title: Case C-611/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Retten i Glostrup (Denmark) lodged on 23 December 2014 — Anklagemyndigheden v Canal Digital Danmark A/S

text:
               2.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/18

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Retten i Glostrup (Denmark) lodged on 23 December 2014 — Anklagemyndigheden v Canal Digital Danmark A/S
      (Case C-611/14)
      (2015/C 073/25)
      Language of the case: Danish

         Referring court

      Retten i Glostrup

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Anklagemyndigheden

         Defendant: Canal Digital Danmark A/S

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Is Directive 2005/29/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market, etc. (‘the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) to be interpreted as precluding a national scheme such as that provided for in Paragraph 3 of the Danish Markedsføringsloven, which prohibits misleading marketing practices, including in connection with invitations to purchase, but which neither in Paragraph 3 or elsewhere in the law refers to the limitations arising as a result of Article 7(1) of the Directive, under which account is to be taken of whether a marketing practice omits material information, that the average consumer needs, according to the context, to take an informed transactional decision, and as a result of Article 7(3), under which account should be taken of the fact that the communications medium used imposes limitations of time and space?

                  2.

                  Is Article 6 of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive to be interpreted as meaning that — in situations where a trader has opted to state a total price for an ongoing subscription so that the consumer must pay both an ongoing monthly charge and an ongoing six-monthly charge — it will be considered a misleading practice if the monthly price is particularly highlighted in the marketing practice, whilst the six-month charge is omitted entirely or presented only in a less conspicuous manner?

                  3.

                  Is Article 7 of the Directive to be interpreted as meaning that — in situations where a trader has opted to state a total price for an ongoing subscription so that the consumer must pay both an ongoing monthly charge and an ongoing six-monthly charge — it will be considered a misleading omission under Article 7 of the Directive if the monthly price is particularly highlighted in the marketing practice, whilst the six-month charge is omitted entirely or presented only in a less conspicuous manner?

                  4.

                  In the assessment of whether a marketing practice is misleading in a situation such as that described in questions 2 and 3, is account to be taken of whether the abovementioned marketing practice:

                              a)

                              states the total price for the subscription in the commitment period, including the six-month charge,
                              and/or

                              b)

                              is done through advertisements or publicity on the Internet, where reference is made to the trader’s website, where the six-month charge and/or the total price for the subscription, including the six-month charge, is stated?

                  5.

                  Does it have any bearing on the answers to questions 2 and 3 if the marketing takes place in a television advertisement?

                  6.

                  Does Article 7(4) of the Directive contain an exhaustive enumeration of what information is material for an invitation to purchase?

                  7.

                  If question 6 is answered in the affirmative, does Article 7(4) of the Directive rule out the possibility that an invitation to purchase — which states the total price the consumer will have to pay for the first year of the subscription’s contract period (commitment period) — can be regarded as a misleading marketing practice under Article 7(1) and (2) or Article 6 of the Directive if, for example, further information is given about certain — but not all — components of the product’s price?

         (1)  OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22.


title: Action brought on 6 July 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic (Case C-237/95)

text:
No C 229/ 14             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       2 . 9 . 95
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     Action brought on 6 July 1995 by the Commission of the
                                                                              European Communities against the Italian Republic
The obligatory nature of Article 189 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty                                        Case C-237/95 )
means that Member States must transpose directives into                                              ( 95/C 229/29 )
national law within the period laid down by those directives .
The necessary measures had not been adopted by the French
Republic when the period fixed by Article 44 of Directive               An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
92/50/EEC expired on 1 July 1993 .                                      the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 July
                                                                        1995 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        represented by Laura Pignataro and Maria Condou
f 1 ) OJ No L 209 , 24 . 7 . 1992 , p . 1 .
                                                                        Durande, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an
                                                                        address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                        Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Appel de             — declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
Douai by judgment of 27 January 1995 , rectified by                            obligations under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt or to
judgment of 3 1 May 1 995 , in the case of AGS Assedic Pas de                  communicate the laws, regulations and administrative
Calais against Francois Dumon and Mr Froment, liquidator                       provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
                 of Etablissements Pierre Gilson                               89/369/EEC ( J ) of 8 June 1989 on the prevention of air
                                                                               pollution from new municipal waste-incineration plants
                            Case C-235 /95 )                                   and Council Directive 89/429/EEC ( 2 ) of 21 June 1989
                             ( 95/C 229/28 )                                   on the reduction of air pollution from existing municipal
                                                                               waste-incineration plants,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Cour d'Appel                  — order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .
 ( Court of Appeal ), Douai of 27 January 1995 , rectified by
judgment of 31 May 1995 , in the case of AGS Assedic Pasde              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 Calais v. Francois Dumon and Mr Froment, liquidator of
Etablissements Pierre Gilson, which was received at the
 Court Registry on the following questions :                            Article 1 89 of the EC Treaty, which provides that a directive
                                                                        is binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon the Member
                                                                         State to which it is addressed, means that Member States are
 1 . Is Article 4 of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of                     under an obligation to comply with the time limits
       20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of              prescribed in directives for their transposition . On the
       the Member States relating to the protection of                   expiry of the relevant prescribed period on 1 December
       employees in the event of the insolvency of their                 1990, the Italian Republic had not adopted the provisions
       employer ( ] ) of general scope and obligatory and must it        necessary to comply with the directives referred to in the
       therefore have direct effect in national law ?                    form of order sought by the Commission .
 2 . In the absence of the Commission's having been                      0 ) OJ No L 163 , 14 . 6 . 1989 , p . 32 .
       informed in accordance with Article 1 1 of the Directive          ( 2 ) OJ No L 203 , 15 . 7. 1989 , p . 50 .
       of 20 October 1980, is Article D. 143-2 of the French
       Code du Travail ( which provides that the maximum
       amount of the guarantee provided for in Article
       L. 143-1 1-8 of the Code du Travail is set at thirteen times
       the monthly ceiling used to calculate contributions to
       the unemployment insurance scheme where the claims
       result from provisions of legislation or regulations or           Action brought on 6 July 1995 by the Commission of the
       from stipulations of a collective agreement and arose                   European Communities against the Italian Republic
       under a contract of employment which was concluded at
       a date more than six months before the decision
                                                                                ( Case C-238/95 )
       declaring a judicial composition, and that in other cases                                      ( 95/C 229/30 )
       the amount of the guarantee is limited to four times
       the aforementioned ceiling) compatible with that
       Directive ?
                                                                         An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
                                                                         the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 July
                                                                          1995 by the Commission of the European Communities,
  (') OJ No L 283 , 20 . 10 . 1980, p . 23 .                              represented by Laura Pignataro and Maria Condou
                                                                          Durande, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an
                                                                          address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                          Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.


title: Joined Cases T-109/05 and T-444/05: Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2011 — NLG v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents concerning the cost elements arising from public service obligations relating to State aid — Refusal of access — Exception concerning the protection of the commercial interests of a third party — Professional secrecy — Obligation to state reasons — Equal treatment — Documents originating from a Member State)

text:
               9.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 204/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2011 — NLG v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-109/05 and T-444/05) (1)

   (Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents concerning the cost elements arising from public service obligations relating to State aid - Refusal of access - Exception concerning the protection of the commercial interests of a third party - Professional secrecy - Obligation to state reasons - Equal treatment - Documents originating from a Member State)
   2011/C 204/34
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Navigazione Libera del Golfo Srl (NLG), formerly Navigazione Libera del Golfo SpA (Naples, Italy) (represented by: S. Ravenna, and A. Abate, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Costa de Oliveira and V. Di Bucci, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Italian Republic (represented initially by I. Braguglia, Agent, and M. Fiorilli, avvocato dello Stato, and subsequently by M. Fiorilli and R. Adam, Agent, and finally by I. Bruni, avvocato dello Stato) (Case T-444/05); Council of the European Union, (represented by: B. Driessen and A. Vitro, Agents (Case T-444/05); Caremar SpA (Naples) (represented initially by G.M. Roberti, A. Franchi and G. Bellitti, and subsequently by G.M. Roberti, G. Bellitti and I. Perego, lawyers) (Cases T-109/05 and T-444/05)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decisions D(2005) 997 of 3 February 2005 and D(2005) 9766 of 12 October 2005 refusing the applicant access to certain information which was not reproduced in the published version of Commission Decision 2005/163/EC of 16 March 2004 on the State aid paid by Italy to the Adriatica, Caremar, Siremar, Saremar and Toremar shipping companies (Tirrenia Group) (OJ 2005 L 53, p. 29).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision D(2005) 997 of 3 February 2005 in so far as it concerns refusal of access to detailed elements of the extra costs borne annually by Caremar SpA relating to passenger transport services on the Naples-Beverello/Capri line both by ferries and by high-speed craft;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action in Case T-109/05;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear one-third of its costs and to pay one-third of the costs incurred by Navigazione Libera del Golfo Srl (NLG), and the latter to bear two-thirds of its costs and to pay two-thirds of the costs incurred by the Commission in Case T-109/05;

               4.

               Orders Caremar to bear its own costs in Case T-109/05.

               5.

               Annuls Commission Decision D(2005) 9766 of 12 October 2005;

               6.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs in Case T-444/05;

               7.

               Orders the Italian Republic, the Council of the European Union and Caremar to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2005.


               19.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 41/31

         Action brought on 3 February 2009 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Principality of Liechtenstein
   (Case E-1/09)
   (2009/C 41/09)
   An action against the Principality of Liechtenstein was brought before the EFTA Court on 3 February 2009 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Bjørnar Alterskjær and Florence Simonetti, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, rue Belliard 35, B-1040 Brussels.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to declare that:

               1.

                  by requiring the members of the management board and of the executive management of banks established in Liechtenstein to be, by reason of their residence, in a position to actually and flawlessly perform their functions and duties, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEA Agreement, in particular Articles 28 and 31 thereof;

               2.

                  by requiring a residence, wherefrom he is able to fulfil his tasks effectively and on a regular basis, for lawyers, patent lawyers, auditors and trustees the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEA Agreement, in particular Article 31 thereof;

               3.

                  the Principality of Liechtenstein bear the costs of these proceedings.

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

               —

               the case concerns residence requirements under Liechtenstein law for members of the management board and of the executive management of banks established in Liechtenstein, and for lawyers, patent lawyers, auditors and trustees,

               —

               Article 28 EEA secures freedom of movement for EEA nationals and abolishes discrimination based on nationality within EEA as regards inter alia employment,

               —

               Article 31 EEA requires equal treatment between EEA nationals invoking their right to freedom of establishment and those nationals of the country where the establishment is effected.


title: Case C-472/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 April 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pest Megyei Bíróság (Hungary)) — Nemzeti Fogyasztóvédelmi Hatóság v Invitel Távközlési Zrt (Directive 93/13/EEC — Article 3(1) and (3) — Articles 6 and 7 — Consumer contracts — Unfair terms — Unilateral amendment of the terms of a contract by a seller or supplier — Action for an injunction brought in the public interest and on behalf of consumers by a body appointed by national legislation — Declaration of the unfair nature of a term — Legal effects)

text:
               16.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 174/7

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 April 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pest Megyei Bíróság (Hungary)) — Nemzeti Fogyasztóvédelmi Hatóság v Invitel Távközlési Zrt
   (Case C-472/10) (1)

   (Directive 93/13/EEC - Article 3(1) and (3) - Articles 6 and 7 - Consumer contracts - Unfair terms - Unilateral amendment of the terms of a contract by a seller or supplier - Action for an injunction brought in the public interest and on behalf of consumers by a body appointed by national legislation - Declaration of the unfair nature of a term - Legal effects)
   2012/C 174/08
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Pest Megyei Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Nemzeti Fogyasztóvédelmi Hatóság

      Defendant: Invitel Távközlési Zrt

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Pest Megyei Bíróság — Interpretation of Article 3(1), in conjunction with points 1(j) and 2(d) of the annex and Article 6(1), of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29) — Term allowing a seller or supplier to amend unilaterally the terms of a contract without a valid reason and without explicitly describing the method by which prices vary — Unfairness of the term — Legal effects of a finding of unfairness of a term in the context of an action in the public interest

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               It is for the national court, ruling on an action for an injunction, brought in the public interest and on behalf of consumers by a body appointed by national law, to assess, with regard to Article 3(1) and (3) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, the unfair nature of a term included in the general business conditions of consumer contracts by which a seller or supplier provides for a unilateral amendment of fees connected with the service to be provided, without setting out clearly the method of fixing those fees or specifying a valid reason for that amendment. As part of this assessment, the national court must determine, inter alia, whether, in light of all the terms appearing in the general business conditions of consumer contracts which include the contested term, and in the light of the national legislation setting out rights and obligations which could supplement those provided by the general business conditions at issue, the reasons for, or the method of, the amendment of the fees connected with the service to be provided are set out in plain, intelligible language and, as the case may be, whether consumers have a right to terminate the contract.

               2.

               Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13, read in conjunction with Article 7(1) and (2) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that:

                           —

                           it does not preclude the declaration of invalidity of an unfair term included in the standard terms of consumer contracts in an action for an injunction, provided for in Article 7 of that directive, brought against a seller or supplier in the public interest, and on behalf of consumers, by a body appointed by national legislation from producing, in accordance with that legislation, effects with regard to all consumers who concluded with the seller or supplier concerned a contract to which the same general business conditions apply, including with regard to those consumers who were not party to the injunction proceedings;

                           —

                           where the unfair nature of a term in the general business conditions has been acknowledged in such proceedings, national courts are required, of their own motion, and also with regard to the future, to draw all the consequences which are provided by national law in order to ensure that consumers who have concluded a contract with the seller or supplier to which those general business conditions apply will not be bound by that term.

      (1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.


title: Case T-117/12: Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2013 — ANKO v Commission (Arbitration clause — Seventh framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration (2007-2013) — Contracts concerning the Perform and Oasis projects — Suspension of payments — Irregularities found in audits relating to other projects — Late-payment interest)

text:
               8.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2013 — ANKO v Commission
   (Case T-117/12) (1)

   (Arbitration clause - Seventh framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration (2007-2013) - Contracts concerning the Perform and Oasis projects - Suspension of payments - Irregularities found in audits relating to other projects - Late-payment interest)
   2014/C 39/28
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, B. Conte, acting as Agents, and S. Drakakakis, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action founded on the basis of Article 272 TFEU, seeking, firstly, a declaration from the General Court that the suspension of reimbursement of the sums advanced by the applicant in performance of the contracts relating to the Perform and Oasis projects, which were concluded in the context of the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration, contributing to the creation of a European Research and Innovation Area (2007-2013), constitutes a breach by the Commission of its contractual obligations and, secondly, an order, on the one hand, that the Commission pay the applicant the sum of EUR 637 117,17 under the Perform project, together with interest for late payment and, on the other, that the applicant is not required to reimburse the sum of EUR 56 390 paid to it under the Oasis project.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Orders the European Commission to pay to ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias the sums of which the payment was suspended on the basis of the third indent of point II.5(3)(d) of the general conditions annexed to the grant agreements relating to the Oasis and Perform projects, concluded in the context of the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration (2007-2013), without such payment prejudicing the eligibility of the expenses declared by ANKO Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias or the implementation of the findings of final audit report 11-INFS-0035 by the Commission. The amount of the sums to be paid shall be inside the limits of the balance of the financial aid available at the time of the suspension of the payments and those sums must be increased by late-payment interest which shall start to run, in respect of each period, on expiry of the 105-day time-limit for payment following receipt of the corresponding reports by the Commission. The interest rate applicable shall be that in force on the first day of the month in which the payment fell due, as published in the Official Journal of the European Union, Series C;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias to bear a third of its own costs;

               4.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay two-thirds of the costs incurred by ANKO Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias.

      (1)  OJ C 138, 12.5.2012.


title: Case T-115/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 September 2006 — Laroche v Commission (Community officials — Career Development Review — Appraisal period 2001/2002 — Decision to close — Time-limit for challenge — Calculation)

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/30

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 September 2006 — Laroche v Commission
   (Case T-115/04) (1)

   (Community officials - Career Development Review - Appraisal period 2001/2002 - Decision to close - Time-limit for challenge - Calculation)
   (2006/C 281/50)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Yvonne Laroche (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and L. Lozano Palacios, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the Commission decision of 11 June 2003 to close the applicant's career development report for the appraisal period 2001/2002.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the Commission decision of 11 June 2003 to close the applicant's career development report for the appraisal period 2001/2002;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2004.


title: Case T-167/11: Action brought on 15 March 2011 — Centre national de la recherche scientifique v Commission

text:
               14.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/34

         Action brought on 15 March 2011 — Centre national de la recherche scientifique v Commission
   (Case T-167/11)
   2011/C 145/56
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Centre national de la recherche scientifique (Paris, France) (represented by: N. Lenoire, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare the action admissible and well-founded;

               —

               order the Commission to refund the sum of EUR 20 989,82 allegedly receivable and claimed by the Commission pursuant to the contract in its debit note No 2010-1232 of 26 October 2010 which gave rise to the set-off measure of 17 December 2010 (Ref: BUDG/C3 D(2010) B.2 — 1232) together with interest on late payment at the statutory rate in accordance with Belgian law governing the contract;

               —

               order the Commission to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging violation of Article II.19(1) of the general conditions of Contract LSHB — CT-2004-503319 concerning the ‘ALLOSTEM’ project under the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (2002-2006) (‘the ALLOSTEM Contract’), as the Commission limited, or deprived, the applicant of the possibility to adduce evidence of the proper performance of the contract with respect to the eligibility of personnel costs by failing to observed the criteria for defining eligible costs.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging breach of the contractual obligations arising from Articles II.19 and II.20 of the general conditions of the ALLOSTEM Contract, as the Commission excluded the eligibility of costs relating to the ‘provision for loss of employment’ and maternity leave for a biologist recruited under a temporary contract.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 12 of the ALLOSTEM Contract by making the assessment of whether all debts arising under the contract were certain subject to Belgian law. The applicant claims that:

                           —

                           The Commission relied only on European Union law and not Belgian law in order to determine whether the debt claimed was certain, and

                           —

                           That the debt was the subject of a serious dispute preventing it from being certain.


title: Case C-415/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca do Porto (Portugal) lodged on 27 July 2016 — David Fernando Leal da Fonseca v Varzim Sol — Turismo, Jogo e Animação, SA

text:
               24.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca do Porto (Portugal) lodged on 27 July 2016 — David Fernando Leal da Fonseca v Varzim Sol — Turismo, Jogo e Animação, SA
   (Case C-415/16)
   (2016/C 392/09)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal Judicial da Comarca do Porto

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: David Fernando Leal da Fonseca

      Defendant: Varzim Sol — Turismo, Jogo e Animação, SA

      Questions referred

               1.

               In the light of Article 5 of Directive 93/104/EC (1) of 23 November 1993, and Directive 2003/88/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003, as well as Article 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in the case of workers engaged in shift work with rotating rest periods, in an establishment open every day of the week but which does not have continuous 24-hour productive periods, must the compulsory rest day that a worker is entitled to be granted in each period of seven days, that is, at the latest on the seventh day following six consecutive working days?

               2.

               Do those directives and provisions preclude an interpretation to the effect that, in relation to those workers, the employer is free to choose the days on which it grants a worker, for each week, the rest days to which he is entitled, so that the worker may be required, without overtime pay, to work for up to ten consecutive days?

               3.

               Do those directives and provisions preclude an interpretation to the effect that the uninterrupted rest period of 24 hours may be granted on any of the calendar days in a given period of seven calendar days, and the subsequent uninterrupted rest period of 24 hours (to which are added the 11 hours of daily rest) may also be granted on any of the calendar days in the period of seven calendar days immediately following the period mentioned above?

      (1)  Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organization of working time (OJ 1993 L 307, p. 18).

      (2)  Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9).


title: Case T-276/08: Action brought on 15 July 2008 — Al-Aqsa v Council

text:
               13.9.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/15

         Action brought on 15 July 2008 — Al-Aqsa v Council
   (Case T-276/08)
   (2008/C 236/25)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Al-Aqsa (Heerlen, Netherlands) (represented by: J. Pauw and M. Uiterwaal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that the Council is under an obligation to compensate the applicant for the damage which it has suffered, in the amount of EUR 10 600 000, plus interest to be calculated up to the date of judgment in the present case, or at least such compensation as the Court may determine;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs of these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant is seeking compensation in respect of the damage which it claims to have suffered by reason of the fact that Council Decision 2003/480/EC of 27 June 2003 (1) placed it on the list of persons to whom Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 (2) is to apply. The applicant's inclusion on the list has subsequently been confirmed on the occasion of each update.
   The applicant contends that these decisions are unlawful for a variety of reasons. The applicant first points out that Decision 2006/379/EC of 29 May 2006 (3) was annulled by the Court on the ground that it failed to meet the requirement of an adequate statement of reasons (4). The applicant contends further that the decisions are vitiated by a number of substantive defects, and refers in this connection to its pleas in law in Cases T-327/03 and T-348/07 Al-Aqsa v Council
       (5).
   In issue here, according to the applicant, are sufficiently serious breaches of rights conferred on individuals as accordingly to justify the award of compensation. The damage suffered by the applicant involves both damage to its reputation and non-material damage, in respect of which the Council has been liable since 28 June 2003, that being the date on which the European measures entered into force.

      (1)  Council Decision 2003/480/EC of 27 June 2003 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2002/974/EC (OJ 2003 L 160, p. 81).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (OJ 2001 L 344, p. 70).

      (3)  Council Decision 2006/379/EC of 29 May 2006 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2005/930/EC (OJ 2006 L 144, p. 21).

      (4)  Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 2007 in Case T-327/03 Al-Aqsa v Council.

      (5)  OJ 2003 C 289, p. 30, and OJ 2007 C 269, p. 61, respectively.


title: Case T-212/06: Action brought on 11 August 2006 — Bowland Dairy Products v Commission

text:
               30.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 237/10

         Action brought on 11 August 2006 — Bowland Dairy Products v Commission
   (Case T-212/06)
   (2006/C 237/19)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Bowland Dairy Products Limited (Nelson, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Milligan, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the contested decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay damages to the applicant in the amount of the loss suffered by the applicant as a result of the contested decision, with interest;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs of these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By means of its application, the applicant seeks annulment of a decision of the Commission of the European Communities contained in an email to the UK Foods Agency dated 20 July 2006, forwarded to the applicant on 21 July 2006, refusing to circulate, under the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed provided for by Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 (OJ L 31 of 1 February 2002, p. 1-24), an additional notification declaring that the Food Security Agency (FSA) was content for the applicant's curd cheese to be marketed, unless conditions specified by the Commission were met.
   The applicant claims that the Commission was not entitled to impose conditions upon the circulation of an additional Notice prepared by a national competent authority under Article 50 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002.
   Moreover, the applicant submits that in formulating these conditions, the Commission has misinterpreted the applicable Regulations both in relation to antibiotic milk as in relation to watery milk.


title: Case T-143/03: Action brought on 29 April 2003 by Elisabeth Saskia Smit v Europol

text:
C 213/36                EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                         6.9.2003
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                                  (3) order Europol to pay the applicant compensation includ-
                            INSTANCE                                                ing in any event the costs of the proceedings.
                          of 25 June 2003
                                                                              Pleas in law and main arguments
in Case T-175/03 R: Norbert Schmitt v European Agency
                        for Reconstruction
                                                                              The applicant has worked for the defendant since 1 July 1999.
                 (Interim relief — Admissibility)                             On 1 July 2003 her contract expires. However, the applicant’s
                                                                              request for a renewal of her contract was rejected by the
                                                                              defendant. The applicant is challenging that decision.
                          (2003/C 213/71)
                    (Language of the case: French)                            In support of her application the applicant first alleges an
                                                                              infringement of the duty to provide a statement of reasons.
In Case T-175/03 R: Norbert Schmitt, residing in Koellerbach                  The applicant goes on to assert that the defendant exceeded its
(Germany), represented by L. Polanz, lawyer, against European                 policy-making powers. The defendant drew up basic principles,
Agency for Reconstruction (Agent: C. Manolopoulos) —                          policy rules and a stage plan to ensure that contracts are
application for suspension of operation of the decision of the                extended in a clear and transparent manner. According to the
European Agency for Reconstruction to revoke the applicant’s                  applicant the defendant exceeded its margin of discretion in
contract of employment — the President of the Court of First                  the application of those rules.
Instance has made an order on 25 June 2003, the operative
part of which is as follows:
                                                                              Finally, the applicant submits that there was an infringement
1.    The application for interim relief is dismissed.                        of the duty of care, as well as an infringement of the principle
                                                                              of equal treatment.
2.    Costs are reserved.
                                                                              Lastly, the applicant asserts that the defendant misused its
                                                                              competence. The applicant states that the Netherlands Minister
                                                                              for Home Affairs carried out a security check on the applicant
                                                                              at the defendant’s request. That investigation disclosed nothing
                                                                              adverse against the applicant. However, according to the
                                                                              applicant, the mere fact that a security check was carried out
Action brought on 29 April 2003 by Elisabeth Saskia Smit                      constituted the actual reason for the refusal to extend her
                             v Europol                                        contract.
                          (Case T-143/03)
                          (2003/C 213/72)
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                              Action brought on 30 April 2003 by Jose Maria Sison
                                                                                against the Council of the European Union
An action against Europol was brought before the Court of
                                                                                (Case T-150/03)
First Instance of the European Communities on 29 April 2003
by Elisabeth Saskia Smit, represented by P. de Casparis and
M.F. Baltussen.                                                                                (2003/C 213/73)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                      (Language of the case: English)
(1) annul the rejection by Europol on 25 February 2003
      of the applicant’s complaint against the decision of
      30 September 2002, together with the latter decision;                   An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                              brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
(2) order Europol to extend the applicant’s contract of                       Communities on 30 April 2003 by Jose Maria Sison, Utrecht,
      employment until 1 July 2007 or such other date as the                  the Netherlands, represented by Mr J. Fermon, Mr A. Comte,
      Court may determine;                                                    Mr E. Schultz and Mr D. Gurses, lawyers.


title: Case T-215/16: Action brought on 4 May 2016 — Cop v EUIPO — Conexa (AMPHIBIAN)

text:
               11.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/37

         Action brought on 4 May 2016 — Cop v EUIPO — Conexa (AMPHIBIAN)
   (Case T-215/16)
   (2016/C 251/43)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Cop Vertriebs-GmbH (Aresing, Germany) (represented by: H. Hofmann, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Conexa LLC (Wilmington, Delaware, United States)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the mark ‘AMPHIBIAN’ — International registration designating the European Union No 359 251

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 March 2016 in Case R 1984/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul or alter the contested decision;

               —

               annul or alter the decision of the Cancellation Division of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 14 September 2015 in cancellation proceedings No 9736 C;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs;

               —

               fix a date for the hearing.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case C-380/13 P: Appeal brought on 3 July 2013 by Associação de Empresas de Construção e Obras Públicas e Serviços (Aecops) against the judgment delivered on 19 April 2013 by the General Court (Seventh Chamber) in Case T-52/11 Associação de Empresas de Construção e Obras Públicas e Serviços (Aecops) v Commission

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/33

         Appeal brought on 3 July 2013 by Associação de Empresas de Construção e Obras Públicas e Serviços (Aecops) against the judgment delivered on 19 April 2013 by the General Court (Seventh Chamber) in Case T-52/11 Associação de Empresas de Construção e Obras Públicas e Serviços (Aecops) v Commission
   (Case C-380/13 P)
   2013/C 260/60
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Appellant: Associação de Empresas de Construção e Obras Públicas e Serviços (Aecops) (represented by: N. Morais Sarmento and L. Pinto Monteiro, advogados)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal in its entirety;

               —

               annul the contested decision in its entirety;

               —

               order the Commission to bear its own costs in addition to those incurred by the appellant.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

         Failure to adopt a decision within a reasonable period of time

   (i)   The proceedings are time-barred
   The appellant submits that the contested decision was adopted after the four-year limitation period for proceedings, as set out in Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95, (1) had expired. Equally, even if there had been a possible interruption of the limitation period for proceedings, more than twice the limitation period had expired without any decision being taken in accordance with the fourth subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95. Since the corresponding right was thus time-barred, the contested decision should be declared unlawful and unenforceable.
   (ii)   Infringement of the principle of legal certainty
   The appellant considers that the fact that the Commission allowed more than 20 years to pass between the alleged irregularities and the adoption of the contested decision amounts to a failure to observe the principle of legal certainty. That fundamental principle of European Union law provides that all individuals have the right to have their cases dealt with by the European Union institutions within a reasonable period of time.
   (iii)   Infringement of the rights of the defence
   The appellant considers that its rights of defence have been infringed in so far as, given that more than 20 years had passed between the alleged irregularities and the adoption of the final decision, the appellant was deprived of its right to submit its observations in good time, namely at a point in time when it was still in possession of documents enabling it to justify the expenses which the Commission deemed ineligible.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1).


title: Case T-475/11 P: Appeal brought on 5 September 2011 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 20 June 2011 in Case F-67/10 Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/46

         Appeal brought on 5 September 2011 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 20 June 2011 in Case F-67/10 Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-475/11 P)
   2011/C 311/85
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant requests that the Court grant the present appeal, with all the legal consequences thus arising.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present appeal is brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 20 June 2011, which dismissed as inadmissible an action seeking an order that the Commission pay compensation for the damage purportedly suffered as a result of the Commission’s refusal to reimburse the appellant in respect of the recoverable costs allegedly incurred in the case which gave rise to the judgment delivered by the Tribunal on 4 November 2008 in Case F-41/06 Marcuccio v Commission.
   The appellant relies on three grounds of appeal.

               1.

               The rejection, on purported grounds of inadmissibility, of the ‘third head of claim’ (sic between paragraphs 13 and 14 of the order under appeal) made by the appellant in the application at first instance, and the ‘fourth head of claim’ (sic between paragraphs 19 and 20 of the order under appeal) made by the appellant in the application at first instance, was unlawful, including on the grounds of (a) incorrect and unreasonable interpretation and application of the notion of ‘request’ within the meaning of Article 90 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and Article 91 of those rules and illogical and unreasoned failure to have regard to the relevant case-law; (b) absolute failure to state reasons, distortion and misrepresentation of the facts and irrelevant, self-evident, arbitrary, illogical, irrational and unreasonable reasoning;

               2.

               Distortion and misrepresentation of the facts and absolute failure to carry out any preliminary investigations;

               3.

               Failure to rule on a claim made by the appellant in the proceedings and consequent breach of the appellant’s right to be heard and rights of defence.


title: Case C-267/11 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 October 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Latvia, Republic of Lithuania, Slovak Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Appeals — Integrated pollution prevention and control — Greenhouse gas emission allowance trading system — Allocation of allowances for the Republic of Latvia — Period from 2008 to 2012)

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/6

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 October 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Latvia, Republic of Lithuania, Slovak Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-267/11 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Integrated pollution prevention and control - Greenhouse gas emission allowance trading system - Allocation of allowances for the Republic of Latvia - Period from 2008 to 2012)
   2013/C 344/07
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: I. Rubene and E. White, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Republic of Latvia (represented by: I. Kalniņš, acting as Agent), Republic of Lithuania, Slovak Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

      Intervener in support of Republic of Latvia: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and D. Hadroušek, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 22 March 2011 in Case T-369/07 Latvia v Commission, by which the General Court annulled Commission Decision C(2007) 3409, of 13 July 2007, on the amendment of the national plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by the Republic of Latvia for the period from 2008 to 2012, under 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 (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32) — Misinterpretation of the procedure provided for in Article 9(3) of the directive — Erroneous application of the three-month time limit, laid down for initial decisions on new notified national allocation plans for greenhouse gas emission allowances (NAP), to a Commission decision accepting amendments to an NAP notified following a decision on the part of the Commission to reject the initial NAP

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission, the Republic of Latvia and the Czech Republic to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 226, 30.7.2011.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 28 January 2000 in Case T-96/98: Bureau Européen des Unions des Consommateurs (BEUC) v Commission of the European Communities (Antidumping proceeding — Consumer association — Refusal of recognition as an interested party — Application for annulment — Non-adoption of definitive regulation — No need to adjudicate)

text:
24.6.2000                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 176/21
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 11 May 2000
                           of 6 April 2000                                 in Case T-34/99: Philippe Pipeaux v European Parlia-
                                                                                ment (1)
in Case T-188/98: Aldo Kuijer v Council of the European                    (Officials — Course of thalassotherapy treatment — Refusal
                                Union (1)                                         of prior authorisation — Statement of reasons)
                                                                                (2000/C 176/36)
(Transparency — Council Decision 93/731/EC on public
access to Council documents — Refusal of an application for                                   (Language of the case: French)
access — Protection of the public interest — International
  relations — Obligation to state reasons — Partial access)                In Case T-34/99: Philippe Pipeaux, an official of the European
                                                                           Parliament, residing at Mensdorf (Luxembourg), represented
                                                                           by L. Vogel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                           Luxembourg at the Chambers of E. Arendt, 8-10 Rue Mathias
                           (2000/C 176/35)                                 Hardt, v European Parliament (Agent: M. Moore) — application
                                                                           for annulment of the decision of the Luxembourg Settlements
                                                                           Office of 6 March 1998 rejecting the applicant’s request for
                                                                           prior authorisation to undergo a course of thermal treatment
                                                                           — the Court of First Instance (Single Judge), composed of:
                     (Language of the case: English)                       A. Potocki, sitting as a single judge; J. Palacio González,
                                                                           Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                           11 May 2000, in which it:
In Case T-188/98 Aldo Kuijer, residing in Utrecht (Nether-                 1. Dismisses the application;
lands), represented by O.W. Brouwer and F.P. Louis, of the
Brussels Bar, and D. Curtin, Professor at the University of                2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
Utrecht, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of M. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe v Council of the                      (1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.
European Union, (Agents: M. Bauer and M. Bishop) —
application for annulment of the Council’s decision of 28 Sep-
tember 1998, as amended by its decision of 18 May 1999,
refusing the applicant access to certain documents — the
Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: R.M. Moura Ramos,
President, V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; J. Palacio González,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                        ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
6 April 2000, in which it:
                                                                                of 28 January 2000
1. Annuls the Council’s decision of 28 September 1998, as                  in Case T-96/98: Bureau Européen des Unions des Con-
     amended by the decision of 18 May 1999, refusing the applicant        sommateurs (BEUC) v Commission of the European
     access to certain reports drawn up by the Centre for Information,                             Communities (1)
     Discussion and Exchange on Asylum, to certain reports of joint
     missions or reports of missions undertaken by Member States           (Antidumping proceeding — Consumer association —
     sent to the Centre, and to the list of contact persons in the         Refusal of recognition as an interested party — Application
     Member States involved with asylum cases;                             for annulment — Non-adoption of definitive regulation —
                                                                                No need to adjudicate)
2. Orders the Council to pay the applicant’s costs and to bear its                                 (2000/C 176/37)
     own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
(1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.                                                  In Case T-96/98: Bureau Européen des Unions des Consomma-
                                                                           teurs (BEUC), established in Brussels, represented by B. O’Con-
                                                                           nor, Solicitor, and B. Garcı́a Porras, of the Bar of Salamanca
                                                                           (Spain), with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                           Chambers of A. Kronshagen, 22 Avenue Marie-Adelaïde,
                                                                           supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                                                                           Ireland (Agent: M. Ewing) v Commission of the European
 ---pagebreak--- C 176/22              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                    24.6.2000
Communities (Agents N. Khan and F. Randolph) — application                       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/98 of
7 April 1998, imposing a provisional antidumping duty on                                         of 23 March 2000
imports of certain unbleached cotton fabrics originating in the
People’s Republic of China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Pakistan             in Case T-234/99: Patrick Monod-Gayraud v Commission
and Turkey (OJ 1998 L 111, p. 19), the Court of First                                    of the European Communities (1)
Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed
of J.D. Cooke, President, and R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, P. Lindh,
J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges; Registrar: H. Jung, has made           (Action for annulment and compensation — National expert
an order on 28 January 2000 to the following effect:                      seconded to the Commission — Cost of accommodation —
                                                                          Time-limit for bringing proceedings — Proceedings brought
1. There is no need to adjudicate upon the application in this case.                       out of time — Inadmissibility)
2. Each party shall bear its own costs.                                                           (2000/C 176/39)
(1) OJ C 258 of 15.8.1998.                                                                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          In Case T-234/99: Patrick Monod-Gayraud, a national expert
                                                                          on secondment to the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties, residing in Warsaw (Poland), represented by H. Masse-
                                                                          Dessen, advocate with a right of audience before the Conseil
                                                                          d’État and the Cour de Cassation, and V. Ecker, of the
                                                                          Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               at the latter’s Chambers, 77 Boulevard Grande-Duchesse
                                                                          Charlotte, v Commission of the European Communities
                       of 30 March 2000                                   (Agents: J. Currall and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart) — application,
                                                                          first, for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 29 June
in Case T-33/99: Elvira Méndez Pinedo v European Central                  1999 refusing to pay the applicant’s accommodation expenses
                              Bank (1)                                    and, second, for compensation for the loss resulting therefrom
                                                                          — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
                                                                          R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, President, and P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke,
(Notice calling for applications for posts in the Legal Service           Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 23 March 2000,
of the European Central Bank — Application for annulment                  the operative part of which is as follows:
            and compensation — Inadmissibility)
                                                                          1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
                        (2000/C 176/38)
                                                                          2. The applicant is to pay all the costs.
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                         (1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.
In Case T-33/99: Elvira Méndez Pinedo, residing in Madrid,
represented by Antonio Mendez Garcı́a, of the Madrid Bar,
2nd Floor, Calle Bravo Murillo, 28015 Madrid, v European
Central Bank (Agents: Antonio Sàiñz de Vicuña and Chiara
Zilioli) — application for annulment of the notice calling for
applications for posts in the Legal Service of the European               Action brought on 4 April 2000 by ACA — Associação
Central Bank, published in Official Journal C 159 A of 26 May             Comercial de Aveiro against the Commission of the
1998, and for compensation — the Court of First Instance                                      European Communities
(Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, and
A. Potocki and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made                                       (Case T-80/00)
an order on 30 March 2000, the operative part of which is as
follows:
                                                                                (2000/C 176/40)
1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
2. The application for legal aid is dismissed.
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
3. The parties shall bear their own costs.
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 4 April 2000 by ACA — Associa-
(1) OJ C 121 of 1.5.1999.                                                 ção Comercial de Aveiro, a non-profit-making organisation,
                                                                          whose registered office is at Aveiro (Portugal), represented by
                                                                          João Amaral e Almeida and Bernardo Diniz de Ayala, of the
                                                                          Lisbon Bar.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by order of that court of 21 March 1997 in the case of Eco Swiss China Time Ltd against Benetton International NV (Case C-126/97)

text:
31 . 5 . 97           I EN 1                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 166/9
            large a prize can be obtained from the gaming                     the EC Treaty and, according to the rules of national
            machines and whether the opportunity to win is                    procedural law applicable to them, the arbitrators are
            based on chance or on the player's skill ?                        not at liberty to apply those provisions of their own
                                                                              motion ?
(') [ 1994 ] ECR 1-1039 .
( 2 ) [ 1982] ECR 3415 .
                                                                         2 . Notwithstanding the rules of Netherlands procedural
                                                                              law set out in paragraphs 4.2 and 4 .4 above, should a
                                                                              Netherlands court allow a claim, which otherwise
                                                                              complies with statuatory requirements, for the
                                                                              annulment of an arbitration award on the ground that
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                                   the award conflicts with Article 85 of the EC Treaty, if
Arrondissementsrechtbank Alkmaar by order of that court                       it finds that there is in fact such a conflict ?
of 18 March 1997 in the case of A. G. R. Regeling against
Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging voor de Metaalnijver
                                   heid                                  3 . Notwithstanding the rules of Netherlands procedural
                          ( Case C-125 /97 )                                  law set out in paragraph 4.5 above, is the court also
                                                                              required to allow such a claim if the applicability of
                            ( 97/C 166/ 15 )
                                                                              Article 85 of the EC Treaty was outside the scope of
                                                                              the dispute in the arbitration proceedings and the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice                               arbitrators therefore made no decision in regard to it ?
of the European Communities by order of the
Arrondissementsrechtbank Alkmaar ( Alkmaar District
Court) of 18 March 1997, received at the Court Registry                  4 . Does Community law require the rules of Netherlands
on 26 March 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                     procedural law set out in paragraph 5.3 above to be
A. G. R. Regeling against Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereni                      disapplied if this is necessary in order to be able to
ging voor de Metaalnijverheid on the following question :                     examine , in proceedings for annulment of a
                                                                              subsequent arbitration award, whether an agreement
Are the requirements of Directive 80/987 (') fully satisfied                  held to be valid in an interim arbitration award with
by rules of national law which may result in a claim                          the force of res judicata may nevertheless be void
relating to pay^being met, as required by that Directive,                     because it conflicts with Article 85 of the EC Treaty ?
only if and in so far as that claim amounts, over the
period referred to in the Directive, to a sum greater than
the amount of pay which the employee received during                     5 . Alternatively, in a case such as that described in
that period but which is attributed, under national civil                     Question 4 , is it necessary to refrain from applying the
law, to a claim relating to pay which arose prior to that                     rule that, in so far as an interim arbitration award is
period ?                                                                      in the nature of a final award, annulment of that
                                                                              award may not be sought simultaneously with that of
(') OJ No L 283 , 1980 , p . 23 .                                             the subsequent arbitration award ?
                                                                         H OJ No C 77, 1996 , p . 1 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad
der Nederlanden by order of that court of 21 March 1997
in the case of Eco Swiss China Time Ltd against Benetton
                          International NV                               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Chamber for
                          ( Case C-126/97 )                              Labour Disputes of the Pretura Circondariale di Bologna,
                                                                         by order of that court of 2 December 1996 in the case of
                             ( 97/C 166/ 16 )                            Annalisa Carbonari and 121 other plaintiffs against
                                                                         1 . Università degli Studi di Bologna, 2 . Ministero della Sa
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   nità, 3 . Minstero dell'Università e della Ricerca Scientifica,
European Communities by order of the Hoge Raad der                                            4 . Ministero del Tesoro
Nederlanden ( Supreme Court of the Netherlands ) of                                               ( Case C-131 /97 )
21 March 1997, which was received at the Court Registry
 on 27 March 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                                          ( 97/C 166/ 17 )
 Eco Swiss China Time Ltd and Benetton International NV
on the following questions :
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 1 . To what extent is the ruling of the Court of Justice in             European Communities by an order of the Chamber for
        Joined Cases C-430/93 and C-431/93 Van Schijndel                 Labour Disputes of the Pretura Circondariale di Bologna
        and Van Veen v. SPF (') applicable by analogy if, in a           ( Bologna District Magistrates Court) of 2 December 1996,
        dispute concerning a private law agreement which is              which was received at the Court Registry on 1 April 1997,
        decided upon by arbitrators rather than the national             for a preliminary ruling in the case of Annalisa Carbonari
        courts, the parties make no reference to Article 85 of           and 121 other plaintiffs against 1 . Universita degli Studi di


title: Case T-591/10 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 9 March 2011 — Castiglioni v Commission (Interim proceedings — Public contracts — Public procurement procedure — Rejection of a bid — Application for stay of execution — Failure to have regard to the formal requirements — Inadmissibility)

text:
               16.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 120/12

         Order of the President of the General Court of 9 March 2011 — Castiglioni v Commission
   (Case T-591/10 R)
   (Interim proceedings - Public contracts - Public procurement procedure - Rejection of a bid - Application for stay of execution - Failure to have regard to the formal requirements - Inadmissibility)
   2011/C 120/30
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Castiglioni Srl (Busto Arsizio, Italy) (represented by: G. Turri, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude and N. Bambara, acting as Agents, and by D. Gullo, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for interim measures made in the tendering procedure concerning a multiple framework agreement for works to construct, restructure and maintain buildings and infrastructure at the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre’s Ispra (Italy) site.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 July 2000 in Case T-87/99: Michel Hendrickx v European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) (Officials — Non-renewal of contract — Rejection of applications for two posts — Admissibility — Competence — Legality of vacancy notices — Recruitment procedure)

text:
9.9.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 259/19
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               represented by J.-N. Louis, F. Parmentier and V. Peere, of the
                                                                          Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                          of 14 July 2000                                 offices of Société de Gestion Fiduciaire SARL, 2-4 Rue Beck, v
                                                                          European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training
                                                                          (Cedefop) (Agent: B. Wägenbaur) — application for annulment
in Case T-82/99: Michael Cwik v Commission of the
                                                                          of the decision of the European Centre for the Development of
                   European Communities (1)
                                                                          Vocational Training of 3 June 1998 rejecting the applications
                                                                          submitted by the applicant for the grade A 7/A 5 post of Head
(Officials — Authorisation to publish — Second paragraph                  of General Support Services (Administration) and the grade
of Article 17 of the Staff Regulations — Interests of the                 A 5/A 4 post of Head of Administration and refusing to renew
        Communities — Manifest error of assessment)                       the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff
                                                                          beyond 30 June 1998 — the Court of First Instance (Fifth
                         (2000/C 259/31)                                  Chamber), composed of R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, President, and
                                                                          P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio González, Adminis-
                                                                          trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 July 2000,
                    (Language of the case: French)                        in which it:
In Case T-82/99: Michael Cwik, an official of the Commission              1.    Declares the action inadmissible in so far as it concerns the
of the European Communities, residing at Tervuren (Belgium),                    decision not to renew the applicant’s contract beyond 30 June
represented by N. Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an address                  1998;
for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Becker &
Cahen, 3 Rue des Foyers, v Commission of the European                     2.    Annuls the contested decision in so far as it rejects the
Communities (Agent: J. Currall) — application for annulment                     application submitted by the applicant for the post of Head of
of the Commission’s decision of 10 July 1998 refusing the                       Administration;
applicant authorisation to publish the text of the conference
speech given by him on 30 October 1997 — the Court of First               3.    Dismisses the remainder of the action;
Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili, President,
and R.M. Moura Ramos and P. Mengozzi, Judges; G. Herzig,                  4.    Orders Cedefop to bear its own costs and to pay half of the
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                       costs of the applicant. The applicant is ordered to bear half of
14 July 2000, in which it:                                                      his own costs.
1.    Annuls the Commission’s decision of 10 July 1998 refusing
                                                                          (1) OJ C 174 of 19.6.1999.
      the applicant authorisation to publish the text of the conference
      speech given by him on 30 October 1997;
2.    Orders the Commission to pay all the costs.
(1) OJ C 174 of 19.6.1999.
                                                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 11 July 2000
                                                                          in Case T-134/99: Anna Skrzypek v Commission of the
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                   European Communities (1)
                          of 13 July 2000                                 (Officials — Family allowances — Orphan’s pension —
                                                                             Conditions of grant — Actual maintenance of the child)
in Case T-87/99: Michel Hendrickx v European Centre for
   the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) (1)                                             (2000/C 259/33)
(Officials — Non-renewal of contract — Rejection of
applications for two posts — Admissibility — Competence                                       (Language of the case: French)
  — Legality of vacancy notices — Recruitment procedure)
                                                                          In Case T-134/99: Anna Skrzypek, residing in Brussels,
                         (2000/C 259/32)                                  represented by E. Causin and I. Jiménez Rojas, of the Brussels
                                                                          Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                          Chambers of D. Phong, 222a Avenue Gaston Diderich, v
                    (Language of the case: French)                        Commission of the European Communities (Agent: F. Clotu-
                                                                          che-Duvieusart) — application principally for annulment of
In Case T-87/99: Michel Hendrickx, an official of the Council             the Commission’s decision of 9 March 1999 refusing to grant
of the European Union, residing at Ambelokipon (Greece),                  the applicant family allowances for herself and an orphan’s


title: Case C-513/14 P: Appeal brought on 14 November 2014 by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 3 September 2014 in Case T-687/13 Unibail v OHIM

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/25

         Appeal brought on 14 November 2014 by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 3 September 2014 in Case T-687/13 Unibail v OHIM
   (Case C-513/14 P)
   (2015/C 138/35)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

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

      Other party to the proceedings: Unibail Management

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the judgment under appeal,

               —

               Rule on the dispute pursuant to the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, and

               —

               Order the applicant before the General Court to pay the costs incurred by OHIM.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant raises a single ground of appeal in support of its appeal. OHIM submits that the General Court infringed the first sentence of Article 75 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark, read in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) of the same regulation. The General Court misconstrued not only the scope of the concept of general reasoning, but also its own case-law. Finally, the appellant criticises the General Court for having reversed the burden of proof.

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.


title: Case T-68/00: Action brought on 23 March 2000 by Nippon Steel Corporation against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 135/30               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      13.5.2000
— Manifest error of assessment.                                             out their own investigation whilst recognising that the
                                                                            EFTA Surveillance Authority was exclusively competent in
                                                                            this matter, contrary to Article 56 of the EEA Agreement.
                                                                            The documentary evidence obtained on the basis of an
                                                                            illegal decision should have been removed from the
                                                                            proceedings. Second, the Commission should not have
Action brought on 23 March 2000 by Nippon Steel                             used the documentary evidence upon which it relies as it
Corporation against the Commission of the European                          was obtained on behalf of the EFTA Surveillance Authority
                          Communities                                       which conducted an investigation, the purpose of which
                                                                            was different from that of the Commission proceeding;
                         (Case T-68/00)
                                                                        — in the alternative, the fine should be annulled or, at the
                        (2000/C 135/52)                                     very least, substantially reduced, inter alia, on the ground
                                                                            that the Commission made a factual error in computing
                                                                            the duration of the alleged infringement. The Commission
                                                                            claims that, in view of the EC-Japan voluntary restraint
                  (Language of the case: English)                           agreements, it takes account of the existence of an
                                                                            infringement only from 1990 onwards. The Commission,
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                   however, made a factual error in that the voluntary
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                  restraint agreements expired only on 31 December 1990
European Communities on 23 March 2000 by Nippon Steel                       and thus covered the whole year of 1990.
Corporation (Tokyo), represented by Jean-François Bellis and
Kris Van Hove.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the Commission decision of 8 December 1999
    relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty
    (Case IV/E-1/35.860-B Seamless steel tubes) in so far as it
    concerns the applicant;                                             Action brought on 23 March 2000 by Fiamm SpA and
                                                                        Fiamm Technologies Inc. against the Commission and the
— annul or, at the very least, reduce the amount of the fine                       Council of the European Communities
    imposed on the applicant; and
                                                                                (Case T-69/00)
— order the Commission to bear the costs.
                                                                                (2000/C 135/53)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
In the decision of 8 December 1999, the Commission imposed
a fine upon the applicant for its alleged participation in an
alleged agreement to refrain from selling seamless standard             An action against the Commission and the Council of the
OCTG and line pipe into Germany, Italy, France and the United           European Communities was brought before the Court of First
Kingdom, contrary to Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty. The                Instance of the European Communities on 23 March 2000 by
applicant puts forward the following three submissions:                 Fiamm SpA and Fiamm Technologies Inc., represented by Ivo
                                                                        Van Bael of the Brussels Bar, Andrea Cevese of the Vicenza Bar
— the Commission has failed to establish the existence of the           and Fabrizio di Gianni of the Rome Bar.
    alleged infringement as far as the applicant is concerned.
    The Commission’s analysis is flawed in that it did not take
    account of the vigorous competition from the applicant in           The applicants claim that the Court should:
    the UK offshore market and the high barriers to entry for
    Japanese supplies of the relevant products to the European          — award them: (i) damages against the Community of LIT
    onshore markets. Furthermore, the documentary evidence                  20835811027.16, or such other sum as the Court may
    relied upon by the Commission fails to support its finding              consider reasonable, final determination to be reserved for
    that the agreement existed and even less that the applicant             as long as the payment obligation lasts; (ii) interest at the
    was a party to it;                                                      Italian statutory rate on 96.5 % of the increased duties paid
                                                                            by the applicants to the US customs administration,
— the challenged decision is illegal as the Commission relied               from the date of actual payment by the applicants until
    on documentary evidence illegally obtained and used. First,             satisfaction; and (iii) interest at 8 % per annum, in accord-
    the decision of 25 November 1994, which authorised the                  ance with Community case-law, in the event of delay in
    on-site investigations of 1 and 2 December 1994, was                    payment of the sum demanded after the judgment award-
    illegal because it empowered Commission officials to carry              ing compensation;


title: Case T-131/13: Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2014  — Lardini v OHIM (Affixing of a flower to a collar) (Community trade mark  — Application for a Community trade mark consisting in the affixing of a flower to a collar  — Absolute ground for refusal  — No distinctive character  — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2014 — Lardini v OHIM (Affixing of a flower to a collar)
   (Case T-131/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for a Community trade mark consisting in the affixing of a flower to a collar - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2014/C 135/41
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Lardini Srl (Filottrano, Italy) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, G. Lazzeretti, F. Rossi and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock and N. Bambara, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 December 2012 (Case R 2578/2011-1), concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a sign consisting in the affixing of a flower to a collar.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders Lardini Srl to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 141, 18.5.2013.


title: Case C-321/10: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 February 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2007/2/EC — Environment policy — Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) — Exchange and updates of data in electronic format — Incomplete transposition)

text:
               2.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/10

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 February 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-321/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2007/2/EC - Environment policy - Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) - Exchange and updates of data in electronic format - Incomplete transposition)
   2011/C 103/15
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Sénéchal, Agent)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: T. Materne and M. Jacobs, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt or to communicate, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) (OJ 2007 L 108, p. 1)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.