, in Case T-45/04 (1), the annulment of the decision of the Commission of 21 January 2003 to appoint Mr X to the above-mentioned post, now challenges the lawfulness of the procedure according to which, following this annulment, the Commission reappointed the same person to the post in question.
   In support of her action, the applicant pleads first the infringement of Article 233 EC, as a result of the Commission failing to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court of First Instance. According to the applicant, the procedure should have been reopened not only at the final stage of the interview with the Commissioner but already at the stage of the checking of the eligibility of the candidates in the light of the criteria established by the vacancy notice.
   The applicant furthermore pleads the infringement of Articles 7, 14, 29 and 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities, the disregard of several general legal principles and the misuse of powers.

      (1)  Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 July 2006, Tzirani v Commission (not yet published in the ECR).