title: Case T-182/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 October 2006 — Van der Spree v Commission (Officials — Career Development Report — 2001/2002 appraisal period — Articles 26 and 43 of the Staff Regulations — Rights of the defence — Annulment )

text:
               16.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 310/12

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 October 2006 — Van der Spree v Commission
   (Case T-182/04) (1)

   (Officials - Career Development Report - 2001/2002 appraisal period - Articles 26 and 43 of the Staff Regulations - Rights of the defence - Annulment )
   (2006/C 310/23)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Daniel Van der Spree (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and H. Krämer, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the decision of 25 June 2003 drawing up the definitive version of the applicant's Career Development Report for the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of 25 June 2003 drawing up the definitive version of Daniel Van der Spree's Career Development Report for the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 10.7.2004.


               12.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/38

         Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Oslo tingrett dated 6 January 2016 in the case of Synnøve Finden v Staten v/Landbruks- og matdepartmentet
   (Case E-1/16)
   (2017/C 9/08)
   A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 6 January 2016 from Oslo tingrett (the Oslo District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 18 January 2016, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Synnøve Finden v Staten v/Landbruks- og matdepartmentet (the Norwegian State represented by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food) on the following questions concerning Regulation of 29 June 2007 No 832 on a price equalisation system for milk (the ‘PE Regulation’):

               1.1.

               Is the aid arrangement mentioned in the third paragraph of Section 8 of the PE Regulation an arrangement of a nature whereby the Court, on considering its lawfulness, must consider it in relation to the rules on the freedom of establishment in Article 31 of the EEA Agreement?

               1.2.

               If the court is required to consider Article 31 of the EEA Agreement in relation to the lawfulness of the third paragraph of Section 8 of the PE Regulation, will Article 31 of the EEA Agreement only be relevant if there is a cross-border element in the case?

               1.3.

               If the court is required to consider Article 31 of the EEA Agreement in relation to the lawfulness of the third paragraph of Section 8 of the PE Regulation, will Article 31 of the EEA Agreement only be relevant in relation to what are commonly referred to as ‘Protocol 3 products’, or will it be deemed to constitute transport aid of relevance to all product categories, even if transport is limited to the party’s own products?

               2.1.

               Is the aid arrangement mentioned in the third paragraph of Section 8 of the PE Regulation an arrangement that requires prior notification to ESA pursuant to Article 60 of the EEA Agreement?

               2.2.

               If the aid arrangement mentioned in the third paragraph of Section 8 of the PE Regulation requires prior notification to ESA pursuant to Article 60, does this only concern what are commonly referred to as ‘Protocol 3 products’, or will it be deemed to constitute transport aid of relevance to all product categories?


title: Case T-298/16: Action brought on 13 June 2016 — East West Consulting v Commission

text:
               25.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/66

         Action brought on 13 June 2016 — East West Consulting v Commission
   (Case T-298/16)
   (2016/C 270/71)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: East West Consulting SPRL (Nandrin, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and A. Tymen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the present action admissible and well founded;

         consequently,

               —

               rule that the European Commission has incurred non-contractual liability;

               —

               order the defendant to pay compensation for the damage suffered by the applicant, valued, subject to any adjustment, at EUR 496 000;

               —

               in any event, order the defendant to pay the costs in their entirety.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed sufficiently serious breaches of rules of law by activating, on the basis of Commission Decision 2008/969/EC, Euratom, of 16 December 2008 on the Early Warning System for the use of authorising officers of the Commission and the executive agencies (OJ 2008 L 344, p. 125), Early Warning System (‘EWS’) Warning ‘W3b’ against the applicant, following an investigation by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), identifying the level of risk associated with the applicant in its capacity as the person awarded the public service contract concerning a project designed to strengthen the fight against undeclared work in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. That plea is divided into five parts:

                           —

                           First part, alleging that the decision to issue an EWS warning against the applicant (‘the EWS decision’) is unlawful in that it has no basis in law, and that it infringes both Article 5 TEU and the fundamental right to the presumption of innocence;

                           —

                           Second part, alleging that the EWS decision is unlawful in that it infringes the principle of legal certainty as regards the conditions relating to Warning ‘W3b’;

                           —

                           Third part, alleging that the EWS decision is unlawful in that it stems from infringements of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, of the principle of sound administration, of the rights of the defence and of the fundamental right to be heard, and from a failure to comply with the duty to provide a statement of reasons;

                           —

                           Fourth part, relied on in the alternative, alleging that the Commission infringed the EWS decision, failed to comply with the duty to provide a statement of reasons enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter and with the duty of diligence, and infringed the principle of proportionality;

                           —

                           Fifth part, alleging that the Commission’s reason for refusing to give its agreement is irregular, in so far as it disregards the tender specifications.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant has suffered damage and that there is a causal link between the Commission’s wrongful conduct and that damage.


title: Case C-417/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 November 2012 — Council of the European Union v Nadiany Bamba, European Commission (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy — Specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire — Freezing of funds — Article 296 TFEU — Obligation to state the reasons on which a decision is based — Rights of the defence — Right to an effective legal remedy — Right to respect for property)

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/18

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 November 2012 — Council of the European Union v Nadiany Bamba, European Commission
   (Case C-417/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire - Freezing of funds - Article 296 TFEU - Obligation to state the reasons on which a decision is based - Rights of the defence - Right to an effective legal remedy - Right to respect for property)
   2013/C 9/28
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and B. Driessen and by E. Dumitriu-Segnana, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Nadiany Bamba, (represented: initially by P. Haïk, and subsequently by P. Maisonneuve, lawyers), European Commission (represented by: E. Cujo and M. Konstantinidis, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and É. Ranaivoson, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 June 2011 in Case T-86/11 Bamba v Council in which the General Court annulled Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire and Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 1), in so far as those measures concern Ms Nadiany Bamba — Freezing of funds — Obligation to state reasons — Error of law

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 8 June 2011 in Case T-86/11 Bamba v Council;

               2.

               Dismisses Ms Bamba’s action;

               3.

               Orders Ms Bamba to pay, in addition to her own costs, those incurred by the Council of the European Union in connection with the present appeal and at first instance;

               4.

               Orders the French Republic and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 22.10.2011.


title: Case F-60/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 17 October 2013 — Birkhoff v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Referral to the Tribunal after annulment — Remuneration — Family allowances — Dependent child allowance — Child prevented by serious illness or invalidity from earning a livelihood — Application for extension of payment of the allowance)

text:
               8.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/29

      Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 17 October 2013 — Birkhoff v Commission
      (Case F-60/09)
      (Civil service - Officials - Referral to the Tribunal after annulment - Remuneration - Family allowances - Dependent child allowance - Child prevented by serious illness or invalidity from earning a livelihood - Application for extension of payment of the allowance)
      (2014/C 71/54)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Gerhard Birkhoff (Weitnau, Germany) (represented by: C. Inzillo, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, Agents and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

         Re:

      Referral back to the Tribunal after annulment — Officials — Annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s request for an extension of payment of the dependent child allowance under Article 2(5) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Tribunal:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action.

                  2.

                  Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Birkhoff in Case F-60/09 and Case T-10/11 P.

                  3.

                  Orders each party to bear its own costs in Case F-60/09 RENV.


title: Case C-285/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour Administrative d'Appel de Douai, France, by judgment of that court of 12 July 2001 in the case of Isabel Burbaud v Ministère de l'Emploi et de la Solidarité

text:
C 275/8                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           29.9.2001
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour Admin-                    Is Paragraph 10(2) Nr. 2 of the Einkommensteuergesetz (EStG)
istrative d’Appel de Douai, France, by judgment of that                    as it stood in 1992, which makes the tax deductibility of
court of 12 July 2001 in the case of Isabel Burbaud v                      contributions to insurance undertakings conditional upon the
           Ministère de l’Emploi et de la Solidarité                       undertaking having its seat or its management in Germany or
                                                                           having been granted authorisation to carry on business in
                                                                           Germany, compatible with Articles 39, 43 and 49 (ex
                           (Case C-285/01)
                                                                           Articles 48, 52 and 59) of the EC Treaty?
                          (2001/C 275/15)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Cour Adminis-
trative d’Appel de Douai, (Administrative Court of Appeal,
Douai), France, of 12 July 2001, which was received at the
Court Registry on 18 July 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Isabel Burbaud v Ministère de l’Emploi et de la
Solidarité, on the following questions:
(1) Is a training course in a practical training school for                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
      public servants, such as the ENSP (École Nationale de la            Grande Instance, Dax, by judgment of that court of 2 July
      Santé Publique; National School of Public Health), leading           2001 in the case of Ministère Public against Jean-Marie
      to establishment in the public service, to be treated in the                                       Perchicot
      same way as a diploma within the meaning of Council
      Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 (1) and, if so,
      how was the equivalence of the diplomas from the                                               (Case C-289/01)
      National School of Public Health, Lisbon, and the National
      School of Public Health, Rennes, to be assessed?
                                                                                (2001/C 275/17)
(2) If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative,
      may the competent authority make admission to the
      public service of public servants from another Member
      State who rely on an equivalent diploma subject to                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      conditions, and in particular subject to passing the                 European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal de
      School’s entrance examination, even for those who have               Grande Instance (Regional Court), Dax, of 2 July 2001, which
      sat a similar competition in their country of origin?                was received at the Court Registry on 20 July 2001, for a
                                                                           preliminary ruling in the case of Ministère Public against Jean-
                                                                           Marie Perchicot on the following question:
(1) Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general
    system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded
    on completion of professional education and training of at least
    three years’ duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16).
                                                                           Where a vehicle is hired without a driver as provided for by
                                                                           Article 2 of Council Directive 84/647/EEC (1) is the lessor, a
                                                                           French road haulage company, permitted:
                                                                           —     to obtain the carriage authorisations necessary within
                                                                                French territory on behalf of the lessee, a road haulage
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Schleswig-                             company governed by French (sic) law
Holsteinisches Finanzgericht by order of that court of
31 May 2001 in the case of Ulf Thomsen against Finanzamt
                              Flensburg                                    —     to manage on behalf of the lessee, a road haulage
                                                                                company governed by Spanish law, the tachograph discs
                                                                                of the drivers employed by that company?
                           (Case C-288/01)
                          (2001/C 275/16)
                                                                           (1) Council Directive 84/647/EEC of 19 December 1984 on the use
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         of vehicles hired without drivers for the carriage of goods by road
European Communities by order of the Schleswig-Holstei-                        (OJ L 335, 22.12.1984, p. 72).
nisches Finanzgericht (Finance Court, Schleswig-Holstein) of
31 May 2001, received at the Court Registry on 19 July 2001,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ulf Thomsen v
Finanzamt Flensburg on the following question:


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 April 2002 in Case T-7/00: Hyper Srl v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Importation of television sets from Turkey — No need to adjudicate)

text:
27.7.2002               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 180/23
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                (Germany), represented by N. Lhoëst, avocat, with an address
                                                                          for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the European
                         of 29 April 2002                                 Communities (Agents: J. Currall, C. Berardis-Kayser and
                                                                          F. Clotuche-Duvieusart) — application for annulment of the
                                                                          Commission decision of 8 January 1998 dismissing the
in Case T-68/98: Stefan Jung v Commission of the Euro-                    applicant’s request for a reclassification of his grade —
                       pean Communities (1)                               the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of:
                                                                          B. Vesterdorf, President, and N.J. Forwood and H. Legal, Judges;
(Officials — Application for reclassification in grade —                  H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 29 April 2002 the
Action — New facts — Reasonable period — Inadmissi-                       operative part of which is as follows:
                                 bility)
                                                                          1.   The application is dismissed as inadmissible;
                          (2002/C 180/38)
                                                                          2.   The parties are to bear their own costs.
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          (1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.
In Case T-68/98: Stefan Jung, an official of the Commission of
the European Communities, resident in Luxembourg, rep-
resented by N. Lhoëst, lawyer, with an address for service in
Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communi-
ties (Agents: J. Currall, C. Berardis-Kayser and F. Clotuche-
Duvieusart) — application for annulment of the Commission’s
decision of 17 December 1997 rejecting the applicant’s request                  ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
for review of his classification in grade — the Court of
First Instance (First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf,                                       of 12 April 2002
President, N. J. Forwood and H. Legal, Judges; H. Jung,
Registrar, made an order on 29 April 2002, the operative part
of which is as follows:                                                   in Case T-7/00: Hyper Srl v Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities (1)
1.    The action is dismissed as inadmissible;
                                                                          (Action for annulment — Importation of television sets from
2.    Each party is to bear its own costs.                                               Turkey — No need to adjudicate)
(1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.                                                                          (2002/C 180/40)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                          In Case T-7/00: Hyper Srl, established in Limena (Italy),
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                represented by D. Ehle and D. Ehle, lawyers, with an address for
                                                                          service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities (Agent: G. zur Hausen) — application for
                         of 29 April 2002                                 annulment of the Commission’s decision of 30 September
                                                                          1999 (REM 2/98) finding that remission of duties payable on
in Case T-70/98: Wolfgang Hilden v Commission of the                      the import of television sets from Turkey is not justified — the
                   European Communities (1)                               Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: M. Jae-
                                                                          ger, President, K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; H. Jung,
(Officials — Request for reclassification of grade — Action               Registrar, made an order on 12 April 2002, the operative part
— New information — Reasonable delay — Inadmissibility)                   of which is as follows:
                          (2002/C 180/39)                                 1.   There is no need to adjudicate on the present application;
                                                                          2.   The Commission is to pay all the costs.
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          (1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.
In Case T-70/98: Wolfgang Hilden, an official of the Com-
mission of the European Communities, residing in Trierweiler


title: Case T-510/16: Judgment of the General Court of 19 July 2017 — Dessi v EIB (Civil Service — EIB staff — Appraisal — Promotion — Appraisal and promotion year 2012 — Decision of the Appeal Committee — Scope of review — Staff representatives — Discrimination)

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/45

         Judgment of the General Court of 19 July 2017 — Dessi v EIB
   (Case T-510/16) (1)

   ((Civil Service - EIB staff - Appraisal - Promotion - Appraisal and promotion year 2012 - Decision of the Appeal Committee - Scope of review - Staff representatives - Discrimination))
   (2017/C 283/68)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Nathalie Dessi (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented initially by: A. Senes and L. Payot, and subsequently by: L. Levi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented initially by: C. Gómez de la Cruz and E. Raimond, subsequently by: E. Raimond and G. Faedo, and finally by: G. Faedo and K. Carr, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision of the EIB Appeal Committee of 23 October 2013, by which it rejected the applicant’s request for a review of her staff report for 2012 in that that report did not recommend to the President of the EIB that she be promoted from function group F to function group E.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the EIB Appeal Committee of 23 October 2013, by which it rejected Ms Nathalie Dessi’s request for a review of her staff report for 2012 in that that report did not recommend to the President of the EIB that she be promoted from function group F to function group E;

               2.

               Orders the EIB to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 85, 22.3.2014 (case initially registered at the European Union Civil Service Tribunal as Case F-8/14 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).


title: Case C-74/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Debreceni Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — GSV Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-Alföldi Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága, (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — TARIC Codes 7019590010 and 7019590090  — Regulations imposing anti-dumping duties on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in China — Discrepancies between language versions — Obligation to pay the anti-dumping duty)

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/11

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Debreceni Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — GSV Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-Alföldi Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága,
   (Case C-74/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - TARIC Codes 7019590010 and 7019590090 - Regulations imposing anti-dumping duties on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in China - Discrepancies between language versions - Obligation to pay the anti-dumping duty))
   2014/C 175/12
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Debreceni Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: GSV Kft.

      Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-Alföldi Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Debreceni Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Interpretation of recital 14 and Article 1(1) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 138/2011 of 16 February 2011 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2011 L 43, p. 9) — Exemption from payment of anti-dumping duties on imports of glass fibre fabrics which do not fall within the description of TARIC subheading 7019590010 as evidenced by the regulations published in the importer’s language — Goods which may be classed under that subheading according to other language versions

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Code 7019 59 00 10 of the Integrated Tariff of the European Communities established by Article 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff must be interpreted as meaning that it covers products such as that at issue in the main proceedings, comprising in particular fabrics of glass fibres with openings of a cell size of 4 mm both in length and in width and weighing more than 35 g/m2 and intended for the field of construction;

               2.

               The fact that the product covered by the customs declaration at issue in the main proceedings, while corresponding to the characteristics laid down in code 7019 59 00 10 of the Integrated Tariff of the European Communities and set out in the regulations subjecting it to anti-dumping duties, does not correspond to the designation given to it in that code and those regulations as published in the language of the Member State of origin of the declarant and on which alone the latter based its declaration is not liable to entail the annulment of its tariff classification under that code made by the customs authorities on the basis of all the other language versions of that code and those regulations.

      (1)  OJ C 164, 8.6.2013.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 October 2001 in Case C-475/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht Rheinland-Pfalz): Firma Ambulanz Glöckner v Landkreis Südwestpfalz (Articles 85, 86 and 90 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 81 EC, 82 EC and 86 EC) — Transport of sick or injured persons by ambulance — Special or exclusive rights — Restriction of competition — Public interest task — Justification — Effect on trade between Member States)

text:
22.12.2001                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 369/3
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Sixth Chamber)                                                            (Fifth Chamber)
                         of 16 October 2001                                                        of 25 October 2001
in Case C-429/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                   ties v Portuguese Republic (1)                          in Case C-475/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                           from the Oberverwaltungsgericht Rheinland-Pfalz): Firma
                                                                                Ambulanz Glöckner v Landkreis Südwestpfalz (1)
(Telecommunications — Directives 90/388/EEC and
96/19/EC — Voice telephony — ‘Callback’ services —
                           Portugal Telecom)                               (Articles 85, 86 and 90 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 81
                                                                           EC, 82 EC and 86 EC) — Transport of sick or injured
                                                                           persons by ambulance — Special or exclusive rights —
                            (2001/C 369/04)                                Restriction of competition — Public interest task — Justifi-
                                                                                cation — Effect on trade between Member States)
                   (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                                (2001/C 369/05)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)                                            (Language of the case: German)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
In Case C-429/99: Commission of the European Communities                                       in the European Court Reports)
(Agent: A. Alves Vieira) v Portuguese Republic (Agents:
L. Fernandes, P. de Pitta e Cunha and N. Ruiz) application for
a declaration that, by not adopting all the measures necessary
to comply with the fourth subparagraph of Article 2(2) of
                                                                           In Case C-475/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
Commission Directive 90/388/EEC of 28 June 1990 on
                                                                           the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Oberverwaltungs-
competition in the markets for telecommunications services
                                                                           gericht Rheinland-Pfalz (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in
(OJ 1990 L 192, p. 10), in the version resulting from
                                                                           the proceedings pending before that court between Firma
Commission Directive 96/19/EC of 13 March 1996 amending
                                                                           Ambulanz Glöckner v Landkreis Sildwestpfalz, joined parties:
Directive 90/388/EEC with regard to the implementation of
                                                                           Arbeiter-Samariter-Bund Landesverband Rheinland-Pfalz eV,
full competition in telecommunications markets (OJ 1996
                                                                           Deutsches Rotes Kreuz Landesverband Rheinland-Pfalz eV,
L 74, p. 13), the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                           and Vertreter des öffentlichen Interesses, Mainz — on the
obligations under that provision — the Court (Sixth Chamber),
                                                                           interpretation of Articles 85, 86 and 90 of the EC Treaty (now
composed of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber, N. Colne-
                                                                           Articles 81 EC, 82 EC and 86 EC — the Court, composed
ric, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, and V. Skouris,
                                                                           of: A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
                                                                           (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, S. von Bahr and C.W.A. Timmer-
given a judgment on 16 October 2001, in which it:
                                                                           mans, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,
                                                                           Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
1.    Declares that by postponing until 1 January 2000 the abolition       on 25 October 2001, in which it has ruled:
      of the exclusive rights enjoyed by Portugal Telecom in respect of
      the ‘call-back’ system, the Portuguese Republic has failed to        —     A national provision such as Paragraph 18(3) of the Rettungs-
      fulfil its obligations under the fourth subparagraph of Article            dienstgesetz, as enacted on 22 April 1991, under which the
      2(2) of Commission Directive 90/388/EEC of 28 June 1990                    authorisation necessary for providing ambulance transport
      on competition in the markets for telecommunications services,             services will be refused by the competent authority if its use
      in the version resulting from Commission Directive 96/19/EC                might prejudice the functioning and profitability of the public
      of 13 March 1996 amending Directive 90/388 with regard                     emergency ambulance service, the operation of which has been
      to the implementation of full competition in telecommunications            an entrusted to medical aid organisations like those involved in
      markets;                                                                   the main proceedings, is of a nature such as to confer on the
                                                                                latter organisations a special or exclusive right within the
2.    Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.                           meaning of Article 90(1) of the Treaty (now Article 86(1) EC);
                                                                           —     where the decision to grant or refuse that authorisation is taken
(1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.                                                         unilaterally by the competent authorities entirely on their own
                                                                                responsibility, according to the conditions laid down by law and
                                                                                in the absence of any agreement or concertation by those
                                                                                authorities with the medical aid organisations themselves, or
 ---pagebreak--- C 369/4                  EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        22.12.2001
      between those organisations, there is no breach of Article 90(1)       W.-D. Plessing and B. Muttelsee-Schön) — application for a
      of the Treaty, in conjunction with Article 85(1)(c) thereof (now       declaration that, by providing in its legislation that construc-
      Article 81(1)(c) EC);                                                  tion undertakings established in other Member States
—     a national provision such as Paragraph 18(3) of the Rettungs-
      dienstgesetz, as enacted on 22 April 1991, is contrary to
      Article 90(1) of the Treaty read in conjunction with Article 86        (a)   may not provide transfrontier services on the German
      thereof (now Article 82 EC), in so far as it is established that:            market as part of a consortium unless they have their seat
      —     the medical aid organisations such as those in question in             or at least an establishment in Germany employing their
            the main proceedings occupy a dominant position on the                 own staff and have concluded a company-wide collective
            market for emergency transport services,                               agreement for those staff;
      —     that dominant position exists on a substantial part of the
            common market, and
                                                                             (b) may not contract out workers from another country to
      —     there is a sufficient degree of probability, having regard to          other construction undertakings unless they have their
            the economic characteristics of the market in question, that           seat or at least an establishment in Germany employing
            the provision actually prevents undertakings established in            their own staff and, as members of a German employers’
            Member States other than the Member State in question                  association, are covered by framework and social-welfare
            from carrying out ambulance transport services there, or               collective agreements;
            even from establishing themselves there;
—     however, a provision such as Paragraph 18(3) of the Rettungs-
      dienstgesetz 1991 is justified under Article 90(2) of the Treaty
                                                                             (c)   may not establish in Germany a branch recognised as a
      provided that it does not bar the grant of an authorisation to
                                                                                construction undertaking if its staff is entrusted solely
      independent operators where it is established that the medical
                                                                                with work on administration, marketing, planning, super-
      aid organisations entrusted with the operation of the public
                                                                                vision and/or wages and salaries, but, in order to be so
      emergency ambulance service are manifestly unable to satisfy
                                                                                recognised, such an establishment must employ on the
      demand in the area of emergency ambulance and patient
                                                                                German labour market workers who spend more than
      transport services.
                                                                                50 % of the firm’s total working time on building sites,
(1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
                                                                             the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
                                                                             obligations under Articles 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty (now,
                                                                             after amendment, Articles 43 EC and 49 EC) — the Court
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the
                                                                             Chamber, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, L. Sevón
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                   and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
                                                                             Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
                        of 25 October 2001                                   on 25 October 2001, in which it:
in Case C-493/99: Commission of the European Communi-
             ties v Federal Republic of Germany(1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                       1.    Declares that, by providing in its legislation that construction
Articles 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,                         undertakings established in other Member States
Articles 43 EC and 49 EC) — National legislation on the
contracting out of labour in the construction industry —
Exclusion of undertakings not party to a collective agreement
for that industry and not having an establishment in the                           (a)   may not provide transfrontier services on the German
Member State in which services are to be provided —                                      market as part of a consortium unless they have their seat
                            Proportionality)                                             or at least an establishment in Germany employing their
                                                                                own staff and have concluded a company-wide collective
                           (2001/C 369/06)                                               agreement for those staff;
                    (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published             (b) may not contract out workers from another country to
                    in the European Court Reports)                                       other construction undertakings unless they have their seat
                                                                                or at least an establishment in Germany employing their
                                                                                own staff and, as members of a German employers’
In Case C-493/99: Commission of the European Communities                                 association, are covered by framework and social-welfare
(Agent: J. Sack) v Federal Republic of Germany (Agents:                                  collective agreements;


title: Case T-366/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 July 2008 — Calebus v Commission (Action for annulment — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Decision 2006/613/EC — List of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region — Challengeable act — Lack of direct effect — Inadmissible)

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/42

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 July 2008 — Calebus v Commission
   (Case T-366/06) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Decision 2006/613/EC - List of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region - Challengeable act - Lack of direct effect - Inadmissible)
   (2008/C 223/72)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Calebus S.A. (Almería, Spain) (represented by: R. Bocanegra Sierra, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and D. Recchia, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: F. Díez Moreno, abogado del Estado)
   Re:
   Partial annulment of Commission Decision 2006/613/EC of 19 July 2006 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region (OJ 2006 L 259, p. 1), in so far as it declares the site designated as ‘Ramblas de Jergal, Tabernas y Sur de Sierra Alhamilla’, which includes land belonging to the applicant, to be a site of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

               2.

               Calebus S.A. is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Commission;

               3.

               The Kingdom of Spain is ordered to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.


title: Case T-392/06: Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2010 — Union Investment Privatfonds v OHIM — Unicre-Cartão International De Crédito (unibanco) (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Application for the figurative Community mark unibanco — Prior national figurative marks UniFLEXIO, UniVARIO and UniZERO — Late production of documents — Discretion conferred by Article 74(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/38

      Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2010 — Union Investment Privatfonds v OHIM — Unicre-Cartão International De Crédito (unibanco)
      (Case T-392/06) (1)

      (Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for the figurative Community mark unibanco - Prior national figurative marks UniFLEXIO, UniVARIO and UniZERO - Late production of documents - Discretion conferred by Article 74(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
      (2010/C 161/58)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH (Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany) (represented by: H. Keller, later by J. Zindel, lawyers)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Unicre-Cartão International De Crédito S.A. (Lisbon, Portugal)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 October 2006 (Case R 442/2004-2) concerning an opposition procedure between Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH and Unicre-Cartão International De Crédito S.A.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.


title: Case C-26/05: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of  16 February 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht Korneuburg) — Plato Plastik Robert Frank GmbH v Caropack Handelsgesellschaft mbH (Second paragraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Directive 94/62/EC — Packaging and packaging waste — Concepts of producer of packaging and producer of packaging materials — producer of plastic carrier bags)

text:
               1.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 154/2

         Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 February 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht Korneuburg) — Plato Plastik Robert Frank GmbH v Caropack Handelsgesellschaft mbH
   (Case C-26/05) (1)

   (Second paragraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Directive 94/62/EC - Packaging and packaging waste - Concepts of producer of packaging and producer of packaging materials - producer of plastic carrier bags)
   (2006/C 154/04)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Landesgericht Korneuburg
   Parties

      Applicant: Plato Plastik Robert Frank GmbH

      Defendant: Caropack Handelsgesellschaft mbH
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landesgericht Korneuburg — Interpretation of Article 3 of European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (OJ 1994 L 365, p.10) — Concepts of producers of grouped, sales or transport packaging and suppliers of packaging materials — Producer of plastic carrier bags
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               Article 3(1) and (11) of European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste must be interpreted as meaning that the producer of packaging is not necessarily the party who puts goods together, or causes them to be put together with the product intended as packaging. The producer of plastic carrier bags handed to customers free of charge or for a price in shops must be considered as being a producer of packaging.

               2.

               Directive 94/62 must be interpreted as meaning that it is does not preclude the national legislation, such as the decree of the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Youth and Family Affairs on the avoidance and recovery of packaging waste and certain product waste and the setting-up of collection and recovery systems which provides that the producer of packaging, in particular plastic carrier bags must either accept the return of the bags after use or participate in a collection and recovery system of packaging waste unless a party further down the distribution chain takes over that obligation and the producer obtains a valid declaration on that matter.

      (1)  OJ C 82 of 02.04.2005


title: Case T-290/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2008 — Italy v Commission

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/63

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2008 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-290/06) (1)

   (2008/C 301/117)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 310, 16.12.2006.


title: Case C-414/08 P: Appeal brought on 23 September 2008 by Sviluppo Italia Basilicata SpA against the judgment delivered on 8 July 2008 in Case T-176/06 Sviluppo Italia Basilicata SpA v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/23

         Appeal brought on 23 September 2008 by Sviluppo Italia Basilicata SpA against the judgment delivered on 8 July 2008 in Case T-176/06 Sviluppo Italia Basilicata SpA v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-414/08 P)
   (2008/C 301/37)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Appellants: Sviluppo Italia Basilicata SpA (represented by: F. Sciaudone, R. Sciaudone and A. Neri, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2008 in Case T-176/06 (‘the judgment under appeal’) and refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for judgment in the light of such guidance as the Court of Justice may provide;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings, as well as those incurred in the proceedings in Case T-176/06.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance dismissed the action brought by Sviluppo Italia Basilicata SpA for (i) annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 1706 of 20 April 2006 (‘the contested decision’) reducing the financial assistance from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) in favour of a global grant for the purposes of implementing measures for the encouragement of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) operating in the Basilicata Region of Italy, and (ii) damages for the harm suffered by Sviluppo Italia Basilicata SpA following, and in consequence of, the adoption of that decision.
   In support of the forms of order sought, the appellant alleges various errors of law on the part of the Court of First Instance.
   First, the appellant maintains that, by addressing in reverse order the various pleas in law relied upon by Sviluppo Italia Basilicata SpA in support of its action at first instance, the Court of First Instance manifestly distorted the meaning and overall scope of the application.
   Secondly, the appellant submits that the judgment under appeal contains various errors of law in relation to the interpretation and application of the Global Grant, the Agreement, and Datasheet No 19 in the Annex to Decision 97/322/EC (1) According to the appellant, the Court of First Instance did not understand the true content and purpose, in the light of the above measures, of Measure 2 of the Global Grant. In consequence, the interpretative analyses that the Court of First Instance then went on to make in relation to certain significant concepts (e.g. ‘impegno’ (commitment), ‘spesa’ (expenditure), ‘durata’ (duration)) were flawed on account of that serious initial error.
   Thirdly, the appellant maintains that the Court of First Instance should have concluded that the contested decision was unlawful, in that it had been adopted on the basis of the alleged breach of a condition (‘the condition as to use’) which is not laid down in the decision granting the financial assistance, or in the global grant programme, and which raises problems relating to legal certainty and the excessive freedom with which it is applied.
   Fourthly, the appellant alleges that the Court of First Instance misinterpreted — and, in consequence, failed to apply — the principles laid down by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 21 September 2000 in Case C-462/98 P Mediocurso v Commission
       (2).
   Fifthly, the appellant alleges infringement of Articles 25 and 26 of Regulation No 4253/88 (3) as regards the obligations of supervision and control incumbent upon the Commission. In particular, the statements made by the Court of First Instance would ultimately lead to the non-application and the non-observance of the supervision and monitoring arrangements provided for in the legislation in question.
   Sixthly, the appellant alleges breach of the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations, in that the Court of First Instance rejected the complaints put forward by Sviluppo Italia Basilicata SpA on the erroneous premiss that the expectations generated by the Commission (inter alia, through the behaviour of the Monitoring Committee) were in any event incompatible with the applicable provisions and could not therefore be protected.
   Seventhly, the appellant maintains that the Court of First Instance distorted the clear sense of the evidence and infringed the general principles relating to the burden of proof, in that it refused to recognise as established facts either the evidence provided by Sviluppo Italia Basilicata SpA or certain facts which constituted common ground.
   Eighthly, the appellant alleges breach of the Community case-law relating to the application of the principle of proportionality in cases where Community funding is reduced, in that the Court of First Instance did not take into account the circumstances which would have led the financial adjustment to be less severe.
   As regards the grounds of appeal relating to the claim for damages, the appellant alleges above all that erroneous and inadequate reasons were given in the judgment under appeal for dismissing the application for compensation, as regards the harm attributable to the Community's liability in respect of unlawful acts.
   Lastly, the appellant alleges that erroneous and inadequate reasons were given in the judgment under appeal for dismissing the application for compensation, as regards the harm attributable to the Community's liability in respect of lawful acts (‘objective liability’).

      (1)  Commission Decision of 23 April 1997 modifying the decisions approving the Community support frameworks, the single programming documents and the Community initiative programmes in respect of Italy (OJ 1997 L 146, p. 11).

      (2)  [2000] ECR I-7183.

      (3)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (OJ 1988 L 374, p. 1).


title: Case T-17/12: Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2014  — Hagenmeyer and Hahn v Commission (Consumer protection — Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 — Health claims made on foods — Refusal to authorise a reduction of disease risk claim — Designation of a risk factor — Lawfulness of the procedure authorising reduction of disease risk claims — Action for annulment — Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Direct and individual concern — Admissibility — Proportionality — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               24.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2014 — Hagenmeyer and Hahn v Commission
   (Case T-17/12) (1)

   ((Consumer protection - Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 - Health claims made on foods - Refusal to authorise a reduction of disease risk claim - Designation of a risk factor - Lawfulness of the procedure authorising reduction of disease risk claims - Action for annulment - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - Direct and individual concern - Admissibility - Proportionality - Obligation to state reasons))
   2014/C 194/26
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Moritz Hagenmeyer (Hamburg, Germany) and Andreas Hahn (Hanover, Germany) (represented by: T. Teufer, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Pignataro-Nolin and S. Grünheid, acting as Agents)

      Intervening party in support of the defendant: Council of the Euroepan Union (represented by: I. Šulce, Z. Kupčová and M. Simm, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment in part of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1170/2011 of 16 November 2011 refusing to authorise certain health claims made on foods and referring to the reduction of disease risk (OJ 2011 L 299, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Moritz Hagenmeyer and Mr Andreas Hahn to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.


title: Case T-189/14: Action brought on 24 March 2014  — Deza v ECHA

text:
               24.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/27

         Action brought on 24 March 2014 — Deza v ECHA
   (Case T-189/14)
   2014/C 194/35
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: Deza, a.s. (Valašské Meziříčí, Czech Republic) (represented by: P. Dejl, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Chemicals Agency

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decisions of the European Chemicals Agency of 24 January 2014, in notices AFA-C-0000004274-77-09/F, AFA-C-0000004280-84-09/F, AFA-C-0000004275-75-09/F and AFA-C-0000004151-87-08/F;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      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 infringement of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 118 of Regulation (EC) 1907/2006 (2) and infringement of the right to protection of legitimate commercial interests and intellectual property.

                           —

                           The applicant in this respect submits that the contested decision contravenes Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 118 of Regulation No 1907/2006, since disclosure of the relevant information to a third person would lead to infringement of the protection of their commercial interests and to infringement of the protection of intellectual property rights, and that there is no overriding public interest in disclosure of the relevant information and the defendant in its decision did not even state that any public interest would override the need to protect those rights of the applicant.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligations of the European Union stemming from the TRIPS Agreement (3) and related interference with the right to the protection of confidential information.

                           —

                           The applicant in this connection submits that the contested decision contravenes the international obligations of the European Union stemming from Article 39(2) of the TRIPS Agreement, according to which the parties to the agreement are required to ensure that natural and legal persons will have the possibility of preventing information lawfully within their control from being disclosed to, acquired by, or used by others without their consent in a manner contrary to honest commercial practices, so long as such information: (a) is secret in the sense that it is not, as a body or in the precise configuration and assembly of its components, generally known among or readily accessible to persons within the circles that normally deal with the kind of information in question; (b) has commercial value because it is secret; and (c) has been subject to reasonable steps under the circumstances, by the person lawfully in control of the information, to keep it secret.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligations of the European Union stemming from Article 8 of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and infringement of Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and related interference with the right to property and its protection.

                           —

                           In this connection it is submitted that the contested decision contravenes Article 8 of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to that convention and Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, since it restricts the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of property.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001.

                           —

                           In the applicant’s opinion, the contested decision contravenes Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001, since the disclosure of the relevant information would seriously threaten the decision-making process of the European Commission and the defendant in deciding on the application for authorisation to use the substance concerned, and there is no overriding public interest in disclosure of the relevant information and the defendant in its decision did not even state that any public interest would override the need to protect those rights of the applicant.

      (1)  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).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1)

      (3)  Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) of 15 April 1994 (OJ 1994 L 336, p. 214)


title: Case T-261/14 P: Judgment of the General Court of 25 February 2015  — Walton v Commission (Appeal — Civil Service — Temporary staff — Action at first instance dismissed as manifestly inadmissible — Resignation from a post as a member of the temporary staff — Amount of the debt owed by applicant to the Commission following his resignation — Authority of res judicata — Decisions which have become final in the absence of legal action)

text:
               13.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 February 2015 — Walton v Commission
   (Case T-261/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil Service - Temporary staff - Action at first instance dismissed as manifestly inadmissible - Resignation from a post as a member of the temporary staff - Amount of the debt owed by applicant to the Commission following his resignation - Authority of res judicata - Decisions which have become final in the absence of legal action))
   (2015/C 118/37)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Robert Walton (Oxford, United Kingdom) (represented by: F. Moyse, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and A.-C. Simon, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 27 February 2014 in Walton v Commission (F-32/13, ECR-SC, EU:F:2014:37), and seeking that that order be set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Declares that Mr Robert Walton is to bear his own costs and orders him to pay those incurred by the European Commission in connection with the present proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.


title: Case F-134/14: Action brought on 18 November 2014  — ZZ v Commission

text:
               2.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 34/53

         Action brought on 18 November 2014 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-134/14)
   (2015/C 034/65)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Rodrigues, A. Tymen, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the Commission’s decision to exclude the existence of harm arising from the delay taken by the Commission to establish the occupational origin of the applicant’s sickness and to pay her only the amount of EUR 2  000 as compensation for the uncertainty as regards recognition of the occupational origin of her illness and the claim for damages for the non-material harm allegedly suffered.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the European Commission of 8 August 2014, received by registered post on 1 October 2014 by the applicant, rejecting her complaint of 24 April 2014;

               —

               As far as necessary, annul the decision of the European Commission of 3 February 2014, which only partially granted the applicant’s request for compensation of 16 October 2013;

               —

               Order compensation for the non-material harm assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 20  000;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the entire costs.


title: Case C-556/07: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Common Fisheries Policy — Regulation (EC) No 894/97 — Drift net — Definition — Thonaille fishing net — Prohibition for the fishing of certain species — Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93 and (EC) No 2371/2002 — Lack of an effective system of monitoring to ensure respect of that prohibition)

text:
               1.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/8

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
   (Case C-556/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Common Fisheries Policy - Regulation (EC) No 894/97 - Drift net - Definition - ‘Thonaille’ fishing net - Prohibition for the fishing of certain species - Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93 and (EC) No 2371/2002 - Lack of an effective system of monitoring to ensure respect of that prohibition)
   2009/C 102/11
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Nolin, M. van Heezik and T. van Rijn, Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and A.-L. During, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Common Fisheries Policy — Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy (OJ 1993 L 261, p. 1) and Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy — Acceptance by national authorities of the thonaille (a tuna gillnet) despite the Community prohibition of drift nets of a length greater than or equal to 2.5 km — Lack of an effective system of monitoring to ensure respect of that prohibition.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               (1)

               declares that, by failing sufficiently to monitor, inspect and supervise fishing activities in the light of the prohibition of drift nets for the capture of certain species, and by not ensuring that appropriate measures against those responsible for infringements of the Community legislation on the use of drift nets were taken, the French Republic failed in its obligations under Articles 2 and 31(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2846/98 of 17 December 1998 and Articles 23(1) and (2), 24 and 25(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy;

               (2)

               orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 37 of 9.2.2008.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 April 2000 in Case C-123/99: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Non-transposition of Directive 94/62/EC)

text:
8.7.2000                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 192/5
’s-Gravenhage (Netherlands) for a preliminary ruling in the                of 19 December 1977 concerning mutual assistance by the
proceedings pending before that court between C. Baars and                 competent authorities of the Member States in the field of
Inspecteur der Belastingen Particulieren/Ondernemingen Gor-                direct taxation (OJ 1977 L 336, p. 15) — the Court (First
inchem — on the interpretation of Articles 6 and 52 of the EC              Chamber), composed of: L. Sevón, President of the Chamber,
Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 12 EC and 43 EC) and                P. Jann (Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Judges; S. Alber, Advo-
Articles 73b and 73d of the EC Treaty (now Articles 56 EC                  cate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the
and 58 EC) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:                       Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 April 2000, in which it
D.A.O. Edward, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann,                       has ruled:
J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges;
S. Alber, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Adminis-                  Article 4(1) (a) of Council Directive 77/799/EEC of 19 December
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 April                1977 concerning mutual assistance by the competent authorities of
2000, in which it has ruled:                                               the Member States in the field of direct taxation must be interpreted
                                                                           as follows:
Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC)
precludes a Member State’s tax legislation, such as that at issue in       — it is not necessary for the loss of tax referred to therein to be
the main proceedings, which, in circumstances where a holding in the            covered by an express measure on the part of the competent
capital of a company confers on the shareholder a definite influence            authority of another Member State.
over the company’s decisions and allows him to determine its
activities,                                                                — the expression a loss of tax refers to an unjustified saving in tax
                                                                                in another Member State.
— allows nationals of Member States resident on its territory an
     exemption, in whole or in part, from wealth tax in respect of the
     assets invested in shares in the company,                             (1) OJ C 48 of 20.2.1999.
— but makes that exemption subject to the condition that the
     holding be held in a company established in the Member State
     concerned, thus denying it to holders of shares in companies
     established in other Member States.
(1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.                                                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
                                                                                of 13 April 2000
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    in Case C-123/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Hellenic Republic (1)
                           (First Chamber)
                                                                           (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Non-
                          of 13 April 2000                                               transposition of Directive 94/62/EC)
in Case C-420/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                             (2000/C 192/10)
the Nederlandse Raad van State): W. N. v Staatssecretaris
                          van Financiën (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
(Harmonisation of laws — Directive 77/799/EEC — Mutual
assistance by the authorities of the Member States in
the field of direct taxation — Spontaneous exchange of                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                             information)                                                      in the European Court Reports)
                           (2000/C 192/09)                                 In Case C-123/99: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           (Agent: M. Condou-Durande) v Hellenic Republic (Agents:
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)                         N. Dafniou and D. Tsagkaraki) application for a declaration
                                                                           that, by failing to inform the Commission of the laws,
                                                                           regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     with European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of
                    in the European Court Reports)                         20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (OJ
                                                                           1994 L 365, p. 10), or failing to adopt the necessary measures
In Case C-420/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of              to comply therewith, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Nederlandse                    its obligations under the EC Treaty and that directive —
Raad van State (Netherlands Council of State) for a preliminary            the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: J.C. Moitinho de
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                Almeida, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann and F. Macken
W. N. and Staatssecretaris van Financiën — on the interpret-               (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass,
ation of Article 4(1) and (3) of Council Directive 77/799/EEC              Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 April 2000, in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- C 192/6                  EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           8.7.2000
1. Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and                of registering the sign with a clarifying disclaimer (dis-
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with European               claiming any exclusive right in the words ‘company’ and
     Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December                  ‘line’).
     1994 on packaging and packaging waste within the prescribed
     period, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations        There is nothing in the contested decisions to indicate that
     under that directive;                                                     any consideration was given to the rectification provision
                                                                               contained in Article 12(b) of Regulation No 40/94. In the
2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                              case of the sign ‘Companyline’, this may explain the reason
                                                                               why the grounds of exclusion laid down in Article 7(1)(b)
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.                                                      and (c) of Regulation No 40/94 were assessed in accord-
                                                                               ance with excessively stringent criteria.
                                                                               The Court of First Instance wrongly omitted to have regard
                                                                               to the defendant’s failure, contrary to Article 38(2) and (3)
                                                                               of Regulation No 40/94, Rule 11(2) of the implementing
Appeal brought on 20 March 2000 by DKV Deutsche                                regulation and point 8.13.2 of the examination guidelines,
Krankenversicherung AG against the judgment delivered                          to bring pressure to bear for the inclusion of a disclaimer.
on 12 January 2000 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court                          In reaching its decision concerning the grounds of
of First Instance of the European Communities in Case                          exclusion set out in Article 7(1) of Regulation No 40/94,
T-19/99 between DKV Deutsche Krankenversicherung                               the Court of First Instance wrongly omitted to have regard,
AG and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                            in addition, to the registration practice followed in all the
               Market (trade marks and designs)                                Member states of the Community.
                          (Case C-104/00 P)                               — Infringement of substantive law and misuse of discretion-
                                                                               ary powers: the applicant considers that the contradictions
                           (2000/C 192/11)                                     and omissions on the part of the defendant clearly and
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 January 2000                    objectively show that the decisive aim of the contested
by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of                        decision was to refuse registration of the sign ‘Company-
the European Communities in Case T-19/99 between DKV                           line’ under any circumstances, in disregard of the legal
Deutsche Krankenversicherung AG and the Office for Harmon-                     situation and of the defendant’s duty to promote harmonis-
isation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs)                       ation. The purely formal argument as to the co-existence
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                        of Community trade mark law in tandem with the national
Communities on 20 March 2000 by DKV Deutsche Kranken-                          trade mark laws of the Member States is unconvincing,
versicherung AG, represented by Stephan von Petersdorff-                       since the Office for Harmonisation reached its decision
Campen, Rechtsanwalt, of Messrs von Rospatt, von der                           without any objective determination of the facts, particu-
Osten, Pross, of Kaiser-Friedrich-Ring 56, D-40547 Düsseldorf,                 larly as regards the decision-making practice followed in
assisted by Alfred Maxton, patent attorney, of Messrs Maxton                   the United Kingdom, and failed to weigh up and reconcile
& Langmaack, of Goltsteinstrasse 93, D-50968 Cologne, with                     the interests involved in such a way as to fulfil its obligation
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc                   to ensure co-existence.
Loesch, of Messrs De Bandt, van Heckel, Lagae & Loesch,
11 Rue Goethe, L-1011 Luxembourg.
The appellant claims that the Court should:
— set aside the contested decisions;                                      Action brought on 27 March 2000 by the Kingdom of
                                                                          Spain against the Commission of the European Communi-
— order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                                ties
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                    (Case C-114/00)
— Infringement of substantive law, in particular Arti-
     cle 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94: excessively                                       (2000/C 192/12)
     stringent criteria were applied in assessing the eligibility
     for registration of the sign ‘Companyline’. Instead of               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
     assessing the overall impression produced by the sign                ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
     ‘Companyline’, the contested decisions merely considered,            Communities on 27 March 2000 by the Kingdom of Spain,
     in isolation, the component words ‘company’ and ‘line’               represented by Santiago Ortiz Vaamonde, Abogado del Estado,
     together making up the composite sign. The numerous                  acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
     possible meanings said to attach to the words by way                 the Spanish Embassy, 4-6 Boulevard Emmanuel Servais.
     of association are not apparent. Having regard to the
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
     registration practice followed in the Member States of the
     Community (including English-speaking Member States)                 1) annul the Commission’s decision of 22 December 1999
     and the defendant’s decision-making practice in relation to               concerning aid to finance operating capital in the agricul-
     comparable signs, registration of the sign ‘Companyline’                  tural sector in Extremadura;
     should not have been refused under Article 7(1)(b) of
     Regulation No 40/94. No use was made of the possibility              2) order the defendant institution to pay the costs.


title: Case T-219/03: Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Mullglen Limited against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 239/10                   EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        4.10.2003
The applicant furthermore invokes a breach of the duty to                     Pleas in law and main arguments
state reasons and a breach of the principle of equal treatment.
In this last respect, the applicant submits that a difference
appears to have been made between all applications for new                    The applicant invokes the same pleas in law as in Case T-218/
replacement vessels and two applications for new replacement                  03 (1).
vessels for the ‘Angela’ and ‘Pembroke’.
                                                                              (1 ) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.
( 1) 2003/245/EC: Commission Decision of 4 April 2003 on the
     requests received by the Commission to increase MAGP IV
     objectives to take into account improvements on safety, navi-
     gation at sea, hygiene, product quality and working conditions
     for vessels of more than 12 m in length overall (notified under
     document number C(2003) 1113) (OJ L 90, p. 48).
( 2) 97/413/EC: Council Decision of 26 June 1997 concerning the
     objectives and detailed rules for restructuring the Community
     fisheries sector for the period from 1 January 1997 to 31 Decem-         Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Cavankee Fishing
     ber 2001 with a view to achieving a balance on a sustainable             Company Limited against the Commission of the Euro-
     basis between resources and their exploitation (OJ L 175, p. 27).                                  pean Communities
                                                                                (Case T-220/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 239/15)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Mullglen Limited
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                             (Case T-219/03)                                  European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Cavankee Fishing
                                                                              Company Limited, Greencastle, (Ireland), represented by P. Gal-
                                                                              lagher and A. Collins, Barristers, and D. Barry, Solicitor.
                            (2003/C 239/14)
                                                                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                      (Language of the case: English)
                                                                              —      annul the decision contained in Article 2 of Commission
                                                                                Decision of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the
                                                                                Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take
                                                                                into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea,
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                            hygiene, product quality and working conditions for
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                                vessels of more than 12 m in length overall notified
European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Mullglen Limited,                            under document number C(2003) 1113 to reject a safety
Killybegs, (Ireland), represented by P. Gallagher and A. Collins,                    capacity application to lengthen the MFV Fr McGee and
Barristers, and D. Barry, Solicitor.
                                                                                for a proposed new vessel to replace the MFV Fr McGee;
                                                                              —      order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                          ings.
—       annul the decision contained in Article 2 of Commission
        Decision of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the
        Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take                  Pleas in law and main arguments
        into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea,
        hygiene, product quality and working conditions for
        vessels of more than 12 m in length overall notified                  The applicant invokes the same pleas in law as in Case T-218/
        under document number C(2003) 1113 to reject a safety                 03 (1).
        capacity application for a proposed new vessel to replace
        the MFV Pacelli.
                                                                              (1 ) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.
—       order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-
        ings.