title: Case C-580/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 18 November 2013 — Coty Germany GmbH v Stadtsparkasse Magdeburg

text:
               1.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 18 November 2013 — Coty Germany GmbH v Stadtsparkasse Magdeburg
   (Case C-580/13)
   2014/C 31/04
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Coty Germany GmbH

      Defendant: Stadtsparkasse Magdeburg

      Question referred

   Must Article 8(3)(e) of Directive 2004/48/EC (1) be interpreted as precluding a national provision which, in a case such as that in the main proceedings, allows a banking institution to refuse, by invoking banking secrecy, to provide information pursuant to Article 8(1)(c) of that directive concerning the name and address of an account holder?

      (1)  Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45).


title: Case C-387/06: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Telecommunications sector — Article 8(1), (2)(b) and 3(c) of Directive 2002/19/EC ( Framework Directive) — Article 8(1) and (4) of Directive 2002/19/EC ( Access Directive) — Electronic communications networks and services — Fixed and mobile telephone networks — Termination of calls — Incoming traffic — Limit on the powers of the national authority for communications regulation)

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/10

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland
   (Case C-387/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Telecommunications sector - Article 8(1), (2)(b) and 3(c) of Directive 2002/19/EC (‘Framework’ Directive) - Article 8(1) and (4) of Directive 2002/19/EC (‘Access’ Directive) - Electronic communications networks and services - Fixed and mobile telephone networks - Termination of calls - Incoming traffic - Limit on the powers of the national authority for communications regulation)
   (2008/C 64/14)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Huttunen and M. Shotter, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure to fulfil obligations under Article 8(1), (2)(b) and 3(c) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33) and under Article 8(1) and (4) of Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (‘Access’ Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 7)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

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

      (1)  OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.


title: Case C-97/08 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2009 — Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Nederland BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals International BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV, Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals BV v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Article 81(1) EC — Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement — Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Groups of undertakings — Imputability of infringements — Responsibility of a parent company for the infringement of competition rules by its subsidiaries — Decisive influence exercised by the parent company — Rebuttable presumption where the parent company has a 100 % shareholding)

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/17

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2009 — Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Nederland BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals International BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV, Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals BV v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-97/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 81(1) EC - Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement - Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Groups of undertakings - Imputability of infringements - Responsibility of a parent company for the infringement of competition rules by its subsidiaries - Decisive influence exercised by the parent company - Rebuttable presumption where the parent company has a 100 % shareholding)
   2009/C 267/28
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Nederland BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals International BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV and Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals BV (represented by: C. Swaak, M. van der Woude and M. Mollica, avocats)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: X. Lewis and F. Castillo de la Torre, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 12 December 2007 in Case T-112/05 Akzo Nobel NV and Others v Commission of the European Communities, which rejected an application for annulment of Commission Decision 2005/566/EC of 9 December 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-2/37.533 — Choline chloride) (OJ 2005 L 190, p. 22) concerning a complex of agreements and concerted practices consisting of price fixing, market sharing and agreed actions against competitors in the European market for choline chloride — Concept of undertaking within the meaning of Article 81 EC and Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Nederland BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals International BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV and Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals BV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 128, 24.5.2008.


title: Case C-271/09: Action brought on 16 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

text:
               26.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 233/8

         Action brought on 16 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-271/09)
   2009/C 233/12
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Montaguti and K. Hermann, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by maintaining in force Articles 143, 136(3) and 136a(2) of the Law of 28 August 1997 on the organisation and operation of pension funds (Ustawa o organizacji i funkcjonowaniu funduszy emerytalynch), which limit foreign investments by Polish open pension funds, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 EC;

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the view of the Commission, Article 143 of the Law of 28 August 1997 on the organisation and operation of pension funds (‘the Law on Pension Funds’) limits the value of investments outside the Republic of Poland (‘foreign investments’) which open pension funds may make pursuant to paragraph (2) of that article to merely 5 % of the value of the assets of the open pension fund concerned. Furthermore, the list of types of foreign investments set out in Article 143(1) of the Law on Pension Funds does not include a range of investment categories which are available for open pension fund investments within the territory of the Republic of Poland.
   Pursuant to Article 136(3) of the Law on Pension Funds, the value of investments in securities with participating rights issued by joint investment bodies which have their place of establishment outside Poland, referred to in Article 143(1) of that Law, is not taken into consideration in the determination of the net assets of open pension funds. By contrast, the level of administration charges for which open pension funds are liable is calculated on the basis of the value of those funds net assets. Consequently, according to the applicant, that provision amounts to a restriction on the movement of capital within the meaning of Article 56 EC inasmuch as it discourages open pension funds from investing assets in non-Polish investment funds.
   Article 136a(2) of the Law on Pension Funds provides that the costs of transactions associated with foreign clearing institutions may be met by open pension fund assets only in an amount which does not exceed the corresponding costs of national clearing institutions. This provision may, in the Commission’s view, deter open pension funds from investing outside Poland in so far as they will be unable to cover the costs of transactions from open pension fund assets in the full amount as is possible in the case of national investments.
   It is the Commission’s view that Article 56 EC applies to the investment activity of an open pension fund which forms part of the Polish pension system based on the capitalisation of contributions from members of the open pension fund. The restrictions on the movement of capital here in issue cannot be justified on grounds of prudential supervision under Article 58 EC or on overriding grounds of public interest, as quantitative and type-related restrictions are not proper measures by which to guarantee effectively the financial stability of members contributions collected by the open pension funds. In any event, all of the measures here in dispute are disproportionate.


title: Case T-669/16 P: Order of the General Court of 3 July 2017 — De Nicola v EIB (Appeal — EIB staff — Sickness insurance — Refusal to reimburse medical expenses — Laser therapy — Action for annulment and damages)

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/50

         Order of the General Court of 3 July 2017 — De Nicola v EIB
   (Case T-669/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - EIB staff - Sickness insurance - Refusal to reimburse medical expenses - Laser therapy - Action for annulment and damages))
   (2017/C 283/78)
   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 (EIB) (represented by: T. Gilliams and G. Faedo, acting as Agents, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 21 July 2016, De Nicola v EIB (F-82/15, EU:F:2016:166), seeking to have that judgment set aside in part.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Carlo De Nicola shall bear his own costs and shall pay those incurred by the European Investment Bank (EIB) in the present appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 410, 7.11.2016.


title: Case F-71/09: Action brought on 17 August 2009 — Caminiti v Commission

text:
               10.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 244/17

         Action brought on 17 August 2009 — Caminiti v Commission
   (Case F-71/09)
   2009/C 244/29
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Paolo Caminiti (Tubize, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application to annul the defendant’s decision to classify the applicant in Grade AST 9, step 4, with a multiplication factor equal to 1 and, consequently, the reinstatement of the applicant in Grade AST 9, step 2, retaining a multiplication factor of 1.071151.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision to classify the applicant in grade AST 9, step 4, with a multiplication factor equal to 1 contained in the applicant’s salary slip of March 2009;

               —

               consequently, reinstate the applicant, with effect from 1 March 2009, in Grade AST 9, step 2, retaining a multiplication factor of 1.071151;

               —

               order the full restructuring of the applicant’s career with retroactive effect from 1 March 2009 to the date of his classification in grade and step as thus corrected (including the valuation of his experience in his classification as thus corrected, his rights of advancement to a higher step and his pension rights), which includes the payment of default interest at the base rate fixed by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, applicable during the period concerned, increased by two points, on all the sums corresponding to his classification as set out in the classification decision and the classification to which he should have been entitled until the date on which the decision on his corrected classification is taken; in the alternative, order the applicant to be granted promotion points corresponding to the conversion of the multiplication factor to a ‘time’ factor;

               —

               order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.


title: Case T-112/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2007 — Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission (Competition — Cartels in the vitamin products sector — Choline chloride (Vitamin B4) — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area — Attributability of the infringement)

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/41

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2007 — Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission
   (Case T-112/05) (1)

   (Competition - Cartels in the vitamin products sector - Choline chloride (Vitamin B4) - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area - Attributability of the infringement)
   (2008/C 22/76)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: Akzo Nobel (Arnhem, Netherlands), Akzo Nobel Nederland BV (Arnhem), Akzo Nobel Chemicals International BV (Amersfoort, Netherlands), Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV (Amersfoort), Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals BV (Amersfoort) (represented by: initially C. Swaak and J. de Gou, and subsequently C. Swaak, M. van der Woude and M. Mollica, Lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Whelan and F. Amato, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2005/566/EC of 9 December 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E 2/37.533 — Choline chloride) (summary published in OJ 2005 L 190, p. 22).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Nederland BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals International BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV and Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals BV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 143, 11.6.2005.


title: Case T-61/10: Order of the General Court of 17 November 2010 — Victoria Sánchez v Parliament and Commission (Action for failure to act — Failure to adopt measures — Application for directions to be issued — Request for protective measures — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly devoid of any basis in law)

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/25

         Order of the General Court of 17 November 2010 — Victoria Sánchez v Parliament and Commission
   (Case T-61/10) (1)

   (Action for failure to act - Failure to adopt measures - Application for directions to be issued - Request for protective measures - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly devoid of any basis in law)
   2011/C 13/50
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Fernando Marcelino Victoria Sánchez (Seville, Spain) (represented by: initially, N. Domínguez Varela and, subsequently, P. Suarez Plácido, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: N. Lorenz, N Görlitz, P. López-Carceller, agents) and European Commission (represented by: L. Lozano Palacios and I. Martinez del Peral, agents)

      Re:

   Application for a declaration of failure to act on the part of the European Parliament and the European Commission in that those institutions unlawfully failed to respond to the applicant’s letter of 6 October 2009, an application for directions to be issued and a request for protective measures.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Fernando Marcelino Victoria Sánchez is ordered to pay the costs.

               3.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene of Mr. Ignacio Ruipérez Aguirre and the ACT Petition Association.

      (1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010, p. 58.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2003 in Case T-165/01 Hans McAuley v Council of the European Union (Staff report — Guide to staff reports — Change of assessor during the period covered by the report — Substantial irregularities)

text:
C 289/20                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                             29.11.2003
                                                         COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 10 September 2003
                       of 18 September 2003
                                                                            in Case T-165/01 Hans McAuley v Council of the Euro-
                                                                                pean Union (1)
in Case T-73/01: Spyridon de Athanassios Pappas v                           (Staff report — Guide to staff reports — Change of assessor
    Committee of the Regions of the European Union (1)                      during the period covered by the report — Substantial
                                                                                irregularities)
(Officials — Recruitment — Post of Secretary General                                                  (2003/C 289/42)
of the Committee of the Regions — Vacancy notice —
                       Recruitment procedure)                                                   (Language of the case: French)
                          (2003/C 289/41)                                   In Case T-165/01: Hans McAuley, an official of the Council of
                                                                            the European Union, residing in Brussels, represented by J.-
                                                                            N. Louis and S. Orlandi, lawyers, with an address for service in
                                                                            Luxembourg, against Council of the European Union (Agents:
                     (Language of the case: French)                         F. Anton and A. Pillette) — application for annulment of the
                                                                            Council’s decision of 15 September 2000 drawing up the
                                                                            applicant’s final staff report for the period 1 July 1997 to
                                                                            30 June 1999 — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
                                                                            composed of V. Tiili, President, P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras,
                                                                            Judges; I. Natsinas, Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 Sep-
In Case T-73/01, Spyridon de Athanassios Pappas, former                     tember 2003, in which it:
official of the Commission of the European Communities,
residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by M.-A. Lucas,                 1.    Annuls the Council’s decision of 15 September 2000 drawing
lawyer, v Committee of the Regions of the European Union,                         up the applicant’s final staff report for the period 1 July 1997
(Agents: P. Cervilla and D. Waelbroeck) — application for                         to 30 June 1999;
annulment of the decision of the Committee of the Regions of
13 June 2000 appointing Mr Vincenzo Falcone to the post of                  2.    Orders the Council to pay the costs.
Secretary General of the Committee of the Regions (Recruit-
ment notice 2000/C 28 A/01) and rejecting the applicant’s                   (1) OJ C 289 of 13 October 2001.
candidature for that post, and of the decision rejecting the
applicant’s complaint, — the Court of First Instance (Third
Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President of the Chamber,
J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; Registrar: D. Christensen,
Administrator, delivered a judgment on 18 September 2003,
the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 30 September 2003
1.    The decision of the Committee of the Regions of 13 June 2000
      appointing Mr Vincenzo Falcone to the post of Secretary               in Case T-243/01: Sony Computer Entertainment Europe
      General of the Committee of the Regions (Recruitment notice               Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (1)
      2000/C 28 A/01) and rejecting the candidature of Mr Pappas
      for that post is annulled.                                            (Action for annulment — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff
                                                                            headings — Game console — Classification in the Combined
                                                                                Nomenclature)
2.    The Committee of the Regions shall pay the costs.
                                                                                (2003/C 289/43)
(1) OJ 2001 C 161 of 2.6.01.                                                                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                            In Case T-243/01, Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Ltd,
                                                                            established in London (United Kingdom), represented by P. De


title: Case T-642/13: Action brought on 2 December 2013 — Wolverine International v OHIM — BH Stores (cushe)

text:
               22.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 85/20

         Action brought on 2 December 2013 — Wolverine International v OHIM — BH Stores (cushe)
   (Case T-642/13)
   2014/C 85/34
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Wolverine International, LP (Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands) (represented by: M. Plesser and R. Heine, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: BH Stores BV (Curaçao, Netherlands Antilles)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 September 2013 given in Case R 1269/2012-4;

               —

               Reject the request for a declaration of invalidity;

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘cushe’ for goods in Class 25 — International Registration No 859 087 designating the European Union

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Likelihood of confusion pursuant to Article 53(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) CTMR

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

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and declared the contested IR designating the European Union invalid

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 57(2) and (3) CTMR


title: Case T-125/17 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 13 July 2017 — BASF Grenzach ECHA (Interim measures — REACH — Substance triclosan — Evaluation procedure — Decision of the Board of Appeal of the ECHA — Obligation to provide certain information requiring animal testing — Application for interim measures — No urgency)

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/52

         Order of the President of the General Court of 13 July 2017 — BASF Grenzach ECHA
   (Case T-125/17 R)
   ((Interim measures - REACH - Substance triclosan - Evaluation procedure - Decision of the Board of Appeal of the ECHA - Obligation to provide certain information requiring animal testing - Application for interim measures - No urgency))
   (2017/C 283/81)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: BASF Grenzach GmbH (Grenzach-Wyhlen, Germany) (represented by: K. Nordlander and M. Abenhaïm, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: W. Broere, T. Röcke and M. Heikkilä, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application pursuant to Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU for the grant of interim measures to (i) suspend implementation of Decision A-018-2014 of the Board of Appeal of ECHA of 19 December 2016, relating to the substance evaluation of triclosan, and (ii) order the extension of the prescribed period to communicate the results of the tests for the duration of the suspension.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case C-246/06: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 January 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras (Spain)) — Josefa Velasco Navarro v Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Fogasa) (Social policy — Protection of workers in the event of insolvency of their employer — Directive 80/987/EEC amended by Directive 2002/74/EC — Direct effect — Compensation for unfair dismissal agreed under a judicial conciliation settlement — Payment guaranteed by the guarantee institution — Payment conditional upon the adoption of a judicial decision)

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 January 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras (Spain)) — Josefa Velasco Navarro v Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Fogasa)
   (Case C-246/06) (1)

   (Social policy - Protection of workers in the event of insolvency of their employer - Directive 80/987/EEC amended by Directive 2002/74/EC - Direct effect - Compensation for unfair dismissal agreed under a judicial conciliation settlement - Payment guaranteed by the guarantee institution - Payment conditional upon the adoption of a judicial decision)
   (2008/C 64/09)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Referring court
   Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Josefa Velasco Navarro

      Defendant: Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Fogasa)
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras — Interpretation of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ 1980 L 283, p. 23), as amended by Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 (OJ 2002 L 270, p. 10) — Scope of the guarantee offered by the guarantee institution — Compensation on termination of the employment relationship — National rules under which a judgment or administrative decision is required for such compensation — Direct effect of the directive, as amended, as regards a state of insolvency declared between the date of entry into force of Directive 2002/74 and the deadline for its transposition
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Where Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 80/987/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer has not been transposed into national law by 8 October 2005, the possible direct effect of the first paragraph of Article 3 of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, as amended by Directive 2002/74, cannot, in any event, be relied upon in relation to a state of insolvency which occurred before that date.

               2.

               Where rules of national law fall within the scope of Directive 80/987, as amended by Directive 2002/74, the national courts are bound, as regards a state of insolvency occurring between the date of the entry into force of Directive 2002/74 and the deadline for transposition of that directive into national law, to ensure that the application of those rules of national law is consistent with the principle of non-discrimination, as recognised by the Community legal order.

      (1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.


title: Case C-137/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco (Spain) lodged on 20 March 2015 — María Pilar Plaza Bravo v Servicio Público de Empleo Estatal. Dirección Provincial de Álava

text:
               1.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco (Spain) lodged on 20 March 2015 — María Pilar Plaza Bravo v Servicio Público de Empleo Estatal. Dirección Provincial de Álava
   (Case C-137/15)
   (2015/C 178/11)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: María Pilar Plaza Bravo

      Respondent: Servicio Público de Empleo Estatal. Dirección Provincial de Álava

      Question referred

   Is it contrary to Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC (1) of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security (‘the Directive’), in circumstances such as those of this case, for national legislation under which, in order for the amount of the benefit for total unemployment to be received by an employee following the loss of her only part-time employment to be calculated, a reduction coefficient for part-time work that corresponds to the percentage represented by the part-time working hours in relation to the hours completed by a comparable worker employed full-time is applied to the maximum amount [of unemployment benefit] generally laid down by law, regard being had to the fact that in that Member State the vast majority of part-time workers are women?

      (1)  OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24.


title: Case T-722/14: Action brought on 13 October 2014  — PRIMA v Commission

text:
               22.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/27

         Action brought on 13 October 2014 — PRIMA v Commission
   (Case T-722/14)
   (2014/C 462/40)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Parties

      Applicant: PRIMA — Produtsentska, reklamna, informatsionna i mediyna agentsia AD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: Yakor Sergeyev Ruskov, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the European Commission of 12 August 2014 by which the applicant’s bid made in the context of public procurement procedure PO/2013 13/SOF relating to support for the European Commission representative in Bulgaria in the context of the organization of public events;

               —

               Annul the decision of the European Commission of 12 August 2014 by which the performance of the contract was awarded to another tenderer, and annul all the subsequent decisions relating to the conclusion of a contract for the performance of the contract, including the decision of the European Commission of 12 September 2014;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the obligation to provide information

                           —

                           the contracting authority provided the information requested by PRIMA relating to the characteristics of the successful bid, but failed to provide information relating to the relative advantages of that bid.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an incorrect application of the award criteria

                           —

                           the award criteria created by the contracting authority were not applied correctly and objectively, as a result of which the marks awarded for the fulfilment of those criteria are not relevant; it follows that equal access and treatment of all the tenderers have not been ensured.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principles governing the award of public contracts

                           —

                           the decision to award the contract was taken after the date of the first decision, by which PRIMA’s bid was rejected;

                           —

                           the contracting authority failed to inform PRIMA about that decision, which is an infringement of the principles of transparency and equality of participants to the procedure;

                           —

                           the failure to provide the information concerning that decision considerably adversely affected PRIMA’s rights of defence.


title: Case T-20/09: Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2011 — Commission v Marcuccio (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Invalidity pension — Action declared founded in part at first instance on the grounds of failure to state the reasons for the contested decision — Article 78 of the Staff Regulations — Retirement on grounds of invalidity — Invalidity Committee)

text:
               23.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 219/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2011 — Commission v Marcuccio
   (Case T-20/09) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Invalidity pension - Action declared founded in part at first instance on the grounds of failure to state the reasons for the contested decision - Article 78 of the Staff Regulations - Retirement on grounds of invalidity - Invalidity Committee)
   2011/C 219/17
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commmission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 4 November 2008 in Case F-41/06 Marcuccio v Commission, not published in the ECR, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 4 November 2008 in Case F-41/06 Marcuccio v Commission in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal annulled the decision of the European Commission of 30 May 2005 by which Mr Marcuccio was retired on grounds of invalidity and granted an invalidity allowance, in so far as it ordered the Commission to pay to Mr Marcuccio the sum of EUR 3 000 and in so far as it divided the costs on the basis of the annulment and order for payment (paragraphs 1, 2, 4 and 5 of the operative part of the judgment).

               2.

               Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal.

               3.

               Costs reserved.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.


title: Case T-553/11: Action brought on 14 October 2011 — European Dynamics Luxembourg v ECB

text:
               7.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/20

         Action brought on 14 October 2011 — European Dynamics Luxembourg v ECB
   (Case T-553/11)
   2012/C 6/37
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Ettelbrück, Luxembourg) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and M. Dermitzakis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Central Bank

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the defendant to reject the joint application of the temporary grouping, led and represented by the applicant, filed in response to the call for applications to participate in the call for tender with reference number 14159/IS/2010 (OJ 2011/S 75-121894), in particular for the services covered by lot 1 of the said tender;

               —

               Annul the decision of the defendant to reject the applicant’s appeal submitted in accordance with the appeal procedure as defined in section IV.2.1 of the abovementioned call for applications and under the conditions set out in Article 33 of Decision ECB/2007/5 (1);

               —

               Annul all related decisions of the defendant;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay damages to the applicant, pursuant to Articles 256, 268 and 340 TFEU, for loss of opportunity and damages to its reputation and credibility on account of the tender procedure in question for an amount of EUR 2 000 000,00;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed the obligation to state reasons and failed to disclose the relative merits of the successful candidates. In addition, the applicant alleged that the defendant used vague selection criteria, introduced new criteria during the evaluation and failed to comply with the provisions of Article 28(3) of the Decision ECB/2007/5. Finally, the applicant claims that the defendant infringed the rights of defence and the principle of transparency and good administration.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment as it failed to comply with Article 25 of Decision ECB/2007/5 and with the tender specifications.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed Article 20 of Decision ECB/2007/5 and the principle of sound administration.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that by dismissing its appeal as inadmissible, the defendant infringed Article 28(3) of the Decision ECB/2007/5.

      (1)  Decision of the European Central Bank of 3 July 2007 laying down the Rules on Procurement (OJ 2007 L 184, p. 34)


title: Case F-120/05: Action brought on  19 December 2005  — Kyriazis v Commission

text:
               1.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 154/23

         Action brought on 19 December 2005 — Kyriazis v Commission
   (Case F-120/05)
   (2006/C 154/55)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Antonios Kyriazis (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: M. Spanakis, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul decision ADMIN.B.2. — D (05) 23023/EGL-ade of 12 October 2005, by which the Appointing Authority rejected the applicant's complaint R/549/05 against the defendant's refusal, on 25 April 2005, of his request to be granted the expatriation allowance (16 %);

               —

               Order the defendant to grant the applicant the expatriation allowance with retroactive effect from 1 March 2005, plus interest for late payment at the annual rate of 10 %, until it is paid in full;

               —

               Acknowledge the applicant's entitlement to the expatriation allowance (16 % of the net basic salary) in the future.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, a Commission official employed in Luxembourg, contests the decision refusing him payment of the expatriation allowance. He disputes the defendant's argument that he does not meet the conditions referred to in Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations by reason of the fact that, during a period of five years ending six months before his engagement by the Community institutions, he was a permanent resident in Luxembourg and carried on there his usual main occupation.
   The applicant also claims that the work he carried out in Luxembourg in the defendant's building, during which he was employed by a company governed by private law, should be regarded as falling within the derogation provided for in the second indent of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations.


title: Case C-445/12 P: Appeal brought on 3 October 2012 by Rivella International AG against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2012 in Case T-170/11 Rivella International AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/27

         Appeal brought on 3 October 2012 by Rivella International AG against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2012 in Case T-170/11 Rivella International AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-445/12 P)
   2012/C 366/48
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Rivella International AG (represented by: C. Spintig, S. Pietzcker and R. Jacobs, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Baskaya di Baskaya Alim e C. Sas

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal and refer the case back to the General Court;

               —

               order the respondent to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and the proceedings at first instance.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present appeal the appellant challenges the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 July 2012 concerning an action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 January 2011 (Case R 534/2010-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Rivella International AG and Baskaya di Baskaya Alim e C. Sas.
   The appellant relies on the following grounds of appeal:
   The General Court infringed Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1) in that it

               —

               requested proof of genuine use of the mark on which the opposition is based although that mark is not a Community trade mark or an ‘earlier national trade mark’, but the German part of an internationally registered mark;

               —

               took the view that the question of the territory in which an earlier (internationally) registered mark is used is exhaustively determined by Regulation No 207/2009 and that the national law of Member States to that extent applies only in a supplementary capacity;

               —

               did not take into account the fact that such an interpretation leads to a result which is not desired by Regulation No 207/2009 and in particular by recital 3 in the preamble to that regulation, namely to a dissociation between registration and the possibility of using a Community trade mark in cases which are not expressly covered by the regulation.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


title: Case C-680/13: Order of the President of the Court of 16 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — Condor Flugdienst GmbH v Andreas Plakolm

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/21

         Order of the President of the Court of 16 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — Condor Flugdienst GmbH v Andreas Plakolm
   (Case C-680/13) (1)

   2014/C 261/41
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 85, 22.3.2014.


title: Case T-171/99: Action brought on 23 July 1999 by British Steel plc against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 281/24                  EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      2.10.1999
Action brought on 13 July 1999 by Diputación Foral de                     represented by Mark Brealey and Jonathan Lawrence, with an
Alava against the Commission of the European Communi-                      address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt
                                   ties                                    & Medernach, 8-10 rue Mathias Hardt.
                            (Case T-168/99)                                The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           — annul the contested decision on the grounds set out in the
                            (1999/C 281/45)                                     application and;
                                                                           — order the Commission to pay the costs of the action,
                     (Language of the case: Spanish)                            including those of the applicant.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  Pleas in law and main arguments
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 13 July 1999 by Diputación Foral
de Alava, represented by Antonio Creus Carreras and Begoña                The applicant, a public limited company incorporated in
Uriarte Valiente, lawyers, with an address for service c/o                 England, has already raised similar issues in four applications
Cuatrecasas Abogados, 78 Avenue d’Auderghem, 1040 Brus-                    against the Commission, currently pending before the Court
sels.                                                                      of First Instance of the European Communities (1).
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                By the present application, the applicant submits that the
                                                                           Commission has purported to approve aid to be granted to
— annul the Commission Decision of 31 March 1999 in so                     the Spanish coal mining industry in 1999. According to the
     far as it initiates a State aid proceeding against the financial      applicant, the contested decision should be declared void in
     measures provided for in Normas Forales (regional regu-               whole or in part for the following reasons:
     lations) 22/1994 and 24/1996 and requires the Spanish
     State to suspend the payment of sums in pursuance thereof             — the Commission has no competence to approve the aid
     to the company Ramondı́n S.A.;                                             under Article 1(1) of the Code unless the aid complies with
                                                                                Articles 2 to 9 of the Code;
— order the Commission to pay all the costs.
                                                                           — the approval of State aid infringed an essential procedural
                                                                                requirement and/of infringed the ECSC Treaty and/or a
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 rule of law relating to its application;
                                                                           — the Commission has failed properly or at all to provide in
By the present action, the applicant contests the decision of                   the contested decision the reasons for authorising the aid
the Commission by which it found that certain financial                         in several cases.
measures adopted in relation to Ramondı́n S.A. constitute
State aid incompatible with the common market.
                                                                           (1) See cases T-110/98 (OJ C 299 of 26/9/98, p. 38) ; T-111/98 (OJ
                                                                               C 299 of 26/9/98, p. 39) ; T-12/99 (OJ C 86 of 27/3/99, p. 25) ;
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                       T-63/99 (OJ C 160 of 5/6/99, p. 26).
advanced in Case T-127/95 Territorio Histórico de Alava,
Arabako Foru Aldundia — Diputación Foral de Alava v
Commission.
                                                                           Action brought on 23 July 1999 by British Steel plc
                                                                             against the Commission of the European Communities
Action brought on 20 July 1999 by RJB Mining plc against
       the Commission of the European Communities                                                   (Case T-171/99)
                            (Case T-170/99)                                                         (1999/C 281/47)
                            (1999/C 281/46)                                                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                     (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 23 July 1999 by British Steel plc,
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  represented by Philip G.H. Collins and Matthew Levitt, with an
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 address for service in Luxembourg at the chambers of Marc
European Communities on 20 July 1999 by RJB Mining plc,                    Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe.
 ---pagebreak--- 2.10.1999              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 281/25
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             accordance with Article 34 of the Treaty. On 23 April 1999,
                                                                        the Commission repaid to the applicant the sum of EUR
    pursuant to Article 40 CS:                                          12 million. It declared however that it considered that it was
                                                                        not required to pay interest on this sum.
    — order the Commission to pay to British Steel the sum
         of GBP 3 533 474, or such other sum as the Court               The applicant submits that, having imposed and received
         deems appropriate:                                             payment of a fine which was, to the extent identified by the
                                                                        Court, unlawful, the Commission has wrongly refused to pay
                                                                        the applicant pecuniary reparation in the form of interest on
    — order the Commission to pay to British Steel interest             the fine paid by it. As a direct result of this attitude of the
         at a rate which the Court considers to be just in all the      Commission, which constitutes a ‘wrongful act or omission’
         circumstances on the sum of GBP 3 533 474 (or such             within the meaning of Article 40 CS, the applicant has suffered
         other sum, as aforesaid) from 24 April 1999 until final        considerable monetary loss. The Commission should therefore
         judgment of this Court;                                        be ordered to pay it compensation equivalent to its loss of
                                                                        earnings on the sum of ECU/EUR 12 million from the date
    — order the Commission to pay to British Steel interest             when the fine was paid by it until 23 April 1999, together
         at 8 % on such compensation as the Court orders to be          with interest on that sum until the date of payment.
         paid under subparagraphs (a) and (b) above as from
         the date of the Court’s final judgment in this case until      In the alternative, the applicant submits that the Commission
         payment thereof;                                               is liable to it pursuant Article 34 CS. According to the
                                                                        provisions of that article, where a decision of the Commission
    or, in the alternative: pursuant to Article 34 CS:                  has been declared void by the Court, the Commission should
                                                                        take the necessary measures to comply with the judgement. If,
                                                                        within a reasonable time, the Commission has failed to take
    — declare that Commission Decision 94/215/ECSC was
                                                                        the necessary steps to comply with the judgment, proceedings
         vitiated by faults of such nature as to render the
                                                                        for damages may be instituted. In the present case, the
         Community fiable;
                                                                        Commission has failed to take the necessary measures to
                                                                        comply with the judgment since it has not effected a full
    — declare that, as a result of the Commission’s fault,              restitutio in integrum by compensating the applicant for its loss
         British steel has suffered direct and special harm in          of earnings on the sum of fine unlawfully imposed by the
         being unlawfully deprived of the use of ECU/EUR                Commission.
         12 000 000 from the date of payment of that sum to
         the Commission on 2 June 1994;
                                                                        (1) OJ 1994 L 116/1.
    — refer the case to the Commission and order it to adopt
         appropriate measures in order to ensure equitable
         redress for the harm directly resulting from the Com-
         mission’s conduct, and to pay appropriate damages as
         far as may be necessary;
    and in either case:
                                                                        Action brought on 26 July 1999 by Francesca Pentericci
                                                                          against the Commission of the European Communities
    — order the Commission to pay British Steel’s costs.
                                                                                (Case T-172/99)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (1999/C 281/48)
The applicant states that on 16 February 1994 the Commission
adopted Decision 94/215/ECSC relating to a proceeding                                        (Language of the case: Italian)
pursuant to Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty concerning agree-
ments and concerted practices engaged in by European
producers of beams (the ‘Decision’) (1). A fine of ECU 32 mil-          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
lion was imposed on the applicant. On 13 April 1994, the                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
applicant lodged an application for the annulment of the                European Communities on 26 July 1999 by Francesca Pente-
Decision al the Court of First Instance (Case T-151/94).                ricci, represented by Marcello Pentericci, of the Ancona Bar,
Nevertheless, on 2 June 1994, it paid to the Commission the             with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
entirety of the fine imposed on it.                                     Jean Brucher, 10 Rue de Vianden.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
On 11 March 1999, the Court delivered its judgment in Case
T-151/94. In the judgment, the Court sets the amount of the             — annul the decision by which the selection board in
fine imposed on the applicant at EUR 20 million. For the claim               competition No COM A/12/98 refused to admit her to the
for interest, the Court notes that it is for the Commission to               written tests in the competition, and consequently order
take the necessary steps to comply with the judgment, in                     that she be admitted thereto;


title: Case T-443/09: Action brought on 4 November 2009 — Agriconsulting Europe v Commission

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/33

         Action brought on 4 November 2009 — Agriconsulting Europe v Commission
   (Case T-443/09)
   2010/C 11/62
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Agriconsulting Europe SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: F. Sciaudone, R. Sciaudone and A. Neri, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decision.

               —

               Order the Commission to pay compensation for the damage suffered.

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant in the present action is a leading management consultancy providing technical advisory services for international development projects. It is bringing an action against the Commission’s decision in connection with the award of Lot No 11 in contract notice EuropeAid/127054/C/SER/multi (OJ S 128 of 4 July 2008) not to include among the six economically most advantageous bids that submitted by the consortium of which the applicant was the leading participant and to award that lot to other tenderers.
   The applicant puts forward the following pleas in support of its application for annulment:

               —

               distortion of the evidence and the factual circumstances. The contested decision rejected the applicant’s bid on the basis that the ‘declarations of exclusivity’ of three experts in its bid were also to be found in other bids and it was therefore necessary to exclude them from the evaluation. That conclusion is vitiated in so far as it failed to take account of the experts’ statements denying that some of those declarations had any value, on the one hand, or actually claiming that they were false, on the other;

               —

               misinterpretation of the consequences to be drawn from the non-compliance of the ‘declarations of exclusivity’ and infringement of the principle of legal certainty, in so far as the defendant imposed the penalty laid down for cases in which more than one declaration of exclusivity is signed on all the tenders, without considering the role and responsibilities of the company or the expert;

               —

               infringement of legal requirements, of the principle of sound administration and the principal of proportionality, in so far as the defendant failed to exercise the power conferred on it to request clarification where there is some ambiguity concerning some aspect of the tender before confirming that errors exist which may affect the validity of a tender.

         The applicant, which also submits that there has been infringement of the obligation to state reasons, seeks, in addition, compensation for the damage suffered on grounds of non-contractual liability for unlawful acts or, in the alternative, for lawful acts.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 July 1999 in Case T-106/96: Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl v Commission of the European Communities (ECSC - Action for annulment - Admissibility - State aid - Individual decision authorising State aid to a steel undertaking - Legal basis - Article 4(c) and Article 95, first paragraph, of the Treaty - Incompatibility with the provisions of the Treaty - Principle of equal treatment - Principle of proportionality - Legitimate expectations - Counterpart measures in exchange for public funding - No capacity reduction required - Infringement of essential procedural requirements)

text:
18.9.1999             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 265/9
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 22 April 1999
                         of 7 July 1999
                                                                        in Joined Cases T-148/96 and T-174/96: Ernesto Brognieri
                                                                               v Commission of the European Communities (1)
in Case T-106/96: Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl v Com-
          mission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                        (Officials — Actions for annulment and damages — Wheth-
                                                                        er admissible — Failure to comply with the judgment in Case
(ECSC — Action for annulment — Admissibility — State                    T-583/93 — Article 26 of the Staff Regulations — Manifest
aid — Individual decision authorising State aid to a steel                                             error)
undertaking — Legal basis — Article 4(c) and Article 95,
first paragraph, of the Treaty — Incompatibility with the
provisions of the Treaty — Principle of equal treatment —                                        (1999/C 265/16)
Principle of proportionality — Legitimate expectations —
Counterpart measures in exchange for public funding — No
capacity reduction required — Infringement of essential
                    procedural requirements)                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        In Joined Cases T-148/96 and T-174/96: Ernesto Brognieri, an
                        (1999/C 265/15)                                 official of the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        residing at Barasso (Italy), represented by Eric Boigelot, of the
                                                                        Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                        Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim v
                                                                        Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Florence
                  (Language of the case: German)                        Clotuche and Alberto Dal Ferro)
                                                                        — application, in Case T-148/96, for (1) annulment of the
                                                                             Commission decision on 28 November 1995 confirming
In Case T-106/96: Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl, established                  the decision of 22 February 1993 withdrawing the appli-
in Düsseldorf Germany, represented by Jochim Sedemund,                       cant from shift-work in the fire service and the Commission
Rechtsanwalt, Berlin, with an address for service in Luxem-                  decision of 21 June 1996 rejecting the applicant’s com-
bourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue v                          plaint, and (2) compensation and interest for the material
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Paul                         and non-material damage suffered by the applicant; and
Nemitz and Frank Paul) supported by the Council of the
European Union (Agents: Guus -Houttuin and Stephan Mar-
quardt), application for annulment of Commission Decision               — in Case T-174/96, for (1) annulment of the Commission
96/315/ECSC of 7 February 1996 concerning aid to be granted                  decision of 30 November 1995 granting an allowance
by Ireland to the steel company Irish Steel (OJ 1996 L 121,                  contrary to the operative part of the judgment of the Court
p. 16) — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber,                        of First Instance in Case T-583/93 P v Commission [1995]
Extended Composition), composed of: R.M. Moura Ramos,                        ECR-SC II-433, in so far as that decision awards shiftwork
President, and R. Garcia-Valdecasas, V.Tiili, P. Lindh and P.                allowances in respect solely of the period between 1 March
Mengozzi Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has              1993 and 31 December 1993, and of the Commission
given a judgment on 7 July 1999, in which it:                                decision of 21 June 1996, referred to above, rejecting the
                                                                             applicant’s complaint, and (2) payment of all sums due to
                                                                             the applicant by way of damages to be paid in whole, both
1. Dismisses the action.                                                     principal and default interest — the Court of First Instance
                                                                             (Fourth Chamber), composed of P. Lindh, President,
                                                                             K. Lenaerts and J.D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave
2. Orders the applicant to pay its own costs and those of the                a judgment on 22 April 1999, the operative part of which
     defendant.                                                              is as follows:
                                                                        1. The decision of 28 November 1995 addressed to the applicant
3. Orders the Council to bear its own costs.                                 by Mr Agazzi is annulled.
                                                                        2. The decision of 30 November 1995 addressed to the applicant
(1) OJ C 269 of 14.9.1996.                                                   by Mr Chambaud is annulled in so far as it restricts payment of
                                                                             the sums to the applicant by way of shiftwork allowances to the
                                                                             period between 1 March 1993 and 31 December 1993.
                                                                        3. The Commission is ordered to pay the applicant the sum of
                                                                             LIT 24 000 000.


title: Case C-446/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 31 October 2006 — A.G. Winkel v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/37

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 31 October 2006 — A.G. Winkel v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit
   (Case C-446/06)
   (2006/C 326/78)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: A.G. Winkel

      Defendant: Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit
   Questions referred

               1.

               Are rules which, as regards the right to a suckler-cow premium, require, on the basis of the usual animal husbandry practice, that a cow has calved at least once in the period which runs from twenty months before to four months after the date on which the application period started and its calf was not removed from the herd within four months after its birth, compatible with Article 3(f) of Regulation (EC) (1) No 1254/1999?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, what criteria must be applied to establish whether the herd is intended for rearing calves for meat production and which cows belong to that herd?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999, of 17 May 1999, on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 21).


title: Case T-550/08: Action brought on 15 December 2008 — Tudapetrol Mineralölerzeugnisse Nils Hansen v Commission

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/32

         Action brought on 15 December 2008 — Tudapetrol Mineralölerzeugnisse Nils Hansen v Commission
   (Case T-550/08)
   (2009/C 55/59)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Tudapetrol Mineralölerzeugnisse Nils Hansen KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: U. Itzen and J. Ziebarth, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the contested decision in so far as it relates to the applicant;

               —

               in the alternative, reduce as appropriate the level of the fine imposed on the applicant in the contested decision;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant is challenging Commission Decision C(2008) 5476 final of 1 October 2008 in Case COMP/39.181 — Candle Waxes, in which the defendant found that certain undertakings, including the applicant, had participated in a continuing agreement and/or concerted practice in the paraffin waxes sector, contrary to Article 81(1) EC and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area.
   The applicant relies on two pleas in law in support of its action.
   By its first plea in law, the applicant claims that there has been an infringement of the duty to state reasons under Article 253 EC and an infringement of the rights of the defence inasmuch as the appraisal of evidence carried out by the Commission in the contested decision does not in fact specifically indicate which acts contributing to the offence are to be attributed to the applicant. The broad-brush appraisal of the evidence carried out by the Commission relates to, besides the applicant, also other companies, the actions of which cannot be attributed to the applicant. In light of the unclear appraisal of the evidence, there is an infringement of the rights of the defence, as the Commission is under an obligation to indicate, in a clear and unequivocal manner, which contributory acts it attributes to which undertakings and the consequences thereof.
   The applicant further claims that it was not involved in any activity contrary to Article 81 EC. Not only did the Commission fail, in formal terms, to carry out a proper appraisal of the evidence, but even a subsidiary substantive examination of the evidence indicates that no allegation made against the applicant was substantiated. The conclusion that the applicant infringed the law on cartels cannot be drawn from the meetings detailed and the evidence thereof provided in the framework of the appraisal of the evidence. This is especially true also in light of the fact that only a limited allegation was made from the outset in relation to the applicant. That fact, however, was not taken into consideration when the evidence was being appraised; instead, and to the further detriment of the applicant, account was taken of evidence which might prove potential offences on the part of third parties but in which the applicant was not involved.
   By its second plea in law, the applicant claims that the limitation period had expired. It claims that it had already, at the beginning of 2000, transferred the distribution business in question to another company, with the result that the first measures in early 2005 that stopped the limitation period running could no longer have led to action being taken against the applicant in respect of an old offence.


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 239, 4.10.2003

text:
C 251/22        EN                     Official Journal of the European Union                         18.10.2003
                                                            III
                                                         (Notices)
                                                    (2003/C 251/39)
               Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union
         OJ C 239, 4.10.2003
         Past publications
         OJ C 226, 20.9.2003
         OJ C 213, 6.9.2003
         OJ C 200, 23.8.2003
         OJ C 184, 2.8.2003
         OJ C 171, 19.7.2003
         OJ C 158, 5.7.2003
                                              These texts are available on:
                                         EUR-Lex: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex
                                            CELEX: http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case T-156/08 P: Appeal brought on 24 April 2008 by R against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 19 February 2008 in Case F-49/07, R v Commission

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/39

         Appeal brought on 24 April 2008 by R against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 19 February 2008 in Case F-49/07, R v Commission
   (Case T-156/08 P)
   (2008/C 171/75)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: R (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by Y. Minatchy, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Annul the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 19 February 2008 in Case F-49/07;

               —

               Grant the application for annulment and damages made by the applicant at first instance;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs in their entirety.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In the present appeal, the applicant is seeking the annulment of the order of the Civil Service Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) dismissing as inadmissible the action in which he applied, first, for the annulment of his entire probationary period and all the measures produced in that connection, including the end of probationary period report, and, second, for damages by way of compensation for the loss allegedly suffered.
   In support of his appeal, the applicant relies, first, on a denial of due process inasmuch as the Tribunal did not take account of certain factors and documents submitted by the applicant and, second, on an erroneous interpretation of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal and the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities. The applicant also relies on manifest errors in the assessment of the facts.


title: Case C-167/14: Action brought on 7 April 2014  — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/12

         Action brought on 7 April 2014 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-167/14)
   2014/C 261/20
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Ζabbos and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare that the Hellenic Republic, by failing to take all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of 25 October 2007 in Case C-440/06 Commission v Greece, failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU;

               —

               Order the Hellenic Republic to pay to the Commission a proposed financial penalty of EUR 47  462,40for each day of delay in complying with the judgment delivered in Case C-440/06, from the date of delivery of judgment in the present case until the date of compliance with the judgment in Case C-440/06;

               —

               Order the Hellenic Republic to pay to the Commission a fixed daily sum of EUR 5  191,20per day from the date of delivery of the judgment in Case C-440/06 until the date of delivery of the judgment in this case or the date of compliance with the judgment in Case C-440/06, whichever is the earlier;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   As regards the method for calculation of penalties the Commission refers to:

               Α-

                  The importance of the provisions of the legislation which were infringed such as Articles 3 and 4 of Council Directive 91/271/ΕEC (1) of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment in respect of the collection, treatment and discharge of urban waste water and the treatment and discharge of sludge from certain industrial sectors and the specified objectives of protecting the environment from the adverse effects of discharge of such waters.
               The Commission maintains that the discharge of untreated waste (that is, waste that has undergone no treatment, because of a lack of comprehensive systems and/or of treatment plants) into surface waters leads to pollution which is characterised by an oxygen imbalance while the flow of nutrient substances (particularly nitrogen and phosphorus compounds) significantly affects the quality of those waters and their related ecosystems (putting at risk, for example, fish populations).
               Further, as regards urban waste water which undergoes inadequate treatment (treatment processes which do not implement secondary treatment or which implement non-compliant secondary treatment), the implementation of primary treatment alone is insufficient to prevent any risk of pollution and deterioration in the quality of water and related ecosystems. Moreover the excessive discharge of nutrients (which consist of nitrogen and phosphorus compounds) into surface waters is a basic cause of increased eutrophication (accelerated growth of algae and forms of plant life), which increases the risk of imbalance as regards water oxygen, increased extinction of fish populations and other aquatic organisms, and increased harm suffered by related terrestrial ecosystems. That is precisely why Article 4 of Directive 91/271/ΕEC provides that urban waste water which is produced by agglomerations of more than 15  000 p.e. [population equivalent] cannot be discharged, unless it has been subject to secondary or equivalent treatment.
               The Commission maintains that the collection and treatment of all waste water which is produced by Greek agglomerations of more than 15  000 p.e. is of vital importance both for the preservation and improvement of the quality of surface waters, aquatic ecosystems and terrestrial ecosystems which are directly dependent on the waters in question and to securing the full and correct implementation of other European Union directives.
               However, despite the efforts made and measures taken by the Greek authorities in recent years, it is clear that, to date, six agglomerations of more than 15  000 p.e. of the total of 23 which are covered by the judgment of 25 October 2007 (including five in the region of eastern Attica, which is one of the most densely populated in Greece) do not comply with Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 91/271/EEC. The equivalent population residing in those six agglomerations is 1 24  000 (16  000 in Lefkimmi, 25  000 in Nea Makri, 17  000 in Markopoulo, 20  000 in Koropi, 18  000 in Rafina and 28  000 in Artemida).

               Β-

                  the consequences of the infringement in respect of general and particular interests which are caused by the failure fully to comply with the judgment of the Court in Case C-440/06, which creates significant risks of environmental pollution and has effects on human health. As described by the Commission, the failure fully to comply with the judgment of the Court in Case C-440/06 leads to the eutrophication of surface waters which could put at risk, inter alia, good ecological and chemical status and the conservation of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Consequently, the Commission considers that the failure fully to comply with the judgment is likely to affect the implementation of other European Union directives, including Directive 2000/60/ΕC (2) of the European Parliament and the Council of 23 Οctober 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, Directive 2006/7/EC (3) concerning the management of bathing water quality and Council Directive 92/43/ΕC (4) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.
               Further, the Commission maintains that the failure fully to comply with the judgment of the Court affects the ability of citizens to enjoy the benefits of surface waters which are sufficiently clean to permit the practice of recreational activities (fishing, swimming, sailing, walking etc.). The failure fully to comply with the judgment is also likely to affect both the quality of the water which is available for human consumption and human health itself.

      (1)  OJ 1991 L 135, pp. 40-52.

      (2)  OJ 2000 L 327, pp. 1-73.

      (3)  OJ 2007 L 64, pp. 37-51.

      (4)  OJ 1992 L 206, pp. 7-50.


title: Case T-234/13: Action brought on 23 April 2013 — Lucart France v Commission

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/38

         Action brought on 23 April 2013 — Lucart France v Commission
   (Case T-234/13)
   2013/C 171/74
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Lucart France (Torvilliers, France) (represented by: J.-M. Leprêtre and N. Chahid-Nouraï, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul, with immediate effect, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste in so far as it adds rolls, tubes and cylinders, with the exception of those for industrial use, to the list of examples of packaging;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those put forward in Case T-202/13 Group’Hygiène v Commission.


title: Case T-179/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 24 September 2008 — Anvil Knitwear v OHIM — Aprile e Aprile (Aprile) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark Aprile — Earlier national word mark ANVIL — Relative ground for refusal — Lack of likelihood of confusion — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Articles 8(1)(b), 73 and 74 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/39

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 24 September 2008 — Anvil Knitwear v OHIM — Aprile e Aprile (Aprile)
   (Case T-179/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark Aprile - Earlier national word mark ANVIL - Relative ground for refusal - Lack of likelihood of confusion - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Articles 8(1)(b), 73 and 74 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2008/C 285/71)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Anvil Knitwear, Inc. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: G. Würtenberger, R. Kunze and T. Wittmann, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Laitinen and O. Mondéjar Ortuño, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Aprile e Aprile Srl (Argelato, Italy)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 March 2007 (Case R-1076/2006-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Anvil Knitwear, Inc. and Aprile e Aprile Srl.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Anvil Knitwear, Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 170, 21.7.2007.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 June 2005 in Case T-316/03, Münchener Rückversicherungs-Gesellschaft AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Word mark MunichFinancialServices — Absolute ground of refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               6.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/26

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 7 June 2005
   in Case T-316/03, Münchener Rückversicherungs-Gesellschaft AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Word mark MunichFinancialServices - Absolute ground of refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2005/C 193/43)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case T-316/03: Münchener Rückversicherungs-Gesellschaft AG, established in Munich (Germany), represented by G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: D. Schennen and G. Schneider) — Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 June 2003 (Case R 337/2002-4), regarding an application for registration of the Community word mark MunichFinancialServices — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President, M. E. Martins Ribeiro and K. Jürimäe, Judges; C. Kristensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 7 June 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 289 of 29.11.2003.


title: Case T-164/09: Action brought on 3 April 2009 — Kitou v European Data Protection Supervisor

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/44

         Action brought on 3 April 2009 — Kitou v European Data Protection Supervisor
   (Case T-164/09)
   2009/C 153/88
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Erasmia Kitou (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Data Protection Supervisor

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 is inapplicable;

               —

               in the alternative, declare an error of law in the application of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in conjunction with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001;

               —

               consequently, annul the Decision of the European Data Protection Supervisor 2008-0600;

               —

               declare that the request for access to the document does not satisfy the conditions laid down in Regulation No 45/2001;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the European Data Protection Supervisor by which the latter found that the disclosure during national legal proceedings of certain data concerning the applicant’s career in the Commission of the European Communities is not contrary to the provisions of Regulations No 45/2001 (1) and No 1049/2001. (2)

   In support of its action, the applicant claims that:

               —

               the contested decision is unfounded inasmuch as it is based on Regulation No 1049/2001 which is inapplicable in the present case, since the request for access does not concern a document within the meaning of Regulation No 1049/2001, but exclusively an item of personal data.

               —

               even if Regulations No 1049/2001 and No 45/2001 were to apply in conjunction with one another in the present case, the defendant, when applying them, erred in considering that the conditions imposed by Regulation No 45/2001 concerning the processing of personal data apply only where the exception provided for in Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation No 1049/2001 regarding access to documents is applicable;

               —

               the defendant infringed the provisions of Regulation No 45/2001 inasmuch as the request for access did not concern a document and was not based on any of the conditions for permitting the processing of personal data.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).

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