title: Case T-34/08: Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2011 — Berliner Institut für Vegleichende Sozialforschung v Commission (Financial assistance paid in the context of the Daphné II program — Determination of the amount to be paid to the beneficiary — Erroneous assessment)

text:
               29.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/12

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2011 — Berliner Institut für Vegleichende Sozialforschung v Commission
   (Case T-34/08) (1)

   (Financial assistance paid in the context of the Daphné II program - Determination of the amount to be paid to the beneficiary - Erroneous assessment)
   2011/C 319/21
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung eV (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: initially, B. Hening, then U. Claus and, finally, S. Reichmann and L.-J. Schmidt, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, S. Grünheid and B. Simon, then S. Grünheid and F. Dintilhac, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of the Commission's decision of 16 November 2007 concerning the Commission's partial non-recognition of the costs incurred by the applicant in the context of Daphné Grant Agreement JAI/DAP/2004-2/052/W.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the Commission's decision of 16 November 2007 concerning its partial non-recognition of the costs incurred by Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung eV in the context of Daphné Grant Agreement JAI/DAP/2004-2/052/W in so far as concerns the expenses relating to items A6, A39, A40, A41, A43 and E41;

               2.

               Orders Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung to bear two thirds of its own costs and two thirds of the costs incurred by the European Commission. The Commission shall bear a third of its own costs and a third of the costs incurred by Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung.

      (1)  OJ C 79, 29.3.2008.


title: Case C-220/09: Order of the President of the Court of 12 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Malta

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/29

         Order of the President of the Court of 12 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Malta
   (Case C-220/09) (1)

   2010/C 51/55

      Language of the case: Maltese

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

      (1)  OJ C 193, 15.8.2009.


title: Case C-134/04: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 April 2007 — Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union (Fisheries — Regulation (EC) No 2287/2003 distributing catch quotas among Member States — Act of Accession of Spain — End of the transitional period — Requirement of relative stability — Principle of non-discrimination — New fishing opportunities)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/3

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 April 2007 — Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-134/04) (1)

   (Fisheries - Regulation (EC) No 2287/2003 distributing catch quotas among Member States - Act of Accession of Spain - End of the transitional period - Requirement of relative stability - Principle of non-discrimination - New fishing opportunities)
   (2007/C 96/04)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M.A. Sampol Pucurull and E. Braquehais Conesa, Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Florindo Gijón and G. Ramos Ruano, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: T. van Rijn and S. Pardo Quintillán, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment in part of Council Regulation (EC) No 2287/2003 of 19 December 2003 fixing for 2004 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (OJ 2003 L 344, p. 1) in so far as new fishing opportunities in the North Sea and in the Baltic are not allocated having regard to the interests of Spain despite the end of the transitional regime — Discrimination — Application of Article 20(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (OJ 2002 L 358, p. 59)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106 of 30.4.2004.


title: Case T-372/08: Action brought on 10 September 2008 — Murnauer Markenvertrieb v OHIM — Fitne Gesundheit und Wellness (Notfall Bonbons)

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/34

         Action brought on 10 September 2008 — Murnauer Markenvertrieb v OHIM — Fitne Gesundheit und Wellness (Notfall Bonbons)
   (Case T-372/08)
   (2008/C 313/62)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Murnauer Markenvertrieb GmbH (Trebur, Germany) (represented by: H. Daniel and O.I. Haleen, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Fitne Gesundheits- und Wellness GmbH (Salzhemmendorf, Germany)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 July 2008 in Case R 909/2007-1;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Word mark ‘Notfall Bonbons’ for goods in classes 5 and 30 (Community trade mark No 3 563 251)

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: Fitne Gesundheits- und Wellness GmbH

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity of the trade mark concerned.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Cancellation Division and granting of the application for a declaration of invalidity of the trade mark concerned.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation No 40/94, since the trade mark ‘Notfall Bonbons’ is not descriptive of the protected goods, nor does it lack the requisite distinctive character.


               23.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/13

         Actions brought on 21 December 2005 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Principality of Liechtenstein
   (Joined Cases E-5/05, E-6/05, E-7/05, E-8/05, E-9/05)
   (2006/C 71/08)
   Five actions against the Principality of Liechtenstein were brought before EFTA Court on 21 December 2005 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Tor Arne Solberg-Johansen and Elisabethann Wright, acting as agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35, Rue Belliard, B-1040 Brussels.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               In Case E-5/05: Declare that by failing to adopt, or to notify the Authority of, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 5cm of Annex XI to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive)) as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto and by the sectoral adaptations contained in Annex XI to that Agreement, within the time limit prescribed, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Act and Article 7 of the EEA Agreement;

               2.

               In Case E-6/05: Declare that by failing to ensure compliance with, or to supply the Authority with such information as would allow it to confirm compliance with the provisions of the Act referred to at point 13a of Annex XIV and point 5cg of Annex XI to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Commission Directive 2002/77/EC of 16 September 2002 on competition in the markets for electronic communications networks and services) as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto and by the sectoral adaptation contained in Annex XIV and Annex XI to that Agreement, within the time limit prescribed, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Act and Article 7 of the EEA Agreement;

               3.

               In Case E-7/05: Declare that by failing to adopt, or to notify the Authority of, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 5cj of Annex XI to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive) as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto and by the sectoral adaptation contained in Annex XI to that Agreement, within the time limit prescribed, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Act and Article 7 of the EEA Agreement;

               4.

               In Case E-8/05: Declare that by failing to adopt, or to notify the Authority of, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 5cl of Annex XI to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services) as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto and by the sectoral adaptations contained in Annex XI to that Agreement, within the time limit prescribed, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Act and Article 7 of the EEA Agreement;

               5.

               In Case E-9/05: Declare that by failing to adopt, or to notify the Authority of, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 5ck of Annex XI to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (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)) as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto within the time limit prescribed, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Act and Article 7 of the EEA Agreement;
               and

               6.

               Order the Principality of Liechtenstein to bear the costs of the proceedings.

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

               —

               The case concerns the non-implementation of telecommunications directives.

               —

               Liechtenstein does not dispute that, by the expiry of the time limit, it had not taken the measures necessary to ensure implementation of the directives.


title: Case C-613/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 28 November 2016 — Juhler Holding A/S v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/25

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 28 November 2016 — Juhler Holding A/S v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern
   (Case C-613/16)
   (2017/C 104/37)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Köln

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Juhler Holding A/S

      Defendant: Bundeszentralamt für Steuern

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 43 EC, in conjunction with Article 48 EC, (now Article 49 TFEU, in conjunction with Article 54 TFEU) preclude national tax legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which denies relief from capital gains tax on distributions of profits made to a non-resident parent company which, within a group of undertakings actively trading in the Member State in which the parent company is established, is permanently spun off as a holding company,
               to the extent that persons have holdings in it who would not be entitled to the refund or exemption if they earned the income directly, and

                           (1)

                           there are no economic or other substantial reasons for the involvement of the non-resident parent company, or

                           (2)

                           the non-resident parent company does not earn more than 10 % of its entire gross income for the financial year in question from its own economic activity (there being no such activity, inter alia, if the foreign company earns its gross income from the management of assets), or

                           (3)

                           the non-resident parent company does not take part in general economic commerce with a business establishment suitably equipped for its business purpose, whereas resident holding companies are granted relief from capital gains tax without regard to the aforementioned requirements?

               2.

               Does Article 5(1), in conjunction with Article 1(2), of Directive 90/435/EEC (1) preclude national tax legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which denies relief from capital gains tax on distributions of profits made to a non-resident parent company which, within a group of undertakings actively trading in the Member State in which the parent company is established, is permanently spun off as a holding company,
               to the extent that persons have holdings in it who would not be entitled to the refund or exemption if they earned the income directly, and

                           (1)

                           there are no economic or other substantial reasons for the involvement of the non-resident parent company, or

                           (2)

                           the non-resident parent company does not earn more than 10 % of its entire gross income for the financial year in question from its own economic activity (there being no such activity, inter alia, if the foreign company earns its gross income from the management of assets), or

                           (3)

                           the non-resident parent company does not take part in general economic commerce with a business establishment suitably equipped for its business purpose, whereas resident holding companies are granted relief from capital gains tax without regard to the aforementioned requirements?

      (1)  Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6).


title: Case C-148/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Nordzucker AG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 2003/87/EC — Greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme in the European Union — Determination of the extent of the obligation to surrender allowances — Penalties — Article 16(1) and (3))

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/10

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Nordzucker AG
   (Case C-148/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 2003/87/EC - Greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme in the European Union - Determination of the extent of the obligation to surrender allowances - Penalties - Article 16(1) and (3)))
   (2015/C 213/14)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

      Defendant: Nordzucker AG

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 16(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC, as amended by Directive 2004/101/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 2004, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to an operator who surrenders a number of greenhouse gas emission allowances equal to the emissions for the preceding year as reported and verified in accordance with Article 15 of that directive, where it is established, following an additional verification carried out by the competent national authority after the expiry of the time-limit for surrender, that those emissions were understated, so that the number of allowances surrendered is insufficient;
   It is for the Member States to determine the penalties which may be imposed in such a situation, in accordance with Article 16(1) of Directive 2003/87, as amended by Directive 2004/101.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.


title: Case T-219/14: Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Regione autonoma della Sardegna v Commission (State aid — Maritime transport — Public service compensation — Capital increase — Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering that it be recovered — Liquidation of the recipient undertaking — Continued interest in bringing proceedings — Failure to find that there was no need to adjudicate — Concept of aid — Service of general economic interest — Private investor test — Manifest error of assessment — Error of law — Plea of illegality — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Decision 2011/21/EU — Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty — Union framework applicable to State aid in the form of public service compensation — Altmark judgment)

text:
               22.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Regione autonoma della Sardegna v Commission
   (Case T-219/14) (1)

   ((State aid - Maritime transport - Public service compensation - Capital increase - Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering that it be recovered - Liquidation of the recipient undertaking - Continued interest in bringing proceedings - Failure to find that there was no need to adjudicate - Concept of aid - Service of general economic interest - Private investor test - Manifest error of assessment - Error of law - Plea of illegality - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Decision 2011/21/EU - Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty - Union framework applicable to State aid in the form of public service compensation - Altmark judgment))
   (2017/C 161/27)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Regione autonoma della Sardegna (Italy) (represented by: T. Ledda, S. Sau, G.M. Roberti, G. Bellitti and I. Perego, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Conte, D. Grespan and A. Bouchagiar, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Compagnia Italiana di Navigazione SpA (Naples, Italy) (represented initially by F. Sciaudone, R. Sciaudone, D. Fioretti and A. Neri, and subsequently by M. Merola, B. Carnevale and M. Toniolo, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 9101 final of 22 January 2014 concerning aid measures SA.32014 (2011/C), SA.32015 (2011/C), SA.32016 (2011/C) granted by the Autonomous Region of Sardinia (Italy) to the maritime company Saremar in the form of public service compensation and a capital increase, in so far as that decision found those measures to be State aid incompatible with the internal market and ordered that it be recovered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Regione autonoma della Sardegna (Italy) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and Compagnia Italiana di Navigazione SpA.

      (1)  OJ C 175, 10.6.2014.


title: Case C-359/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Ítélőtábla (Hungary) lodged on 7 September 2009 — Dr. Donat Cornelius Ebert v Budapesti Ügyvédi Kamara

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Ítélőtábla (Hungary) lodged on 7 September 2009 — Dr. Donat Cornelius Ebert v Budapesti Ügyvédi Kamara
   (Case C-359/09)
   2009/C 312/20
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Ítélőtábla

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Dr. Donat Cornelius Ebert

      Defendant: Budapesti Ügyvédi Kamara

      Questions referred

               1.

               Can Council Directive 89/48/EEC (1) and Directive 98/5/EC (2) of the Parliament and of the Council be interpreted as meaning that the applicant, a German citizen licensed to practise law in Germany where he is a member of the Bar Association, but who has a permit to live and work in Hungary, has the right to use, in legal and administrative proceedings, the title ‘ügyvéd’ (lawyer), which is the official title in the host Member State (Hungary), in addition to the German title ‘Rechtsanwalt’ (lawyer) and the Hungarian title ‘európaiközösségi jogász’ (Community lawyer), in spite of the fact that he is not admitted to the Bar Association in Hungary and has not obtained any form of authorisation?

               2.

               Does Directive 98/5/EC supplement Directive 89/4[8]/EEC in the sense that Directive 98/5/EC on the practice of the profession of lawyer constitutes a special law on the legal profession, whereas Directive 89/4[8]/EEC merely regulates in a general manner the recognition of higher-education diplomas?

      (1)  Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16).

      (2)  Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained (OJ 1998 L 77, p. 36).


title: Case T-68/11: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2013 — Kastenholz v OHIM — Qwatchme (Watch dials) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Community design representing watch dials — Earlier unregistered designs — Ground for invalidity — Novelty — Articles 4, 5 and 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Individual character — Different overall impression — Articles 4, 6 and 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002 — Earlier copyright — Article 25(1)(f) of Regulation No 6/2002)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/66

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2013 — Kastenholz v OHIM — Qwatchme (Watch dials)
   (Case T-68/11) (1)

   (Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Community design representing watch dials - Earlier unregistered designs - Ground for invalidity - Novelty - Articles 4, 5 and 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Individual character - Different overall impression - Articles 4, 6 and 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002 - Earlier copyright - Article 25(1)(f) of Regulation No 6/2002)
   2013/C 225/146
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Erich Kastenholz (Troisdorf, Germany) (represented by: L. Acker, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented: initially by S. Hanne, and subsequently by D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Qwatchme A/S (Løsning, Denmark) (represented by: M. Zöbisch, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 November 2010 (Case R 1086/2009-3) concerning invalidity proceedings between Erich Kastenholz and Qwatchme A/S.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Mr Erich Kastenholz to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 9.4.2011.


title: Case T-220/13: Action brought on 16 April 2013 — Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori v Commission

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/35

         Action brought on 16 April 2013 — Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori v Commission
   (Case T-220/13)
   2013/C 171/66
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Nucara and E. Gambaro, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Pleas in law

   The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those relied on in Case T-219/13 Ferracci v Commission.


title: Case C-217/04: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of  2 May 2006  — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v European Parliament and Council of the European Union (Regulation (EC) No 460/2004 — European Network and Information Security Agency — Choice of legal basis)

text:
               17.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/8

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 May 2006 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v European Parliament and Council of the European Union
   (Case C-217/04) (1)

   (Regulation (EC) No 460/2004 - European Network and Information Security Agency - Choice of legal basis)
   (2006/C 143/16)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: M. Bethell, Agent, and by Lord Goldsmith, N. Paines and T. Ward, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: K. Bradley and U. Rösslein, Agents); Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Veiga and A. Lopes Sabino, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: T. Pynnä and A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, Agents); Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Benyon and M. Shotter, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of Regulation (EC) No 460/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 establishing the European Network and Information Security Agency (OJ 2004 L 77, p. 1) — Choice of legal basis
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Republic of Finland and the Commission of the European Communities to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 201, 7.8.2004.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 11 July 1996 in Case C-228/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division): Stanley Charles Atkins v. Wrekin District Council, Department of Transport (Equal treatment for men and women - Concessionary fares on public passenger transport services - Scope of Directive 79/7/EEC - Link with retirement age)

text:
No C 336/ 10        EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    9 . 11 . 96
— it is shown that the repackaging cannot affect the                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
  original condition of the product inside the packaging;                                   of 11 July 1996
  such is the case, in particular, where the importer has
  merely carried out operations involving no risk of the           in Case C-228/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
  product being affected, such as, for example, the                the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's
  removal of blister packs from their original external            Bench Division ): Stanley Charles Atkins v. Wrekin District
  packaging and their insertion with one or more original                        Council, Department of Transport ( l )
  packages into new external packaging, or their insertion         (Equal treatment for men and women — Concessionary
  in another original package, the fixing ofself-stick labels      fares on public passenger transport services — Scope of
   on original external packaging or blister packs, or the               Directive 79/7/EEC — Link with retirement age)
  addition to the packaging of new user instructions or                                        96/C 336/ 18 )
  information; it is for the national court to ascertain
  whether the cutting of blister packs or the reprinting of
   batch numbers on them are carried out in such a manner
  as to exclude any real risk of affecting the original
  condition of the tablets inside; that must be regarded as
  being the case where, for example, those operations are                           (Language of the case: English)
  authorized and supervised by a public authority with a
  view to ensuring that the product remains intact; it is
  also for the national court to verify that the original
  condition of the product inside the packaging is not
  indirectly affected, for example, by the fact that the           In Case C-228/94 : reference to the Court pursuant to
  external or inner packaging of the repackaged product            Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the High Court of Justice
  or new user instructions of information omits certain            of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division, for a
  important information or gives inaccurate information,           preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
  or by the fact that the packaging of the repackaged              court between Stanley Charles Atkins and Wrekin District
  product is not such as to give the product adequate              Council, Department of Transport — on the interpretation
  protection,                                                      of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the
                                                                   progressive implementation of the principle of equal
                                                                   treatment for men and women in matters of social
— the new packaging clearly states who repackaged the              security ( 2 ) — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez
  product and the name of the manufacturer in print such           Iglesias, President, C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O. Edward,
  that a person with normal eyesight, exercising a normal          Presidents of Chambers, G. F. Mancini , J. C. Moitinho de
  degree of attentiveness, would be in a position to               Almeida , P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ), P. Jann, H.
  understand; however, it is not necessary to indicate that        Ragnemalm and L. Sevon, Judges ; M. B. Elmer,
  the repackaging was carried out without the                      Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, gave
  authorization of the trade-mark owner,                           judgment on 11 July 1996 , in which it ruled :
— the presentation of the repackaged product is not such as
  to be liable to damage the reputation of the trade mark
  and of its owner; thus, the packaging must not be
  defective, ofpoor quality, or untidy; it is for the national     On a proper interpretation of Article 3 (1 ) of Council
                                                                   Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the
  court to ascertain whether the insertion into single
  external packaging of both original external packaging           progressive implementation of the principle of equal
  and loose blister packs constitutes an untidy form of            treatment for men and women in matters ofsocial security, a
                                                                   scheme such as that provided for in Section 93 (7) of the
  packaging liable to damage the reputation of the trade
  mark; as for the cutting of blister packs; it is for that        Transport Act 1985 and implemented and operated by
  court to assess in each particular case whether it has been      Wrekin District Council, under which concessionary fares
  carried out in such a manner that the reputation of the          on public passenger transport services are granted to certain
  trade mark might suffer; and                                     classes of persons, including certain elderly persons, does
                                                                   not fall within the scope of the Directive.
— the importer gives notice to the trade mark owner before
  the repackaged product is put on sale, and, on demand,
  supplies him with a specimen of the repackaged                   (') OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .
  product.                                                         (2 ) OJ No L 6 , 19 79, p . 24 .
H OJ No C 120, 30 . 4 . 1994 .


title: Case T-289/02: Action brought on 19 September 2002 by Telepharmacy Solutions, Inc. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade, Marks and Designs)

text:
C 305/24              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    7.12.2002
Action brought on 19 September 2002 by Telepharmacy                      Action brought on 25 September 2002 by Michael Kenny
Solutions, Inc. against the Office for Harmonisation in the              against the Court of Justice of the European Communities
         Internal Market (Trade, Marks and Designs)
                                                                                (Case T-302/02)
                        (Case T-289/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 305/53)
                        (2002/C 305/52)
                  (Language of the case: English)                                           (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Office for the Harmonisation in the                An action against the Court of Justice of the European
Internal Market (Trade, Marks and Designs) was brought before            Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                         of the European Communities on 25 September 2002 by
19 September 2002 by Telepharmacy Solutions, Inc., North                 Michael Kenny, residing at Roodt-sur-Syre, Luxembourg, rep-
Billerica, Massachusetts (United States of America), represented         resented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, lawyers.
by Mary Medyckyj, Solicitor, and Richard Davis, Barrister.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal dated             —     annul the decision of the appointing authority of
      28 June 2002, Case No R 108/2001-4 as regards the                        11 March 2002 rejecting the application by the applicant
      following categories of goods in class 9: ‘a system                      for post No CJ 62/01, concerning the recruitment of an
      for remote control electronic dispensing of packaged                     administrator (career bracket A7-A6) in the Press and
      pharmaceuticals comprising a storage housing from                        Information Division;
      which the packaged pharmaceutical products are stored
      and dispensed, a computer connected to the dispenser,              —     annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision of the
      and a communications network connecting the computer                     Complaints Committee of 25 June 2002 rejecting the
      to a remote computer’;                                                   applicant’s complaint;
—     order the Office to bear its own costs and pay those of
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
      the Applicant.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Trademark concerned:          Word mark TELEPHARMACY
                              SOLUTIONS — application                    The applicant, an official of the Court of Justice, applied for
                              No 001400720.                              the post of administrator in the Press and Information
                                                                         Division. The appointing authority rejected his application and
Goods or services:            System for remote controlled elec-         appointed another candidate to the post in question.
                              tronic dispensing of packaged
                              pharmaceutical products com-
                              prising a storage housing in which         In support of his claim, the applicant pleads:
                              packaged pharmaceutical prod-
                              ucts are stored and dispensed, a           —     failure to provide a statement of reasons, or
                              computer connected to the dis-
                              penser, and a communications
                              network connecting the computer            —     at least the provision of an inadequate and erroneous
                              to a remote computer (class 9).                  statement of reasons;
Decision before        the    Refusal of registration by the             —     non-compliance with the selection procedure;
Board of Appeal:              Examiner.
                                                                         —     infringement of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations;
Pleas in law:                 Breach of the principle of audi
                              alteram partem and misinterpret-
                              ation of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of        —     infringement of fundamental rights and of general prin-
                                                                               ciples of law.
                              the Trade, Mark Regulation.


title: Case T-462/07: Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Galp Energía España and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Spanish market for penetration bitumen — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Annual market-sharing and price-fixing arrangements — Evidence of participation in the cartel — Calculation of the amount of the fine)

text:
               16.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 336/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Galp Energía España and Others v Commission
   (Case T-462/07) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Spanish market for penetration bitumen - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Annual market-sharing and price-fixing arrangements - Evidence of participation in the cartel - Calculation of the amount of the fine)
   2013/C 336/25
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Galp Energía España, SA (Alcobendas, Spain); Petróleos de Portugal (Petrogal), SA (Lisbon, Portugal); Galp Energia, SGPS, SA (Lisbon) (represented by: M. Slotboom and G. Gentil Anastácio, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agent, assisted initially by J. Rivas Andrés, lawyer, and by M. Heenan Bróna, Solicitor, and subsequently by J. Rivas Andrés)

      Re:

   Application, principally, for annulment in whole or in part of Commission Decision C(2007) 4441 final of 3 October 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/38.710 — Bitumen (Spain)) and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2007) 4441 final of 3 October 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/38.710 — Bitumen Spain) in so far as it finds that Galp Energía España, SA, Petróleos de Portugal (Petrogal), SA, and Galp Energia, SGPS, SA were involved in a complex of agreements and concerted practices in the Spanish market for bitumen, to the extent that that complex includes (i) the system for monitoring the implementation of the market sharing and customer-allocation arrangements and (ii) the compensation mechanism to correct deviations from the market-sharing and customer-allocation arrangements;

               2.

               Annuls Article 3 of Decision C(2007) 4441 final in so far as it requires Galp Energía España, Petróleos de Portugal (Petrogal) and Galp Energia, SGPS to bring to an end the infringement as found in Article 1 of that decision and to refrain from repeating any act or conduct described in that article or having the same or similar object or effect, to the extent that that infringement includes (i) the system for monitoring the implementation of the market-sharing and customer-allocation arrangements and (ii) the compensation mechanism to correct deviations from the market-sharing and customer-allocation arrangements;

               3.

               Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Galp Energía España and on Petróleos de Portugal (Petrogal) in Article 2 of Decision C(2007) 4441 final at EUR 8 277 500, and the amount of the fine imposed on Galp Energia, SGPS in Article 2 of Decision C(2007) 4441 at EUR 6 149 000;

               4.

               Dismisses the remaining heads of claim in the application;

               5.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 51, 23.2.2008.


title: Action brought on 9 December 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic (Case C-415/97)

text:
7.2.98               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 41/13
Cruz, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an              1993. As from that date the Kingdom of Spain has been
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos          authorized to grant that exemption, even though only in
Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                        respect of the transactions referred to in points 23 and 25
                                                                   of Annex F of Directive 77/388/EEC.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        (1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.
1. declare that, by considering intra-Community
    acquisitions and imports of arms, ammunition and
    equipment for exclusively military use, other than the
    aircraft and warships mentioned in points 23 and 25
    of Annex F to Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977,
                                                                   Action brought on 9 December 1997 by the Commission
    to be exempt from value added tax (VAT) (1),
                                                                    of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
    notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 2(2), 28a,
    14 and 28c(B) of Directive 77/388/EEC, the Kingdom                                       (Case C-415/97)
    of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
    Treaty establishing the European Community;                                                (98/C 41/26)
2. order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                    An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
                                                                   the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                   9 December 1997 by the Commission of the European
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                Communities, represented by Paolo Stancanelli, of its
                                                                   Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service
                                                                   in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
                                                                   of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Article 2(2) and Article 28a of Directive 77/388/EEC
provide, in a general manner, that all imports and intra-
Community acquisitions of goods are to be subject to
VAT. Articles 14 and 28c establish a common list of the            The applicant claims that the Court should:
exemptions which the Member State must Ð or may Ð
grant, with a view to collecting the Communities' own
resources in a uniform manner in all the Member States.            Ð declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
Among those exemptions, exhaustively listed in Articles 14              or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
and 28c, there is none which refers to arms, ammunition                 Council Directive 93/7/EEC of 15 March 1993 on the
and equipment for exclusively military use, similar to the              return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the
exemption granted by Spanish Law No 6/87.                               territory of a Member State (1), or by failing to inform
Article 28(3)(b), invoked by the Kingdom of Spain, refers               the Commission thereof, the Italian Republic has
to the Member States which on the date on which the                     failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;
Directive entered into force treated as exempt from VAT
certain transactions, and authorizes them to continue
doing so as a transitional measure. Since no period of time
was granted to the Kingdom of Spain by Annex XXXVI                 Ð order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
or other provisions of the Act concerning the Conditions
of Accession of the Kingdom of Spain to the European
Community, it introduced VAT by Law No 30/85 which
began to have full effect from 1 January 1986. It was not          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
until more than a year later that it was decided to exempt
imports and intra-Community acquisitions of military
equipment, with retrospective effect as from the date on           Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
which VAT began to be charged in Spain.                            directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
                                                                   upon each Member State to which it is addressed,
                                                                   Member States are required to observe the time-limits laid
It is true that the transitional period referred to in             down. That period expired on 15 December 1993 without
Article 28 of Directive 77/388/EEC was initially fixed to          the Italian Republic having brought into force the
last for five years as from 1 January 1978. It is also true        necessary provisions.
that, as the Member States in Council reached no
decision, that transitional period has been extended to
                                                                   (1) OJ L 74, 27.3.1993, p. 74.
date and that, in consequence, Member States which then
treated the transactions listed in Annex F as exempt may
continue to do so. However, that was, beyond a doubt,
not the case of the Kingdom of Spain until 1 January


title: Case T-76/12: Action brought on 15 February 2012 — Nu Air Compressors and Tools v Commission

text:
               21.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/29

         Action brought on 15 February 2012 — Nu Air Compressors and Tools v Commission
   (Case T-76/12)
   2012/C 118/49
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Nu Air Compressors and Tools SpA (Robassomero, Italy) (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2011) 8824 final and Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2011) 8812 final, both dated 6th December 2011, insofar as they only grant partial refunds of the anti-dumping duties paid by the applicant on imports of Chinese-made compressors applied under Council Regulation (EC) 261/2008 of 17 March 2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on certain compressors originating in the People’s Republic of China (1);

               —

               Maintain in force contested Decisions until the European Commission has adopted measures necessary to comply with any judgment of the General Court, given in the present case; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the European Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in applying an appropriate and reasonable unrelated EU importer profit margin, thereby failing to establish a reliable export price for the purpose of calculating the correct anti-dumping refund amounts leading to infringements of Articles 2(9) and 18(3) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation (2).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the European Commission committed a manifest error of assessment by deducting anti-dumping duties as a cost in the calculation of the export price thereby failing to establish a reliable dumping margin for the purpose of calculating the correct anti-dumping refund amounts and in doing so violated Articles 2(9), 2(11) and 11(10) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the European Commission failed to inform the applicant of the necessary requirements for satisfying Article 11(10) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation in a prompt and adequate manner thereby violating its rights of defence, as well as the principle of sound administration established in EU law and provided for in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that in a result, the European Commission unlawfully retained additional amounts of refunds of EU anti-dumping duties legitimately due to the applicant through the above-mentioned infringements of EU law.

      (1)  OJ L 81, 20.03.2008, p. 1

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51)


title: Case C-34/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 1 March 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands)) — Maatschap J. en G.P. en A.C. Schouten v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit (Community aid schemes — Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 — Beef and veal sector — Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 — Available forage area — Definition — Special premium — Conditions for granting — Parcel of land temporarily under water during the period in question)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/6

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 1 March 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands)) — Maatschap J. en G.P. en A.C. Schouten v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit
   (Case C-34/05) (1)

   (Community aid schemes - Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 - Beef and veal sector - Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 - Available forage area - Definition - Special premium - Conditions for granting - Parcel of land temporarily under water during the period in question)
   (2007/C 95/09)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Maatschap J. en G.P. en A.C. Schouten

      Defendant: Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit,
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven — Interpretation of Article 12(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 21) and of Article 2(1)(c) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes (OJ 1992 L 391, p. 36) — Available forage area — Parcel of land temporarily under water during the period in question
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 12(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal and Article 2(1)(c) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes must be interpreted as meaning that a parcel of land declared as a forage area may be regarded as 'available' where, first, it is intended to be used exclusively for the feeding of the animals held on it throughout the calendar year and, secondly, it was in fact possible to use it to feed them for a minimum period of seven months during that year, from the date fixed by the national legislation, which must be between 1 January and 31 March, even though that parcel of land was not occupied continuously by those animals, in particular because it was temporarily under water.

      (1)  OJ C 93, 16.4.2005.


title: Case C-34/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d'Etat, Section d'Administration by judgment of that Court of 27 December 2002 in the case of La Société Anonyme Fabricom against l'Etat Belge

text:
22.3.2003             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 70/13
Since the abovementioned amounts, overpaid by the Com-                          ed as covering only private undertakings or undertakings
mission, have not been repaid, the defendant failed to fulfil its               which had supplied gratuitous services?
obligations under the contract.
                                                                          3.    Can Council Directive 89/665/EEC ( 5) of 21 December
                                                                                1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and
                                                                                administrative provisions relating to the application of
                                                                                review procedures to the award of public supply and
                                                                                public works contracts, and in particular Articles 2(1)(a)
                                                                                and 5 thereof, be interpreted as meaning that a con-
                                                                                tracting authority may exclude, up to the end of the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d’Etat,                       process of evaluation of the tenders, from participation in
Section d’Administration by judgment of that Court of                           the procedure or submission of a tender, an undertaking
27 December 2002 in the case of La Société Anonyme                              connected to any person who has been responsible for
                 Fabricom against l’Etat Belge                                  research, testing, study or development in respect of the
                                                                                works, supplies or services, although when questioned in
                                                                                that regard by the contracting authority that undertaking
                          (Case C-34/03)                                        declares that it has gained therefrom no unfair advantage
                                                                                of a nature such as to distort the normal conditions of
                                                                                competition?
                         (2003/C 70/21)
                                                                          (1 ) OJ L 209 of 24.07.1992, p. 1.
                                                                          (2 ) OJ L 199 of 09.08.1993, p. 1.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    (3 ) OJ L 199 of 09.08.1993, p. 54.
European Communities by judgment of the Conseil d’Etat,                   (4 ) OJ L 328 of 28.11.1997, p. 1.
                                                                          (5 ) OJ L 395 of 30.12.1989, p. 33.
Section d’Administration (Council of State, Administrative
Section) of 27 December 2002, received at the Court Registry
on 29 January 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of La
Société Anonyme Fabricom against l’Etat Belge (the Belgian
State) on the following questions:
1.    Do Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating
      to the coordination of procedures for the award of public           Action brought on 31 January 2003 by the Commission
      service contracts (1), and in particular Article 3(2) thereof,              of the European Communities against Ireland
      Council Directive 93/36/EC of 14 June 1993 coordinating
      procedures for the award of public supply contracts (2),
      and in particular Article 5(7) thereof, Council Directive                                     (Case C-35/03)
      93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination
      of procedures for the award of public works contracts (3),                                   (2003/C 70/22)
      in particular Article 6(6) thereof, and Directive 97/52/EC
      of the European Parliament and of the Council of
      13 October 1997 amending Directives 92/50/EEC, 93/
      36/EEC and 93/37/EEC concerning procedures for the
      award of public service contracts, public supply contracts          An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
      and public works contracts ( 4), in particular Articles 2(1(b)      Justice of the European Communities on 31 January 2003 by
      and 3(1)(b) thereof, in conjunction with the principle of           the Commission of the European Communities, represented
      proportionality, freedom of trade and industry and                  by N. Yerrell, acting as agent, with an address for service in
      respect for the law of property guaranteed in particular            Luxembourg.
      by the protocol of 20 March 1992 to the Convention
      for the Protection of Human rights and Fundamental
      Freedoms, preclude the barring of the submission of an              The Applicant claims that the Court should:
      application to participate in or a tender for a public
      contract for works, supplies or services by any person              a)    find that Ireland has failed in its obligations under the EC
      who has been responsible for research, testing, study or                  Treaty by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
      development in respect of those works, supplies or                        administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      services where that person has not been given an                          Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concern-
      opportunity to prove that, in the circumstances of the                    ing the framework agreement on fixed-term work con-
      case, the experience he has acquired could not distort                    cluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP ( 1), or by failing to
      competition?                                                              ensure that management and labour have introduced the
                                                                                necessary measures by agreement, and/or by failing to
2.    Would the answer to the preceding question be different if                inform the Commission thereof;
      the abovementioned directives, considered in conjunction
      with the same principle, freedom and law, were interpret-           b)    condemn Ireland to bear the costs of the procedure.


               25.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/10

         Removal from the register of Case C-534/03 (1)

   (2004/C 239/21)
   By order of 11 June 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-534/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.

      (1)  OJ C 59, 6.3.2004.


title: Case T-504/17: Action brought on 4 August 2017 — Estévez Puerto and Others v Commission and SRB

text:
               16.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/37

         Action brought on 4 August 2017 — Estévez Puerto and Others v Commission and SRB
   (Case T-504/17)
   (2017/C 347/47)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: José Ramón Estévez Puerto (Jeréz de la Frontera, Spain) and 14 other applicants (represented by: B. Gutiérrez de la Roza Pérez, P. Rubio Escobar, R. Ruiz de la Torre Esporrín and B. Fernández García, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should annul:

               —

               Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board taken at its executive session of 7 June 2017 by which the resolution scheme regarding the institution Banco Popular Español S.A was adopted;

               —

               Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme for Banco Popular Español, S.A.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno y SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission andSingle Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.


title: Case T-766/14: Action brought on 18 November 2014  — Actega Terra v OHIM — Heidelberger Druckmaschinen (FoodSafe)

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/53

         Action brought on 18 November 2014 — Actega Terra v OHIM — Heidelberger Druckmaschinen (FoodSafe)
   (Case T-766/14)
   (2015/C 046/68)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Actega Terra GmbH (Lehrte, Germany) (represented by: C. Onken, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG (Heidelberg, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: the applicant

      Trade mark at issue: the Community word mark ‘FoodSafe’ — Community trade mark No 9 502 551

      Procedure before OHIM: Invalidity proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2014 in Case R 2440/2013-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               alter the contested decision to the effect that the Cancellation Division’s decision of 14 October 2013, filing number 6912 C, is annulled and the application for a declaration that Community trade mark No 9 502 551 is invalid is rejected;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-516/11: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2014  — MasterCard and Others v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to a study of the costs and benefits to merchants of accepting different payment methods — Documents drawn up by a third party — Refusal of access — Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process — Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party)

text:
               20.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 372/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2014 — MasterCard and Others v Commission
   (Case T-516/11) (1)

   ((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to a study of the costs and benefits to merchants of accepting different payment methods - Documents drawn up by a third party - Refusal of access - Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process - Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party))
   2014/C 372/17
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: MasterCard, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States); MasterCard International, Inc., (New York, New York, United States); and MasterCard Europe (Waterloo, Belgium) (represented initially by B. Amory, V. Brophy and S. McInnes, and subsequently by B. Amory and V. Brophy, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and V. Bottka, Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of the Commission decision of 12 July 2011 refusing the applicants access to certain documents drawn up by a third party relating to a study of the costs and benefits to merchants of accepting different payment methods.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 12 July 2011 refusing MasterCard, Inc., MasterCard International, Inc. and MasterCard Europe access to certain documents drawn up by a third party relating to a study of the costs and benefits to merchants of accepting different payment methods in so far as it refuses access to the documents relating to:

                           —

                           costs and benefits to merchants of accepting different payment methods (inception report of 2 June 2009);

                           —

                           costs and benefits to merchants of accepting different payment methods — part 1 of the methodology report of 28 September 2009 [revised version incorporating comments received from stakeholders and the Competition Directorate-General (DG) of the European Commission];

                           —

                           in-depth interview test results on costs of payments: analyses of the in-depth interviews held in the Netherlands, Hungary and the United Kingdom, 15 January 2010 (version provided on 9 March 2010);

                           —

                           draft online questionnaire, 8 March 2010;

                           —

                           results and conclusions of the internet feasibility test: draft report, 24 May 2010;

               2)

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 March 2000 in Case T-95/98, Christos Gogos v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Internal competition — Failing the oral tests — Composition of the selection board — Equal treatment)

text:
10.6.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 163/25
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 23 March 2000                                                        of 24 February 2000
in Case T-95/98, Christos Gogos v Commission of the                     in Case T-145/98: ADT Projekt Gesellschaft der Arbeitsge-
                  European Communities (1)                              meinschaft Deutscher Tierzüchter mbH v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
(Officials — Internal competition — Failing the oral tests
  — Composition of the selection board — Equal treatment)               (TACIS programme — Invitation to tender — Irregularities
                                                                        in the tendering procedure — Action for annulment —
                                                                                Action for damages — Admissibility)
                         (2000/C 163/48)
                                                                                (2000/C 163/49)
                   (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
In Case T-95/98: Christos Gogos an official of the Commission
of the European Communities, represented by Charis N.
Tagaras of the Athens Bar, with an address for service in               In Case T-145/98: ADT Projekt Gesellschaft der Arbeitsgemein-
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyn Korn, 21 Rue de                    schaft Deutscher Tierzüchter mbH, established in Bonn, rep-
Nassau v Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                resented by A. Hansen, Rechtsanwalt, Bienenbüttel, Uelzener
Gianluigi Valsesia, J. Currall and Paraskevas Anestis) —                Strasse 8, Bienenbüttel (Germany), against Commission of the
Application for, first, annulment of the decision by which the          European Communities (Agents: M.-J. Jonczy and B. Brandtner)
selection board in internal competition COM/A/17/96 refused             — application for, first, annulment of the decision by the
to place the applicant on the list of suitable candidates               Commission not to award the applicant the contract relating
and dismissed the applicant’s complaint and of all related              to Project FD RUS 9603 (‘The Russian Federation: Adapting
implementing acts of the Commission and, secondly, compen-              Russian Beef and Dairy Farming to Restructuring’) and, second,
sation for the non-material damage allegedly suffered — the             compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant
Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of                   as a result of the Commission’s conduct — the Court of First
J. Pirrung, President and A. Potocki and A. W. H. Meij, Judges;         Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President,
G. Herzig, Administrator on behalf of the Registrar, has given          J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a
a judgment on 23 March 2000, in which it:                               judgment on 24 February 2000, in which it:
1. Annuls the selection board’s decision not to place the applicant     1. Dismisses the claim for an order requiring the Commission to
     on the list of suitable candidates in internal competition              entrust implementation of Project FD RUS 9603 to the
     COM/A/17/96;                                                            applicant as inadmissible;
2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;                               2. Dismisses the remainder of the application as unfounded;
3. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.                              3. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 258 of 15.8.1998.                                              (1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.


title: Case T-84/07: Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2013 — EuroChem MCC v Council (Dumping — Imports of solutions of urea and ammonium nitrate originating in Russia — Request for an expiry review — Request for an interim review — Admissibility — Normal value — Export price — Articles 1, 2 and 11(1) to (3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Articles 1, 2 and 11(1) to (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009))

text:
               6.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 101/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2013 — EuroChem MCC v Council
   (Case T-84/07) (1)

   (Dumping - Imports of solutions of urea and ammonium nitrate originating in Russia - Request for an expiry review - Request for an interim review - Admissibility - Normal value - Export price - Articles 1, 2 and 11(1) to (3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Articles 1, 2 and 11(1) to (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009))
   2013/C 101/31
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: EuroChem Mineral and Chemical Company OAO (EuroChem MCC) (Moscow, Russia) (represented: initially by P. Vander Schueren and B. Evtimov, lawyers, and subsequently by B. Evtimov and D. O’Keeffe, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and B. Driessen, Agents, and by G. Berrisch, lawyer)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet and K. Talabér Ritz, Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1911/2006 of 19 December 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of solutions of urea and ammonium nitrate originating in Algeria, Belarus, Russia and Ukraine following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (OJ 2006 L 365, p. 26).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders EuroChem Mineral and Chemical Company OAO (EuroChem MCC) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.


title: Case C-61/15 P: Appeal brought on 11 February 2015 by Heli-Flight GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 December 2014 in Case T-102/13 Heli-Flight GmbH & Co. KG v European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)

text:
               11.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/11

         Appeal brought on 11 February 2015 by Heli-Flight GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 December 2014 in Case T-102/13 Heli-Flight GmbH & Co. KG v European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
   (Case C-61/15 P)
   (2015/C 155/12)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Heli-Flight GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: T. Kittner, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)

      Form of order sought

               1.

               The appellant claims that the Court should:

                           —

                           set aside the judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2014 in Case T-102/13 Heli-Flight GmbH & Co. KG v European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and annul the respondent’s decision of 13 January 2012 notified to the appellant rejecting the applicant’s application for approval of flight conditions for the Robinson R66 helicopter (serial No 0034);

                           —

                           set aside the judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2014 in Case T-102/13 Heli-Flight GmbH & Co. KG v European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and order the respondent to pay the appellant damages for the loss suffered by the appellant as a result of the respondent’s decision to reject the appellant’s application.

               2.

               In the alternative,

                           —

                           set aside the above-mentioned judgment of the General Court and annul the above-mentioned decision in so far as the decision of the respondent was upheld;

                           —

                           set aside the above-mentioned judgment of the General Court in so far as it upheld the Board of Appeal of the EASA’s decision of 17 December 2012 in Case AP/01/2012, which was notified to the appellant on 27 December 2012;

                           —

                           set aside the above-mentioned judgment of the General Court and annul the above-mentioned decision of the Board of Appeal of the respondent in so far as:

                                       —

                                       the latter was upheld,

                                       —

                                       the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings,

                                 and grant the applications of the applicant and appellant introduced at first instance.

               3.

               In the further alternative, set aside the above-mentioned judgment of the General Court and refer the case back to the General Court.

               4.

               Order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The General Court erred in law in re-interpreting the applicant’s action for annulment to the extent that it considered it as solely directed against the Board of Appeal’s decision and thereby infringed Article 50 Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008.
   To the extent that in explaining the facts of the case it merely relied upon the submissions of the parties, it is further alleged that the General Court infringed the principle that it is to examine the facts of its own motion. In particular, the General Court did not address the issue of whether the Robinson R66 helicopter could, or could not, be flown without danger.
   The judgment of the General Court should also be set aside because it infringed substantive EU law by mistakenly applying by analogy the principle on which it assesses ‘complex economic appraisals’ to the present area of law in the present case. The General Court’s case-law (inter alia, judgment of 17 September 2007, Case T-201/04 (2), in Microsoft v Commission, paragraph 87 et seq.) concerning those rules cannot be applied by analogy to the present area of law. The present case concerns neither rules of competition law, nor decisions of the Commission. Nor did the present case involve a ‘complex technical issue’, since neither the defendant nor the Board of Appeal addressed such issues.
   Finally, the General Court took the view that there could be no liability to pay compensation unless all of the conditions of the duty to make good damage caused set out in Article 340 TFEU were fulfilled. Having erred in law with regard to the action for annulment, the General Court further erred in dismissing the action for damages. Since the General Court should have allowed in both the annulment of the original decision as well as that of the Board of Appeal, the action for damages should also have been allowed.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency, and repealing Council Directive 91/670/EEC, Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 and Directive 2004/36/EC (OJ 2008 L 79, p. 1).

      (2)  ECLI:EU:T:2007:289.


title: Case T-479/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 3 September 2008 — Nuova Agricast v Commission (Action for annulment — Access to documents — Withdrawal of the decision refusing access — Disclosure of documents against the explicit opinion of the author thereof — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/26

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 3 September 2008 — Nuova Agricast v Commission
   (Case T-479/07) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Access to documents - Withdrawal of the decision refusing access - Disclosure of documents against the explicit opinion of the author thereof - No need to adjudicate)
   (2008/C 272/51)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Nuova Agricast (Foggia, Italy) (represented by: A. Calabrese, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Costa de Oliveira and G. Conte, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the Commission decision of 17 October 2007, which refused the applicant access to certain documents sent to the Commission by the Italian Government in the context of the review procedure for a State aid scheme
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the application and on the Kingdom of Denmark's application to intervene;

               2.

               Each party is to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.


title: Case T-427/10: Action brought on 16 September 2010 — Trefilerías Quijano v Commission

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/38

         Action brought on 16 September 2010 — Trefilerías Quijano v Commission
   (Case T-427/10)
   ()
   2010/C 317/69
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Trefilerías Quijano (Los Corrales de Buelna, Spain) (represented by E. González Díaz and A. Tresandri Blanco, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment pursuant to Article 263 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union of the decision of the European Commission of 30 June 2010 C(2010) 4387 final on a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU in Case COMP/38.344 — Prestressing steel;

               —

               or, in the alternative, annulment or reduction pursuant to Article 261 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union of the amount of the fine imposed by that decision;

               —

               an order that the Commission should pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The decision challenged in these proceedings is the same as that in Case T-426/10 Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías v Commission.
   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those raised in that case.
   The applicant denies that it should be held liable for the alleged infringement of Article 101 TFEU.


title: Case T-565/16: Order of the President of the General Court of 25 October 2016 — Maubert v Council

text:
               16.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 14/55

         Order of the President of the General Court of 25 October 2016 — Maubert v Council
   (Case T-565/16) (1)

   (2017/C 014/67)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the General Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 27 of 25 January 2016 (Case originally registered before the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union under number F-137/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1 September 2016.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by order of that court of 11 February 1998 in the case of staatssecretaris van Financiën against B. G. M. Verkooyen (Case C-35/98)

text:
C 137/6               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   2.5.98
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad              The applicant claims that the Court should:
der Nederlanden by order of that court of 11 February
1998 in the case of staatssecretaris van FinancieÈn against
                                                                   1. order Silena to pay ECU 15 000, together with interest
                     B. G. M. Verkooyen
                                                                       at the rate of ECU 4,17 per day from 10 May 1995 to
                        (Case C-35/98)                                 31 December 1996, totalling ECU 2 481,15, and ECU
                                                                       2,8 per day from 1 January 1997 until the day of
                         (98/C 137/11)
                                                                       actual payment;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the             2. order Silena to pay the costs.
European Communities by order of the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
11 February 1998, received at the Court Registry on
13 February 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
staatssecretaris van FinancieÈn against B. G. M. Verkooyen         The action, brought under an arbitration clause, seeks
on the following questions.                                        payment of a sum of money owed by the defendant by
                                                                   way of transfer of the right to market the technical
                                                                   package' in the context of Agreement No 10433-94-09-
1. Must Article 1(1) of Council Directive 88/361/EEC (1)           TICRISPI. The Commission decided to terminate the
    in conjunction with point I(2) in Annex I to that              contract on the ground of the defendant's failure to
    Directive be interpreted as meaning that a restriction         perform. The effects of the termination of the contract are
    arising from a provision of the income tax legislation         governed by italian law.
    of a Member State which exempts shareholders, up to
    a certain amount, from liability to income tax on
    dividends, but restricts that exemption to dividends
    paid in respect of shares in companies established in
    that Member State, has been prohibited since 1 July
    1990 pursuant to Article 6(1) of that Directive?
                                                                   Action brought on 18 February 1998 by the Commission
                                                                   of the European Communities against TVR-Tecnologie
2. If the answer to question 1 is in the negative, must                                    Vetroresina SpA
    Articles 6 and/or 52 of the EC Treaty be interpreted as
                                                                                (Case C-40/98)
    meaning that a restriction of the kind referred to in
    that question is incompatible with one or both of                                       (98/C 137/13)
    those Articles?
                                                                   An action against TVR-Tecnologie Vetroresina SpA, whose
3. Do the answers to the questions set out above differ            registered office is in Rome, was brought before the Court
    depending on whether the person seeking the benefit            of Justice of the European Communities on 18 February
    of such an exemption is an ordinary shareholder or an          1998 by the Commission of the European Communities,
    employee (of a subsidiary company) who holds the               represented by Eugenio de March, Legal Adviser, assisted
    shares in question in the context of an employees'             by Alberto Dal Ferro, of the Vicenza Bar, with an address
    savings plan?                                                  for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez
                                                                   de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
(1) OJ L 178, 8.7.1998, p. 5.
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   Ð order the defendant to repay ECU 211 307 together
                                                                       with interest, from 21 December 1991 until payment
                                                                       is actually made, at a rate of ECU 69,47 per day,
Action brought on 18 February 1998 by the Commission
     of the European Communities against Silena SpA
                                                                   Ð order the defendant to pay ECU 20 000 by way of
                        (Case C-39/98)                                 compensation for damage,
                         (98/C 137/12)
                                                                   Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
An action against Silena SpA, having its office in Cernusco
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
sul Naviglio (Italy), was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 18 February
1998 by the Commission of the European Communities,                The action, brought under an arbitration clause, seeks the
represented by Eugenio de March, Legal Adviser, acting as          repayment of an advance paid under contract 3440/1/0/
Agent, assisted by Alberto Dal Ferro, of the Vicenzo Bar,          187/91/6-BCR-I(30) for the completion of a project
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of         concerning the study of measuring systems for products
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                 manufactured from composite materials. The Commission


title: Corrigendum to the Official Journal notice in Case T-283/08 P ( OJ C 272, 25.10.2008, p. 28 )

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/61

         Corrigendum to the Official Journal notice in Case T-283/08 P

      (‘
            Official Journal of the European Union C 272 of 25 October 2008, p. 28
         ’)

   (2008/C 313/113)
   The correct text of the OJ notice in Case T-283/08 P Longinidis v Cedefop is as follows:

         ‘Appeal brought on 16 July 2008 by P. Longinidis against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 24 April 2008 in Case F-74/06 Pavlos Longinidis v Cedefop
         (Case T-283/08 P)
         (2008/C 272/54)
         Language of the case: Greek
         Parties

            Appellant: Pavlos Longinidis (represented by P. Giatagantzidis and S. Stavropoulou, lawyers)

            Other party to the proceedings: Cedefop
         Form of order sought by the appellant

                     —

                     set aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal of 24 April 2008 in Case F-74/06 Pavlos Longinidis v Cedefop;

                     —

                     annul the decision of the Director of Cedefop of 30 November 2005 terminating the appellant's employment contract of indefinite duration of 4 March 2003, and any other related administrative act;

                     —

                     annul the decision of the Director of Cedefop of 11 November 2005 amending the composition of the Appeals Committee of Cedefop, and any other related administrative act;

                     —

                     annul the decision of the Appeals Committee of Cedefop of 24 May 2006 rejecting the appellant's complaint of 28 February 2006, and any other related administrative act;

                     —

                     uphold the action brought by the appellant on 19 June 2006;

                     —

                     order Cedefop to pay the costs of both the case at first instance and the appeal.

               Pleas in law and main arguments
         By his action, the appellant sought, inter alia, the annulment of the decision of the Director of Cedefop terminating his employment contract of indefinite duration. That action was dismissed by judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 April 2008.
         The appellant submits that the judgment under appeal was delivered in breach of the rules that govern the bringing of evidence because it was based on matters that were not proved. More specifically, when examining the appellant's argument that the reasons for dismissal were communicated to him orally at the meeting on 23 November 2005, the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law because it altered the subject of the evidence.
         In addition, the appellant contends that the reasoning set out in the judgment under appeal is not adequate. In particular, he asserts that the Civil Service Tribunal's reasoning was not adequate when it decided whether the appellant was appropriately and sufficiently informed by Cedefop as to the reasons for his dismissal and that the Tribunal did not specify all the facts which in its view led to his dismissal.
         The appellant further contends that the Civil Service Tribunal misinterpreted and misapplied Community law as regards the following points: (i) in the light of the particular circumstances of the present case, compliance with the obligation to state reasons would have been ensured only by written notification of the reasons for his dismissal; (ii) his dismissal because of an isolated event constitutes a manifest error of assessment; and (iii) his rights of defence were infringed, given that he was heard after the decision to dismiss him had been taken, that no investigation or disciplinary proceedings were initiated in his regard and that crucial material on the file was not disclosed to him and his view was not sought on the accusations which arose against him.
         Finally, the appellant submits that his complaint of 28 February 2006 challenging the decision to dismiss him was not heard by the Appeals Committee of Cedefop in an objective and impartial manner.’


title: Case C-256/08: Action brought on 16 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/16

         Action brought on 16 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-256/08)
   (2008/C 197/27)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. O'Reilly and M. Condou-Durande, Agents)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/83/EC (1) of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted or, in any event, by failing to notify those provisions to it, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive;

               —

               order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period within which the directive had to be transposed expired on 10 October 2006

      (1)  OJ L 304, p. 12.