title: Judgment of the Court of 11 May 1999 in Case C-255/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien): Pfeiffer Großhandel GmbH v Löwa Warenhandel GmbH (Articles 30 and 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC and 43 EC) - Industrial and commercial property - Trade name)

text:
C 204/14                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           17.7.1999
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    stelltenbetriebsrat der Wiener Gebietskrankenkasse v Wiener
                                                                            Gebietskrankenkasse — on the interpretation of Article 119
                            of 11 May 1999                                  of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 141 EC) and
                                                                            Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the
in Case C-255/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                   approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
the Handelsgericht Wien): Pfeiffer Großhandel GmbH v                        the application of the principle of equal pay for men and
                   Löwa Warenhandel GmbH (1)                                women (OJ 1975 L 45, p. 19) — the Court, composed of:
                                                                            G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet (Rappor-
(Articles 30 and 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,                 teur), G. Hirsch and P. Jann, Presidents of Chambers, J.C.
Articles 28 EC and 43 EC) — Industrial and commercial                       Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, H. Ragne-
                       property — Trade name)                               malm and M. Wathelet, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General;
                                                                            D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Regis-
                            (1999/C 204/25)                                 trar, has given a judgment on 11 May 1999, in which it has
                                                                            ruled:
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                            The term ‘the same work’ does not apply, for the purposes of Article
                                                                            119 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 141 EC) or
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the
                     in the European Court Reports)                         approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the
                                                                            application of the principle of equal pay for men and women, where
In Case C-255/97: reference to the Court under Article 234                  the same activities are performed over a considerable length of time
EC (ex Article 177) from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) for              by persons the basis of whose qualification to exercise their profession
a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                 is different.
court between Pfeiffer Großhandel GmbH and Löwa Waren-
handel GmbH — on the interpretation of Articles 30 and 52
of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC and                  (1) OJ C 331 of 1.11.1997.
43 EC) — the Court, composed of G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias,
President, P.J.G. Kapteyn and P. Jann, Presidents of Chambers,
J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), J.L. Mur-
ray, H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges; J.
Mischo, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment or 11 May 1999, in                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
which it has ruled:
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
Articles 30 and 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles
28 EC and 43 EC) do not preclude a provision of national law which                                    of 11 May 1999
prohibits, where there is a risk of confusion, the use of a trade name
as the specific designation of an undertaking.                              in Case C-350/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                            from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Wilfried Monsees v
(1) OJ C 271 of 6.9.1997.
                                                                                Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat für Kärnten (1)
                                                                            (Articles 30, 34 and 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after
                                                                            amendment, Articles 28, 29 and 30 EC) — Free movement
                                                                            of goods — Prohibition of quantitative restrictions and
                                                                            measures having equivalent effect — Derogations — Protec-
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    tion of health and life of animals — International transport
                                                                                of live animals for slaughter)
                            of 11 May 1999
                                                                                (1999/C 204/27)
in Case C-309/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Oberlandesgericht Wien): Angestelltenbetriebsrat der                                       (Language of the case: German)
Wiener Gebietskrankenkasse v Wiener Gebietskranken-
                                kasse (1)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                  (Equal pay for men and women)                                                in the European Court Reports)
                            (1999/C 204/26)                                 In Case C-350/97: reference to the Court under Article
                                                                            234 EC (ex Article 177) by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof
                                                                            (Administrative Court), Austria, for a preliminary ruling in the
                    (Language of the case: German)                          proceedings pending before that court between Wilfried
                                                                            Monsees and Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat für Kärnten,
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      Joined party: Bundesminister für Wissenschaft und Verkehr —
                     in the European Court Reports)                         on the interpretation of Articles 30, 34 and 36 of the EC
                                                                            Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28, 29 and 30 EC) and
In Case C-309/97: reference to the Court under Article 234                  other provisions of Community law relating to the transport
EC (ex Article 177) by the Oberlandesgericht Wien (Higher                   of live animals for slaughter — the Court (Fifth Chamber),
Regional Court), Vienna, Austria for a preliminary ruling in                composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,
the proceedings pending before that court between Ange-                     J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward and


title: Case T-240/16: Action brought on 14 May 2016 — Klyuyev v Council

text:
               25.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/48

         Action brought on 14 May 2016 — Klyuyev v Council
   (Case T-240/16)
   (2016/C 270/56)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Andriy Klyuyev (Donetsk, Ukraine) (represented by: B. Kennelly and J. Pobjoy, Barristers, R. Gherson and T. Garner, Solicitors)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/318 of 4 March 2016 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine as well as Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/311 of 4 March 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, insofar as they apply to the applicant;

               —

               alternatively, declare that (i) Article 1 (1) of Council decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 (as amended) and (2) Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 (as amended), are inapplicable as far as they apply to the applicant by reason of illegality;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs of the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging, in support of the application for annulment, that he Council has failed to identify a proper legal base for the contested measures.

                           —

                           The applicant puts forward that Article 29 TEU is not a proper legal base for the Council decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 because the complaint made against the applicant did not identify him as an individual having undermined democracy in Ukraine or deprived the Ukrainian people of the benefits of the sustainable development of their country (within the meaning of Article 23 TEU and the general provisions in Article 21(2) TEU). As the third amending decision was invalid, so the applicant claims, the Council could not rely on Article 215(2) TFUE to enact the Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging, in support of the application for annulment, the violation of the applicant’s rights under Article 6, read with Articles 2 and 3, TEU, and Articles 47 and 48 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights by the Council’s assumption that the judicial proceedings in Ukraine complied with fundamental human rights.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging, in support of the application for annulment, that the Council has made manifest errors of assessment in considering that the criterion for listing the applicant in Article 1(1) of Council decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 (as amended) and Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 (as amended) was satisfied.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging, in support of the application for annulment, that the council violated the applicant’s right of defence and the right to good administration and effective judicial review. In particular, according to the applicant, the Council failed to carefully and impartially examine whether the alleged reasons said to justify re-designation were well founded in light of the representations made by the applicant prior to re-designation.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging, in support of the application for annulment, that the Council has infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, including his right to protection of his property and reputation. According to the applicant, the impact of the contested measures is far-reaching, both as regards to his property, and to his reputation worldwide. The Council has failed to demonstrate that the freezing of the applicant’s assets and economic resources is related to, or justified by, any legitimate aim still less that it is proportionate to such an aim.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging, in support of the application for illegality, that, if, contrary to the arguments advanced in the third plea, Article 1(1) of Council decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 (as amended) and Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 (as amended), are to be interpreted to capture (a) any investigation by a Ukrainian authority irrespective of whether there is any judicial decision or proceedings underpinning, controlling or overseeing it; and/or (b) any ‘abuse of office as a public-office holder in order to procure an unjustified advantage’ irrespective of whether there is an allegation of misappropriation of State funds, the designation criterion would, given the arbitrary width and scope that would result from such a broad interpretation, lack a proper legal base; and/or be disproportionate to the objectives of Article 1(1) of Council decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 and Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014. The provisions would therefore be unlawful.


title: Case T-78/13: Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2015  — Red Bull v OHIM — Sun Mark (BULLDOG) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark BULLDOG — Earlier international and national word marks BULL and RED BULL — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Identical nature of the goods — Similarity of the signs — Conceptual similarity — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               23.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2015 — Red Bull v OHIM — Sun Mark (BULLDOG)
   (Case T-78/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark BULLDOG - Earlier international and national word marks BULL and RED BULL - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Identical nature of the goods - Similarity of the signs - Conceptual similarity - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 096/18)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Red Bull GmbH (Fuschl am See, Austria) (represented: initially by A. Renck, T. Heitmann, lawyers, and I. Fowler, Solicitor, and subsequently by A. Renck and I. Fowler)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by: F. Mattina, subsequently by P. Bullock and A. Schifko, acting as Agents, subsequently by D. Walicka and finally by M. Schifko)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Sun Mark Ltd (Middlesex, United Kingdom)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 November 2012 (Case R 107/2012-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Red Bull GmbH and Sun Mark Ltd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 16 November 2012 (Case R 107/2012-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Red Bull GmbH and Sun Mark Ltd;

               2.

               Declares inadmissible Red Bull’s form of order requesting that Sun Mark be ordered to pay the costs

               3.

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 108, 13.4.2013.


title: Case F-116/14: Action brought on 23 October 2014  — ZZ v Commission

text:
               26.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/47

         Action brought on 23 October 2014 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-116/14)
   (2015/C 026/63)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L.Y. Levi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the decision of the executive director of the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) which withdrew a previous decision appointing the applicant as a temporary member of staff at grade AD 8 and the claim for damages for the material and non-material damage allegedly suffered.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the executive director of the EIOPA of 24 February 2014 withdrawing a previous decision of 7 November 2013 provisionally appointing the applicant as a temporary member of staff as from 16 September 2013 at grade AD 8 following the recruitment procedure opened by Vacancy Notice 1327TAAD 08;

               —

               annul the decision of 24 July 2014 rejecting the complaint submitted by the applicant on 25 March 2014;

               —

               order the defendant to pay compensation for the material damage consisting of the difference of salary between that received by the applicant at grade AD 6 since 16 September 2013 and the salary at grade AD 8, together with default interest calculated at the rate of two points above the European Central Bank rate;

               —

               in the alternative, order the defendant to pay compensation for the material damage consisting of the salary difference between the salary at grade AD 6 and the salary at grade AD 8 between 16 September 2013 and 24 February 2014, together with default interest calculated at the rate of two points above the European Central Bank rate;

               —

               order the defendant to pay compensation for non-material damage evaluated ex aequo et bono at EUR 20  000;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-353/99 P: Appeal brought on 22 September 1999 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment delivered on 19 July 1999 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-14/98 between Heidi Hautala, Member of the European Parliament, supported by the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, and the Council of the European Union, supported by the French Republic

text:
C 333/20              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    20.11.1999
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeitsgericht,
                                                                       Bremen by order of that court of 25 August 1999 in
— declare that by failing to notify the laws, regulations or           the case of Wolfgang Lange against Georg Schünemann
    administrative provisions necessary to comply with                                              GmbH
    Council Directive 95/50/EC of 6 October 1995 on uni-
    form procedures for checks on the transport of dangerous
    goods by road (1), or in any event by failing to inform the                                (Case C-350/99)
    Commission of those measures, Ireland has failed to fulfil
    its obligations under that Directive;                                                      (1999/C 333/44)
— order Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        European Communities by order of the Arbeitsgericht (Labour
                                                                       Court), Bremen of 25 August 1999, received at the Court
Article 249 CE (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty) under which           Registry on 22 September 1999, for a preliminary ruling in
a directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved,         the case of Wolfgang Lange v Georg Schünemann GmbH on
upon each Member State, carries by implication an obligation           the following questions:
on the Member States to observe the period for compliance
laid down in the directive. That period expired on 1 January           1. Does Article 2(2)(i) of Council Directive 91/533/EEC of
1997 without Ireland having enacted the provisions necessary               14 October 1991 on an employer’s obligation to inform
to comply with the directive referred to in the conclusions of             employees of the conditions applicable to the contract or
the Commission.                                                            employment relationship (OJ 1991 L 288, p. 32) also
                                                                           apply to agreements by the employee pursuant to which
(1) OJ L 249, 17.10.1995, p. 35.                                           he undertakes in general terms to work overtime?
                                                                       2. Under Article 2 thereof is a national law transposing
                                                                           Directive 91/533 to be interpreted so as to render agree-
                                                                           ments invalid from a substantive point of view as well,
                                                                           where they not only lack the precision required thereby
Action brought on 20 September 1999 by the Com-                            but also confer on the employer vaguely formulated
mission of the European Communities against the Grand                      unilateral rights?
                     Duchy of Luxembourg
                                                                       3. (a) In order to ensure an interpretation in conformity
                        (Case C-348/99)                                         with EC law, does Directive 91/533 require national
                                                                                principles, under which a party not complying with its
                        (1999/C 333/43)
                                                                                obligations to provide documentation is deemed to
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                             have frustrated the production of evidence, to be
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                    applied also where an employer has failed to provide
ties on 20 September 1999 by the Commission of the                              information pursuant to Directive 91/533?
European Communities, represented by Marie Wolfcarius,
Legal Adviser, and Manuel Desantes, a national civil servant               (b) If Question 3(a) is answered in the negative, are
on secondment to its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an                   national principles of law precluded under the third
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos                       indent of Article 6 of Directive 91/533 from being
Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                    applied in the manner described at (a) above?
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:
— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
    administrative measures necessary in order to comply with
    Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the
    Council on the legal protection of databases (1), the Grand
    Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations           Appeal brought on 22 September 1999 by the Council of
    under that directive;                                              the European Union against the judgment delivered on
                                                                       19 July 1999 by the First Chamber of the Court of First
— order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.                Instance of the European Communities in case T-14/98 (1)
                                                                       between Heidi Hautala, Member of the European Parlia-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        ment, supported by the Republic of Finland and the
                                                                       Kingdom of Sweden, and the Council of the European
On the expiry of the time-limit for transposition, namely                        Union, supported by the French Republic
1 January 1998, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg had not
adopted the measures necessary in order to comply with the                                    (Case C-353/99 P)
directive, and had not communicated to the Commission the
wording of the domestic legislation adopted to that end.
                                                                                (1999/C 333/45)
(1) OJ L 77 of 27.3.1996, p. 20.
                                                                       An appeal against the judgment delivered on 19 July 1999 by
                                                                       the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
 ---pagebreak--- 20.11.1999              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 333/21
Communities in case T-14/98 between Heidi Hautala, Member                     Removal from the register of Case C-316/98 P (1)
of the European Parliament, supported by the Republic of
Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, and the Council of the                                        (1999/C 333/46)
European Union, supported by the French Republic, was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-            By order of 2 February 1999 the President of the Court of
ties on 22 September 1999 by the Council of the European                Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
Union, represented by Mrs Jill Aussant, Director, Mr Giorgio            from the register of Case C-316/98 P: Union Européenne de
Maganza, Director, and Mr Martin Bauer, Legal Adviser, acting           l’Artisanat et des Petites et Moyennes Entreprises (UEAPME) v
as agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the             Council of the European Communities.
office of Mr Alessandro Morbilli, Director of the Legal Affairs
Directorate of the European Investment Bank, 100 Boulevard
Konrad Adenauer, Kirchberg.                                             (1) OJ C 312 of 10.10.1998.
The Appellant claims that the Court should:
— set aside the decision of the Court of First Instance of
      19 July 1999 by which it:
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case C-335/98 (1)
      — annuls the Council’s decision of 4 November 1997
          refusing the Respondent access to the report of the                                    (1999/C 333/47)
          Working group on Conventional Arms Exports;
                                                                        By order of 21 May 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                        of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
      — orders the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings;         the register of Case-335/98: Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities v Italian Republic.
— decide to give final judgment in the matter, dismiss the
      Application at First Instance as unfounded and order the          (1) OJ C 327 of 24.10.1998.
      Applicant at First Instance to pay the costs of the
      proceedings before the Court of First Instance;
— decide on the costs of this appeal as it sees fit.
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case C-388/98 (1)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (1999/C 333/48)
The Council’s appeal is based on the ground that the Court of
First Instance committed a fundamental error of law in                  By order of 11 June 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
interpreting Article 4(1) of the decision (2) on public access to       of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
Council documents as legally requiring the Council to consider          the register of Case C-388/98: Commission of the European
whether access should be given to parts of a document to                Communities v Hellenic Republic.
which access is requested.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.
According to the Council, the Court of First Instance:
i)    incorrectly construed the legal effect of the decision on
      public access to Council documents;
ii) misconstrued the objective of the decision on public access                Removal from the register of Case C-338/96 (1)
      to Council documents;
                                                                                (1999/C 333/49)
iii) misapplied the principle of proportionality.
                                                                        By order of 21 June 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                        of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                        the register of Case C-338/96 (reference for a preliminary
(1) OJ C 72, 7.3.1998, p. 27.                                           ruling from Genova): Ignazio Messina & C. SpA v Amministra-
(2) Council Decision 93/731/EC of 20.12.1993 (OJ L 340,                 zione delle Finanze dello Stato.
     31.12.1993, p. 43).
                                                                        (1) OJ C 370 of 7.12.1996.


title: Case T-666/16 P: Appeal brought on 20 September 2016 by Carlo De Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 July 2016 in Case F-100/15, De Nicola v EIB

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/25

         Appeal brought on 20 September 2016 by Carlo De Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 July 2016 in Case F-100/15, De Nicola v EIB
   (Case T-666/16 P)
   (2016/C 410/35)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by G. Ferabecoli, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               uphold the present appeal and, reversing the judgment under appeal, annul points 1 and 2 of the operative part and paragraphs 33, 46 to 60, 85 to 94, 100 to 106 and 107 to 109 of the judgment itself;

               —

               consequently, annul and/or disapply the decision taken on 8 December 2014 by the Appeals Committee, if necessary referring the matter back to that committee after laying down the criteria which must be complied in the adoption of the new decision; declare that bullying was committed by the EIB to the detriment of Mr De Nicola, and order the EIB to compensate Mr De Nicola for the damage suffered, as sought in the initiating application; or, in the alternative, refer the case to another appellate chamber of the General Court in order that it may, in a different formation, give a fresh decision on the annulled paragraphs, following the completion of the requested medical report.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The present appeal is brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 July 2016 dismissing the action, brought by the appellant, concerning annulment of the decision of the Appeals Committee of 8 December 2014 rejecting his complaint relating to his staff appraisal report for 2013, as well as the decision of the respondent not to promote him. The appellant also seeks a declaration confirming the psychological harm of which he claims to have been a victim and asks that the Bank be ordered to pay compensation for the material, non-material and physical harm which he has allegedly suffered.
   In support of his claims, the appellant states that the request for a declaration confirming that bullying took place is based specifically on Article 41 of the Staff Regulations of the Bank and consequently there are no problems relating to content and/or subject matter such as to exempt the action from the jurisdiction of the EU Courts. In this respect, it is stressed that the duty of the EU Courts to rule on the request for a confirmatory declaration is confirmed in the case-law of the General Court.
   The appellant claims furthermore that all the conditions laid down in the case-law to uphold the application for an award of damages are met.
   The appellant also contests paragraphs 46 to 60 of the judgment under appeal, concerning the request for annulment of the decision of the Appeals Committee, in so far as that part of the judgment is based on the premiss that it had not been proved that the decision of the Appeals Committee was vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.


title: Case C-130/17: Action brought on 10 March 2017 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/33

         Action brought on 10 March 2017 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria
   (Case C-130/17)
   (2017/C 144/43)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Wils and I. Zalogin)

      Defendant: Republic of Bulgaria

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations concerning the establishment of a single point of contact for the exchange of electronic certificates for access to biometric data in identity documents in accordance with Commission Decision С(2009) 7476 of 5 October 2009 amending Commission Decision C(2008) 8657 laying down a certificate policy as required in the technical specifications on the standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States and Commission Decision С(2011) 5478 of 4 August 2011 amending Commission Decision C(2002) 3069 laying down the technical specifications for the uniform format for residence permits for third-country nationals;

               —

               order the Republic of Bulgaria to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Republic of Bulgaria has failed to establish a single point of contact for the exchange of electronic certificates for access to biometric information in identity documents and has accordingly failed to fulfil its obligations under the abovementioned Commission decisions.


title: Action brought on 9 March 1998 by the Netherlands Antilles against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-41/98)

text:
2.5.98                   EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 137/19
Action brought on 5 March 1998 by Sadam Zuccherifici                   Ð annul the decision of the appointing authority of
Divisione della Seci, Sadam Castiglionese Spa, Sadam                       8 December 1997 rejecting the applicant's complaint
Abruzzo Spa, Zuccherificio del Molise Spa and SocietaÁ                     through official channels lodged pursuant to
Fondiaria Industriale Romagnola Sfir Spa v. Council of the                 Article 9(2) of the Staff Regulations inasmuch as it
                          European Union                                   does not take account of certified professional
                           (Case T-39/98)                                  experience,
                            (98/C 137/41)
                                                                       Ð order the defendant to pay BEF 2 130 849,
                  (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                       Ð order the defendant to pay legal interest, which the
                                                                           applicant requests to be applied at the rate of 8 % per
An action against the Council of the European Union was                    annum from 13 May 1993 until the date on which the
brought before the Court of First Instance on 5 March                      Court gives judgment in the case,
1998 by Sadam Zuccherifici Divisione della Seci, Sadam
Castiglionese Spa, Sadam Abruzzo Spa, Zuccherificio del
Molise Spa and SocietaÁ Fondiaria Industriale Romagnola                Ð order the defendant in any event to pay the entire
Sfir Spa, represented by Vincenzo Cerulli Irelli, Gualtiero                costs.
Pittalis and Giancarlo Fanzini, of the Bar of Teramo,
Bologna and Forlì Cesena, with an address for service in               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Luxembourg at the chambers of ArseÁne Kronshagen, 22,
rue Marie AdeÂlaïde.                                                   The applicant, employed on 13 May 1993 as a member of
                                                                       the temporary staff, contests the decision classifying him,
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance                  claiming that Articles 31 and 32 have been wrongly
should:                                                                applied. According to the applicant, the appointing
                                                                       authority did not take account of his overall professional
Ð annul Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2613/                  experience of 24 years and 1 month either on recruitment
     97 of 15 December 1997,                                           or in its decision to reject the appeal made through official
                                                                       channels. Moreover, the appointing authority did not take
                                                                       account of the university training and the specific
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                       professional experience in the naval field which the
                                                                       applicant was able to offer within DG XIV.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       Secondly, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 7 of
The pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support                 the Staff Regulations and discriminatory treatment as
are the same as those in Case T-38/98 ANB and Others v.                between officials inasmuch as he covered for duties of a
Council (1).                                                           higher grade than his own, and worked with colleagues
                                                                       who are classified in Grade B 1, step 1.
(1) See page 18 of this Official Journal.
                                                                       Finally, the appointing authority failed in its duty to have
                                                                       regard for the interests of officials and to protect the
                                                                       legitimate expectations of the applicant by looking only to
                                                                       the interests of the service without considering those of
                                                                       the applicant.
Action brought on 5 March 1998 by Giuliano Pagliarani
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                           (Case T-40/98)
                            (98/C 137/42)
                                                                       Action brought on 9 March 1998 by the Netherlands
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             Antilles against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                                (Case T-41/98)
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 5 March 1998                                            (98/C 137/43)
by Giuliano Pagliarani, residing at Brussels, represented by
Mario Spandre, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierre Thielen,
21, rue de Nassau.
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of First
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            Instance of the European Communities on 9 March 1998
                                                                       by the Netherlands Antilles, represented by P. V. F. Bos
Ð annul the decision of the appointing authority                       and M. M. Slotboom, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an
     inasmuch as, on appointing him to the temporary                   address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
     staff, it classified the applicant in Grade B 3 step 3,           Loesch & Wolter, 11, rue Goethe.
 ---pagebreak--- C 137/20               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     2.5.98
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             The applicant points out that, as a result of interpreting in
                                                                        this way Article 17 of the electoral rules, List No 5 has
1. annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 2494/97 of                       come to have only Brussels-based representatives among
     12 December 1997 on the issuing of import licences                 those elected from it, while the candidate who had
     for rice falling within CN code 1006 and originating               received the greatest number of individual votes was
     in the overseas countries and territories under the                excluded from those elected. The applicant claims that
     specific measures introduced by Regulation (EC)                    such a final result is paradoxical and legally aberrant.
     No 2352/97 (1),                                                    Such a result conflicts directly with the basic rule which
                                                                        governs any kind of democratic ballot, namely that those
2. order the Commission to pay the costs of the case.                   candidates who obtain the greatest number of votes win
                                                                        and are appointed according to the number of votes
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     obtained.
The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to                    In support of her application the applicant claims that the
those in Case T-32/98 (2).                                              contested decisions should be annulled:
(1) OJ L 343, 13.12.1997, p. 17.
                                                                        Ð inasmuch as they infringe Articles 6, 17 and 18 of the
(2) Not yet published in the Official Journal.
                                                                             electoral rules,
                                                                        Ð in the alternative, inasmuch as those rules are in
                                                                            breach of the provisions of Annex II to the Staff
                                                                            Regulations,
Action brought on 9 March 1998 by Maria Paola
         Sabbatucci against the European Parliament                     Ð inasmuch as they are contrary to the principles
                         (Case T-42/98)                                     common to all the Member States in matters of
                                                                             electoral law, according to which the first successful
                          (98/C 137/44)                                      candidate from the list which has obtained the greatest
                                                                             number of votes must be elected.
                (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the European Parliament was brought                   The applicant states in particular that to read
before the Court of First Instance of the European                      Article 17(5)(b) in the way that the Committee of Tellers
Communities on 9 March 1998 by Maria Paola                              has done runs counter to the system of proportional
Sabbatucci, represented by Alberto Dal Ferro and Andrea                 distribution of seats laid down in Article 17(1) and (2)
Cevese, of the Vicenza Bar, with an address for service at              thereof. However, should the Court consider that the only
the Chambers of Morresi Law Office, 67, avenue des                      possible interpretation of Article 17 of the electoral rules
Nerviens, Brussels.                                                     is that adopted in the contested decisions, the applicant
                                                                        also claims that that provision and Article 6(4) are
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             contrary to Annex II to the Staff Regulations. The absence
                                                                        in that Annex of any mention of the obligation to ensure
Ð annul the notice of 27 January 1998 of the Committee                  that the staff of a particular seat are represented where
     of Tellers and their reply of 17 February 1998                     there is only a single committee means, in the view of the
     inasmuch as they exclude the applicant from the                    applicant, that where such representation is guaranteed by
     candidates elected to the Staff Committee,                         the electoral rules, it should be established by way of
                                                                        criteria such as not to upset the choice expressed by the
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs of these                         electorate with its vote.
     proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant, an official in Category B at the European
Parliament, challenges her exclusion from the Staff                     Action brought on 13 March 1998 by Acerinox SA
Committee of the European Parliament. The applicant                          against Commission of the European Communities
observes that she submitted her candidature in List No 5                                       (Case T-48/98)
for the to the second-round elections held in January 1998
and obtained the greatest number of votes of those on the                                       (98/C 137/45)
list. According to the information provided by the
Committee of Tellers following the allocation of seats on                               (Language of the case: English)
the basis of the number of individual votes, one of the
conditions with regard to the composition of the                        An action against the Commission of the European
committee laid down in Article 17(5)(b) of the                          Communities was brought before the Court of First
Parliament's electoral rules requiring the presence of a                Instance of the European Communities on 13 March 1998
certain number of members assigned to Brussels had not                  by Acerinox SA, represented by Alexandre Vandencasteele
been met. Thus the applicant was replaced by the Brussels               and Denis Waelbroeck with an address for service in
representative, who had not been elected, who had the                   Luxembourg at the Offices of Ernest Arendt, 8-10 rue
greatest number of votes in List No 5.                                  Matrhias Hardt.


title: Case C-348/99: Action brought on 20 September 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
C 333/20              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    20.11.1999
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeitsgericht,
                                                                       Bremen by order of that court of 25 August 1999 in
— declare that by failing to notify the laws, regulations or           the case of Wolfgang Lange against Georg Schünemann
    administrative provisions necessary to comply with                                              GmbH
    Council Directive 95/50/EC of 6 October 1995 on uni-
    form procedures for checks on the transport of dangerous
    goods by road (1), or in any event by failing to inform the                                (Case C-350/99)
    Commission of those measures, Ireland has failed to fulfil
    its obligations under that Directive;                                                      (1999/C 333/44)
— order Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        European Communities by order of the Arbeitsgericht (Labour
                                                                       Court), Bremen of 25 August 1999, received at the Court
Article 249 CE (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty) under which           Registry on 22 September 1999, for a preliminary ruling in
a directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved,         the case of Wolfgang Lange v Georg Schünemann GmbH on
upon each Member State, carries by implication an obligation           the following questions:
on the Member States to observe the period for compliance
laid down in the directive. That period expired on 1 January           1. Does Article 2(2)(i) of Council Directive 91/533/EEC of
1997 without Ireland having enacted the provisions necessary               14 October 1991 on an employer’s obligation to inform
to comply with the directive referred to in the conclusions of             employees of the conditions applicable to the contract or
the Commission.                                                            employment relationship (OJ 1991 L 288, p. 32) also
                                                                           apply to agreements by the employee pursuant to which
(1) OJ L 249, 17.10.1995, p. 35.                                           he undertakes in general terms to work overtime?
                                                                       2. Under Article 2 thereof is a national law transposing
                                                                           Directive 91/533 to be interpreted so as to render agree-
                                                                           ments invalid from a substantive point of view as well,
                                                                           where they not only lack the precision required thereby
Action brought on 20 September 1999 by the Com-                            but also confer on the employer vaguely formulated
mission of the European Communities against the Grand                      unilateral rights?
                     Duchy of Luxembourg
                                                                       3. (a) In order to ensure an interpretation in conformity
                        (Case C-348/99)                                         with EC law, does Directive 91/533 require national
                                                                                principles, under which a party not complying with its
                        (1999/C 333/43)
                                                                                obligations to provide documentation is deemed to
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                             have frustrated the production of evidence, to be
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                    applied also where an employer has failed to provide
ties on 20 September 1999 by the Commission of the                              information pursuant to Directive 91/533?
European Communities, represented by Marie Wolfcarius,
Legal Adviser, and Manuel Desantes, a national civil servant               (b) If Question 3(a) is answered in the negative, are
on secondment to its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an                   national principles of law precluded under the third
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos                       indent of Article 6 of Directive 91/533 from being
Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                    applied in the manner described at (a) above?
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:
— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
    administrative measures necessary in order to comply with
    Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the
    Council on the legal protection of databases (1), the Grand
    Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations           Appeal brought on 22 September 1999 by the Council of
    under that directive;                                              the European Union against the judgment delivered on
                                                                       19 July 1999 by the First Chamber of the Court of First
— order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.                Instance of the European Communities in case T-14/98 (1)
                                                                       between Heidi Hautala, Member of the European Parlia-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        ment, supported by the Republic of Finland and the
                                                                       Kingdom of Sweden, and the Council of the European
On the expiry of the time-limit for transposition, namely                        Union, supported by the French Republic
1 January 1998, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg had not
adopted the measures necessary in order to comply with the                                    (Case C-353/99 P)
directive, and had not communicated to the Commission the
wording of the domestic legislation adopted to that end.
                                                                                (1999/C 333/45)
(1) OJ L 77 of 27.3.1996, p. 20.
                                                                       An appeal against the judgment delivered on 19 July 1999 by
                                                                       the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European


title: Case F-83/10: Action brought on 23 September 2010 — Giannakouris v Commission

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/38

         Action brought on 23 September 2010 — Giannakouris v Commission
   (Case F-83/10)
   ()
   2011/C 13/75
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Konstantinos Giannakouris (Roodt-sur-Syre, Luxembourg) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the Commission whereby the education allowance granted to the applicant was reduced on the basis that his daughter receives financial assistance from a Member State by way of a grant and a loan.

      Form of order sought

               —

               First, annul the decision to reduce the ‘education allowance’ paid to the applicant, as evidenced from the pay slip for February 2010, and annul that pay slip in so far as it reduces the ‘education allowance’ in part; second, annul the decision of the Commission of 26 February 2010, relating to the reduction of the ‘education allowance’ paid to the applicant and the deduction of EUR 770,85 from that allowance, the deduction appearing on the pay slip for March 2010; third, annul the pay slip for March 2010 reducing the ‘education allowance’ paid to the applicant and containing a retroactive deduction of EUR 770,85; fourth, annul the pay slips from April to August 2010, in so far as they contain a reduction in part of the ‘education allowance’; and fifth, annul the decision of the Commission of 9 July 2010 expressly rejecting the complaint;

               —

               reimburse the applicant, with interest, the sums withheld from him;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-555/12: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Tivoli — Italy) — Claudio Loreti, Maria Vallerotonda, Attilio Vallerotonda, Virginia Chellini v Comune di Zagarolo (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Implementation of European Union law — None — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
               4.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/6

         Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Tivoli — Italy) — Claudio Loreti, Maria Vallerotonda, Attilio Vallerotonda, Virginia Chellini v Comune di Zagarolo
   (Case C-555/12) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Implementation of European Union law - None - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
   2013/C 129/11
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Tivoli

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Claudio Loreti, Maria Vallerotonda, Attilio Vallerotonda, Virginia Chellini

      Defendant: Comune di Zagarolo

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Tivoli — Interpretation of Article 47(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, read in conjunction with Article 6 TEU and Article 52(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — National legislation providing for a division of jurisdiction as between civil and administrative courts based on the distinction between individual rights and legitimate interests — Those concepts not clearly distinguished

      Operative part of the order

   The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to reply to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Tivoli (Italy).

      (1)  OJ C 32, 2.2.2013


title: Case T-166/04: Action brought on 13 May 2004 by Carmelo Morello against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               10.7.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/14

         Action brought on 13 May 2004 by Carmelo Morello against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-166/04)
   (2004/C 179/27)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 13 May 2004 by Carmelo Morello, living in Brussels, represented by Jacques Sambon and Pierre Paul Van Gehuchten, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               Annul the implied rejection of his application of 28 March 2003 and so far as necessary annul the rejection of his complaint;

               2.

               Order the Commission to pay him EUR 1 000 000 in damages for non-material damage and EUR 1 000 000 in damages for material damage;

               3.

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, a Commission official, had applied in the context of another case for the annulment of the nomination of another official to a post of head of unit for which he had himself applied. The Court of First Instance upheld his action by annulling the appointment in question.
   At the time of the delivery of the judgment in the previous case, the official appointed to the post in question had already been promoted and moved to another post, while the post of head of unit thus vacated had been filled by the reinstatement of another official at the end of his leave on personal grounds.
   After the delivery of the judgment in the previous case, the applicant applied to the Commission for implementation of the judgment in question, and then lodged a complaint against the implied rejection of his application. The Commission rejected that complaint, holding that, in the absence of an available post, it was unable to take measures implementing the previous judgment.
   The present action is directed against the rejection of the applicant's application. In support of his claims, the applicant pleads infringement of Article 233 EC, infringement of Articles 4, 7, 24, 25 and 45 of the Staff Regulations, infringement of the principle of sound administration and misuse of powers or procedure. He also claims to have suffered material and non-material damage by losing a serious chance of reaching Grade A3 by the end of his career, and seeks compensation in that regard.


title: Case F-33/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 28 February 2013 — Pepi v ERCEA (Civil Service — Contract staff — Auxiliary contract staff — Recruitment — Classification on recruitment — Articles 3a, 3b and 86 of the CEOS — ERCEA — Internal rules on the classification of members of the contract staff)

text:
               25.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 147/34

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 28 February 2013 — Pepi v ERCEA
   (Case F-33/12) (1)

   (Civil Service - Contract staff - Auxiliary contract staff - Recruitment - Classification on recruitment - Articles 3a, 3b and 86 of the CEOS - ERCEA - Internal rules on the classification of members of the contract staff)
   2013/C 147/65
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Jean Pepi (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Research Council Executive Agency (represented by: M. Oliván Avilés and G. Bambara, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for partial annulment of the applicant’s contract with the ERCEA in so far as he is classified at Grade AD 10.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded.

               2.

               Mr Pepi shall bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Research Council Executive Agency.

               3.

               The Council of the European Union, the intervener, shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 184, 23.6.2012, p. 23.


title: Case C-492/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Auβenstelle Linz — Austria) — Immobilien Linz GmbH & Co. KG v Finanzamt Freistadt Rohrbach Urfahr (Taxation — Directive 69/335/EEC — Indirect taxes — Raising of capital — Article 4(2)(b) — Transactions subject to capital duty — Increase in the assets of a company — Contribution made by a member — Absorption of losses by virtue of an undertaking given before the losses were sustained)

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/11

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Auβenstelle Linz — Austria) — Immobilien Linz GmbH & Co. KG v Finanzamt Freistadt Rohrbach Urfahr
   (Case C-492/10) (1)

   (Taxation - Directive 69/335/EEC - Indirect taxes - Raising of capital - Article 4(2)(b) - Transactions subject to capital duty - Increase in the assets of a company - Contribution made by a member - Absorption of losses by virtue of an undertaking given before the losses were sustained)
   2012/C 32/18
   Language of the case: German

      Referring tribunal

   Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Auβenstelle Linz

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Immobilien Linz GmbH & Co. KG

      Defendant: Finanzamt Freistadt Rohrbach Urfahr

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Auβenstelle Linz — Interpretation of Article 4(2)(b) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412) — Transactions subject to capital duty — Increase in the assets of a capital company — Possible inclusion in those assets of an undertaking given by a public body, which is the sole member of that company, to absorb the company’s losses

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 4(2)(b) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, must be interpreted as meaning that the absorption by a member of a company’s losses pursuant to an undertaking given by the member before the losses were sustained, the sole purpose of which was to cover such losses, does not increase the assets of that company.

      (1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2011.


title: Case T-219/07: Action brought on 25 June 2007 — DSV Road v Commission

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/36

         Action brought on 25 June 2007 — DSV Road v Commission
   (Case T-219/07)
   (2007/C 211/69)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: DSV ROAD N.V. (represented by: A. Poelmans, A. Calewaert and R. de Wit, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               set aside Decision C(2007) 1776 of the Commission of the European Communities of 24 April 2007 in relation to the application of the Kingdom of Belgium (file reference REC 05/02) determining that import duties in the amount of EUR 168 004,65 forming the subject-matter of the application of the Kingdom of Belgium of 12 August 2002 must be recovered and that there are no grounds for remission of those import duties;

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant imported diskettes from Thailand. Those diskettes were covered by a preferential rule under the scheme of general tariff preferences on condition that their importation was covered by a form A certificate of origin issued by the competent Thai authorities in accordance with Article 80 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (1).
   On the occasion of each customs declaration the applicant submitted a form A issued by the Thai authorities, following which the Belgian authorities accorded preferential tariff treatment.
   However, a number of the certificates issued by the Thai authorities were declared to be invalid, with the result that the goods concerned were not eligible for preferential tariff treatment when imported into the EU.
   In the contested decision the Commission ruled that the resulting customs debt had to be the subject of post-clearance recovery.
   The applicant first submits that the Commission should have ruled that the outstanding duties did not have to be the subject of post-clearance recovery, in accordance with Article 220(2)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (2). The applicant submits that the issue of the form A certificates was attributable to a mistake on the part of the Thai authorities and that there is no indication whatsoever that the exporters incorrectly set out the facts. Moreover, the applicant contends, there was a mistake inasmuch as the Thai authorities knew, or ought to have known, that the goods in question were not eligible for preferential tariff treatment.
   Second, the applicant submits that the Commission ought to have remitted the duties in accordance with Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 on the ground of special circumstances.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).


title: Action brought on 5 May 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Case C-177/97)

text:
No C 199/ 16         EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 28 . 6 . 97
Action brought on 5 May 1997 by the Commission of the               agreement as envisaged by Article 5 of the regulation,
 European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium                with which it is incompatible .
                       ( Case C-176/97)
                                                                    (') OJ No L 378 , 31 . 12 . 1986 , p . 1 .
                         ( 97/C 199/30 )
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 5 May 1997 by the Commission of the European                     Action brought on 5 May 1997 by the Commission of
Communities, represented by Frank Benyon, acting as                 the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                                         Luxembourg
offices of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
Kirchberg.                                                                                ( Case C-l 77/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 199/31 )
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                    An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                    brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                    Communities on 5 May 1997 by the Commission of the
— declare that by introducing and maintaining in force
                                                                    European Communities, represented by Frank Benyon,
     cargo-sharing arrangements, in the Agreement between
                                                                    acting as Agent, with an address for service in
     the Belgo-Luxembourg Economic Union and Malaysia
                                                                    Luxembourg at the offices of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
     which was approved by Belgium and entered into
                                                                    Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
     force after 1 January 1987, the Kingdom of Belgium
     has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of
     Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 4055/86 of 22 December           The applicant claims that the Court should:
     1986 applying the principle of freedom to provide
     services to maritime transport between Member States
     and between Member States and third countries ('),             — declare that by introducing and maintaining in force
                                                                         cargo-sharing arrangements, in the Agreement between
                                                                         the Belgo-Luxembourg Economic Union and Malaysia
— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .                        which was approved by Belgium and entered into
                                                                         force after 1 January 1987, the Grand Duchy of
                                                                         Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                         Article 5 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 4055/86 of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      22 December 1986 applying the principle of freedom
                                                                         to provide services to maritime transport between
                                                                         Member States and between Member States and third
Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 4055/86 of 22 December                     countries ('),
1986 applying the principle of freedom to provide services
to maritime transport between Member States and
between Member States and third countries entered into              — order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
                                                                         costs .
force on 1 January 1987, pursuant to Article 12 thereof.
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The regulation prohibits cargo-sharing arrangements in
agreements between Member States and third countries .
Article 5 provides that, in any future agreements, such              Council Regulation (EEC ) No 4055/86 of 22 December
arrangements are authorized only in exceptional                      1986 applying the principle of freedom to provide services
circumstances where Community liner shipping companies               to maritime transport between Member States and
                                                                     between Member States and third countries entered into
would not otherwise have an effective opportunity to ply
for trade to and from the third country concerned .                  force on 1 January 1987, pursuant to Article 12 thereof.
Article 3 provides that arrangements contained in existing
agreements were to be phased out or adjusted in                      The regulation prohibits cargo-sharing arrangements in
accordance with the provisions of Article 4 .                        agreements between Member States and third countries .
                                                                     Article 5 provides that, in any future agreements, such
                                                                     arrangements are authorized only in exceptional
 The maritime agreement between the Belgo-Luxembourg                 circumstances where Community liner shipping companies
 Economic Union and Malaysia , signed at Kuala Lumpur                would not otherwise have an effective opportunity to ply
 on 12 February 1985 , contains a cargo-sharing                      for trade to and from the third country concerned.
 arrangement. That agreement, which was approved by a                Article 3 provides that arrangements contained in existing
 law of 29 June 1987 (Moniteur Beige, 2 September 1987)              agreements were to be phased out or adjusted in
 and entered into force on 17 August 1987, is a future               accordance with the provisions of Article 4 .
 ---pagebreak--- 28 . 6 . 97          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 199/ 17
The maritime agreement between the Belgo-Luxembourg                 Infringement of Council Regulation ( EEC )
Economic Union and Malaysia, signed at Kuala Lumpur                 No 1956 / 88 ( 2 ), as amended by Council
on 12 February 1985 , contains a cargo-sharing                      Regulation ( EC ) No 3067 / 95 ( 3 ) :
arrangement. Concluded by Belgium in the name of the
Union in accordance with Article 31 of the Treaty
establishing the Belgo-Luxembourg Economic Union, the               the contested provision also infringes paragraph 10 ( iv ) of
agreement entered into force on 17 August 1987 and is a             the Annex to the above regulation, which also provides
future agreement covered by Article 5 of the regulation,            that 'a NAFO inspector from another Contracting Party
with which it is incompatible.                                      may, subject to the consent of the Contracting Party of the
                                                                    vessel, board the vessel as it is proceeding to port, may
                                                                    remain on board the vessel as it proceeds to port and may
O OJ No L 378 , 31 . 12 . 1986, p . 1 .
                                                                    be present during the inspection of the vessel in port.' But,
                                                                    when Article 4 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1956/88
                                                                    empowers the Commission to adopt implementing
                                                                    measures under the Management Committee procedure, it
                                                                    does not allow it in any circumstances to approve
                                                                    provisions which are contrary to the Regulation which it
Action brought on 12 May 1997 by the Kingdom of Spain               purports to implement.
     against Commission of the European Communities
                       ( Case C-l 79/97                             H OJ No L 77, 19 . 3 . 1997, p. 5 .
                                                                    ( 2 ) OJ No L 175 , 6 . 7. 1988 , p. 1 .
                         ( 97/C 199/32 )                            ( 3 ) OJ No L 329, 30 . 12 . 1995 , p . 1
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice on
12 May 1997 by the Kingdom of Spain, represented by
Rosario Silva de la Puerta, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Spanish Embassy, 4-6 Boulevard                    Action brought on 12 May 1997 by the Commission of the
E. Servais .                                                            European Communities against the Portuguese Republic
                                                                                ( Case C-183/97)
The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
                                                                                97/C 199/33 )
— annul Article 4a ( 6 ) of Commission Regulation ( EEC )
     No 2868/88 establishing detailed rules for the                 An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
     application of the Joint International Inspection              before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
     Scheme adopted by the North-West Atlantic Fisheries            on 12 May 1997 by the Commission of the European
     Organization, as modified by Commission Regulation             Communities, represented by Francisco de Sousa Fialho,
     ( EC ) No 494/97 H of 18 March 1997, and                       of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                    service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                           Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
Infringement of Annex I , point II ( 9 ) ( e ) ( iv )               — declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws,
of the Convention between the Community                                    regulations or administrative provisions necessary to
and Canada on fishing under the NAFO                                       comply with Council Directive 80/68/EEC of
arrangements :                                                             17 December 1979 on the protection of groundwater
                                                                           against pollution caused by certain dangerous
                                                                           substances ('), in particular with respect to the
according to that Convention, for a NAFO inspector of
                                                                           obligations arising from Articles 8 , 9, 10, 11 and 15
another Contracting Party to take part in an inspection
                                                                           thereof, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its
carried out in port, the consent is required of the
Contracting Party whose flag the vessel is flying. There is                obligations under the third paragraph of Article 189 of
thus a clear contradiction between the content of the                      the EC Treaty and Article 21 ( 1 ) of Directive 80/68/
                                                                           EEC ,
contested regulation, which does not require the consent
to be obtained of the Contracting Party whose flag the
vessel is flying, and the Convention on which it is based.          — declare, in the alternative, that by failing to inform the
An internal Community provision cannot override the                        Commission       forthwith        of such measures,  the
provisions of an international commitment. The primacy                     Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
of international agreements concluded by the Community                     under the abovementioned provisions;
over instruments of secondary Community law means that
the latter must be interpreted in accordance with those
agreements .                                                        — order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs .


title: Case C-62/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo by judgment of that court of  11 January 2006  in the proceedings Fazenda Pública — Director Geral das Alfândegas v Z.F. ZEFESER — Importaçao e Exportaçao de Produtos Alimentares, Lda.

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo by judgment of that court of 11 January 2006 in the proceedings Fazenda Pública — Director Geral das Alfândegas v Z.F. ZEFESER — Importaçao e Exportaçao de Produtos Alimentares, Lda.
   (Case C-62/06)
   (2006/C 86/25)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo of 11 January 2006, received at the Court Registry on 6 February 2006, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Fazenda Pública — Director Geral das Alfândegas and Z.F. ZEFESER — Importaçao e Exportaçao de Produtos Alimentares, Lda. on the following questions:

               1.

               For the purposes of Article 3 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 (1) of 24 July 1979, is classification by the customs authority as ‘an act that could give rise to criminal court proceedings’ sufficient, or is it instead necessary that that classification should be made by the competent criminal court?

               2.

               In the latter hypothesis, is it sufficient for the competent criminal authority (in the case of Portugal, the Public Prosecutor's Office) simply to lay a charge, or is it instead necessary that the debtor should be convicted in the relevant criminal proceedings?

               3.

               Still in the latter hypothesis, are different conclusions to be drawn from the fact that the court acquits the debtor by virtue of the application of the principle in dubio pro reo, or acquits him because it has been proved that the debtor did not commit the offence in question?

               4.

               What consequences follow if the Public Prosecutor's Office does not lay a charge against the debtor, holding that there is no evidence of an act that could give rise to criminal court proceedings? Will such a decision preclude any action to recover the duty not collected?

               5.

               If the Public Prosecutor's Office or the criminal court itself should close the case because the criminal proceedings are time-barred, will such a decision make it impossible to bring the corresponding action to recover the duty not collected?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 of 24 July 1979 on the post-clearance recovery of import duties or export duties which have not been required of the person liable for payment on goods entered for a customs procedure involving the obligation to pay such duties.


title: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 March 1999 in Case C-249/98 P: Mario Costacurta v Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Remuneration - Weightings - Breach of the principles of equal treatment and equivalence of purchasing power - Appeal clearly inadmissible and unfounded)

text:
17.7.1999               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 204/21
G. Hirsch (Rapporteur), President of Chamber, G.F. Mancini                                     ORDER OF THE COURT
and R. Schintgen, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General;
R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 3 March 1999, the
operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                                (Fourth Chamber)
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The appellants are ordered jointly and severally to pay the costs
    of these proceedings.                                                                          of 11 March 1999
(1) OJ C 331 of 1.11.1997.
                                                                           in Case C-249/98 P: Mario Costacurta v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
                                                                           (Officials — Remuneration — Weightings — Breach of the
                                                                           principles of equal treatment and equivalence of purchasing
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                          power — Appeal clearly inadmissible and unfounded)
                        (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                (1999/C 204/41)
                         of 11 March 1999
in Case C-103/98 P: Smanor SA and Hubert Ségaud
and Monique Ségaud v Commission of the European
                          Communities (1)                                                      (Language of the case: French)
(Appeal — Refusal to bring Treaty infringement proceedings
                   — Manifest inadmissibility)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                          (1999/C 204/40)                                                     in the European Court Reports)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           In Case C-249/98 P: appeal against the judgment of the Court
                                                                           of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 26 May 1998 in Case
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     T-177/96 Costacurta v Commission [1998] ECR-SC II-705,
                   in the European Court Reports)                          brought by Mario Costacurta, official of the Commission of
                                                                           the European Communities, residing in Luxembourg, rep-
In Case C-103/98 P: Smanor SA, a company incorporated                      resented by Albert Rodesch, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an
under French law, established at Saint-Martin-d’Écublei                   address for service in Luxembourg at the latter’s Chambers,
(France), Hubert Ségaud and Monique Ségaud, residing at                    7-11 Route d’Esch, seeking to have that judgment set aside,
Saint-Martin-d’Écublei, represented by Laurence Roques, of the            the other party to the proceedings being Commission of
Val-de-Marne Bar, 7-9 Rue du Général de Larminat, Créteil                  the European Communities (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and
(France) — appeal against the order of the Court of First                  Florence Duvieusart-Clotuche) — the Court (Fourth Chamber),
Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber) of                   composed of P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber,
16 February 1998 in Case T-182/97 Smanor and Others v                      J.L. Murray and H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger,
Commission [1998] ECR II-271, seeking to have that order set               Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on
aside, the other party to the proceedings being the Commission             11 May 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:
of the European Communities (Agents: Richard Wainwright
and Olivier Couvert-Castéra) — the Court (Fourth Chamber),
composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), President of the                 1. The appeal is dismissed.
Chamber, J.L. Murray and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; A. Saggio,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on
11 March 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:                  2. The appellant is ordered to pay the costs.
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. Smanor SA and Mr and Mrs Ségaud are to pay the costs.                   (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
(1) OJ C 166 of 30.5.1998.


title: Case T-341/07: Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2011 — Sison v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism — Common Position 2001/931/CFSP and Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 — Actions for annulment — Adaptation of heads of claim — Judicial review — Statement of reasons — Conditions for implementation of a Community measure freezing funds)

text:
               14.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/10

         Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2011 — Sison v Council
   (Case T-341/07) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism - Common Position 2001/931/CFSP and Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 - Actions for annulment - Adaptation of heads of claim - Judicial review - Statement of reasons - Conditions for implementation of a Community measure freezing funds)
   2012/C 13/19
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Jose Maria Sison (Utrecht, Netherlands) (represented by: J. Fermon, A. Comte, H. Schultz, D. Gürses and W. Kaleck, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop, E. Finnegan and R. Szostak, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by by C. Wissels, M. de Mol, Y. de Vries, M. Noort, J. Langer and M. Bulterman,, acting as Agents); United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by S. Behzadi Spencer and I. Rao, acting as Agents), and European Commission (represented initially by P. Aalto and S. Boelaert, and subsequently by S. Boelaert and P. Van Nuffel, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Following the judgment of the General Court of 30 September 2009 in Case T-341/07 Sison v Council [2009] ECR II–3625, application for compensation for damage allegedly sustained by the applicant as a result of the restrictive measures taken against him with a view to combating terrorism

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action for compensation;

               2.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to pay, so far as the costs relating to the action for annulment are concerned, the costs incurred by Jose Maria Sison in addition to its own costs;

               3.

               Orders Mr Sison to pay, so far as the costs relating to the action for compensation are concerned, the costs incurred by the Council in addition to his own costs;

               4.

               Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Commission to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.


title: Joined Cases C-248/15 P, C-254/15 P and C-260/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Maxcom Ltd, City Cycle Industries, Council of the European Union, European Commission (Appeal — Dumping — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 — Imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia — Extension to such imports of the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of bicycles originating in China — Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Article 13 — Circumvention — Article 18 — Lack of cooperation — Evidence — Body of consistent evidence — Contradictory reasoning — Inadequate statement of reasons — Breach of procedural rights)

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/14

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Maxcom Ltd, City Cycle Industries, Council of the European Union, European Commission
   (Joined Cases C-248/15 P, C-254/15 P and C-260/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Dumping - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 - Imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia - Extension to such imports of the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of bicycles originating in China - Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Article 13 - Circumvention - Article 18 - Lack of cooperation - Evidence - Body of consistent evidence - Contradictory reasoning - Inadequate statement of reasons - Breach of procedural rights))
   (2017/C 104/21)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      (Case C-248/15 P)

      Appellant: Maxcom Ltd (represented by: L. Ruessmann, avocat, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

      Other parties to the proceedings: City Cycle Industries (represented by: T. Müller-Ibold, Rechtsanwalt, and F.-C. Laprévote, avocat), Council of the European Union (represented initially by: S. Boelaert, and subsequently by H. Marcos Fraile and B. Driessen, acting as Agents, and by R. Bierwagen and C. Hipp, Rechtsanwälte), European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and M. França, acting as Agents)

      (Case C-254/15 P)

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and M. França, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: City Cycle Industries (represented by: T. Müller-Ibold, Rechtsanwalt, and F.-C. Laprévote, avocat), Council of the European Union (represented initially by: S. Boelaert, and subsequently by H. Marcos Fraile and B. Driessen, acting as Agents, and by R. Bierwagen and C. Hipp, Rechtsanwälte), Maxcom Ltd (represented by: L. Ruessmann, avocat, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

      (Case C-260/15 P)

      Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by: S. Boelaert, and subsequently by H. Marcos Fraile and B. Driessen, acting as Agents, and by R. Bierwagen and C. Hipp, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: City Cycle Industries (represented by: T. Müller-Ibold, Rechtsanwalt, and F.-C. Laprévote, avocat), European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and M. França, acting as Agents), Maxcom Ltd (represented by: L. Ruessmann, avocat, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeals in Cases C-248/15 P, C-254/15 P and C-260/15 P;

               2.

               Orders Maxcom Ltd, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by City Cycle Industries in relation to both the proceedings at first instance in Case T-413/13 and the appeal proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.

      OJ C 254, 3.8.2015.