title: Case T-170/00: Action brought on 22 June 2000 by Förde Reederei GmbH against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
9.9.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 259/27
Action brought on 20 June 2000 by SPRL Esedra against                    —     contrary to Article 99(h)(2) of the regulation laying down
       the Commission of the European Communities                              detailed rules for the implementation of the Financial
                                                                               Regulation (1), the Commission asked questions of the
                                                                               tenderers which went beyond a mere request for clarifi-
                         (Case T-169/00)                                       cation or the correction of obvious clerical errors con-
                                                                               tained in the tenders.
                         (2000/C 259/49)
                                                                         In addition, the applicant suggests that the Commission may
                                                                         have preferred not to award it the contract on account of the
                   (Language of the case: French)                        negative attitude adopted by the Parents’ Association, which
                                                                         would constitute a misuse of powers. It further criticises the
                                                                         Commission for having failed to have regard to the contract
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                documents and for having committed a manifest error of
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               assessment with regard to the successful tenderer. The Com-
European Communities on 20 June 2000 by SPRL Esedra,                     mission’s assessment appears untenable, as regards the criteria
established in Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden,            of both price and quality.
Eric Gillet and Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar.
                                                                         Furthermore, the applicant complains that the defendant has
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              failed to comply with its obligation to provide a statement of
                                                                         reasons, in that it has refused to provide sufficient information
—     annul the decision to award contract 99/52/IX.D.I to a             to enable the legality of the contested decisions to be assessed.
      group Italian companies represented by Centro Studi
      Antonio Manieri S.R.L.;
                                                                         Lastly, the applicant claims that the contract notice and
                                                                         contract documents have been disregarded, in that the figures
—     annul the decision not to award that contract to the               in respect of the turnover of the successful tenderer show that
      applicant;                                                         that undertaking is not financially capable of taking on the
                                                                         contract.
—     order the defendant to pay 1 001 574,09 euro by way of
      damages;
                                                                         (1) Commission Regulation (Euratom, ECSC, EC) No 3418/93 of
—     order the defendant to pay all the costs.                              9 December 1993 laying down detailed rules for the implemen-
                                                                             tation of certain provisions of the Financial Regulation of
                                                                             21 December 1977 (OJ 1993 L 315, p. 1).
Pleas in law and principal arguments
The applicant was entrusted, from 1995, with the management
of the ‘Clovis’ day nursery and kindergarten for children of the
staff of the European institutions. In 1999, the Commission
decided not to seek the renewal of the management contract
and to issue an invitation to tender in connection with the
running of the day nursery and kindergarten.                             Action brought on 22 June 2000 by Förde Reederei
                                                                         GmbH against the Council of the European Union and the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
The applicant contests the Commission’s decision to award
that contract to a group of Italian companies represented by
Centro Studi Antonio Manieri S.R.L. and the decision not to                                       (Case T-170/00)
accept its tender.
                                                                                (2000/C 259/50)
In support of its claims, the applicant pleads violation of the
principle of non-discrimination, for the following reasons:
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
—     the appraisal committee was not composed on an
      impartial basis, since it included representatives of the          An action against the Council of the European Union and the
      Parents’ Association, which, for illegitimate reasons, had         Commission of the European Communities was brought
      previously shown itself to be hostile to the applicant;            before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                         on 22 June 2000 by Förde Reederei GmbH, of Flensburg
—     the applicant was given a time-limit for the submission            (Federal Republic of Germany), represented by Ulrich
      of its tender which was not the same as that granted to            Schrömbges and Lothar Harings, Rechtsanwälte, of Messrs
      the other tenderers;                                               Graf von Westphalen Fritze & Modest, Hamburg (Germany).
 ---pagebreak--- C 259/28               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         9.9.2000
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Action brought on 27 June 2000 by Jean-Pierre Pierard
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
—     order the defendants jointly and severally to pay compen-
      sation for the damage suffered by the applicant as a result
      of the phasing out of the tax-free regime pursuant to                                       (Case T-172/00)
      Article 28 of Directive 92/12/EEC on 30 June 1999, on
      the basis that the applicant quantifies and limits the
                                                                                (2000/C 259/51)
      amount of the damages claimed to DM 1 000 000 plus
      annual interest at the rate of 8 % from the date of
      judgment;
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
—     order the defendants to pay to the applicant, pursuant to
      Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of
      First Instance, the costs necessarily incurred in the              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      proceedings.                                                       ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 27 June 2000 by Jean-Pierre Pie-
                                                                         rard, residing in Brussels, represented by Jacques Lombart and
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar.
By the present action, the applicant is claiming, on the basis of
an assigned right, compensation for the damage suffered by               The applicant claims that the Court should:
the undertaking Nordisk Faergefart A/S as a result of the fact
that, by adopting Directive 92/12/EEC (1), the Council brought           —     annul the decision of the appointing authority not to
to an end the tax-free sale of goods in intra-Community travel.                reinstate the applicant in his original service on 13 Octob-
Nordisk Faergefart operated ferry services between Denmark                     er 1999, despite his having officially requested this in a
and Germany until 30 June 1999. According to the applicant,                    note dated 26 April 1999;
it was compelled to discontinue those ferry services on 1 July
1999, since it was no longer possible, without tax-free sales            —     annul the decision rejecting the applicant’s complaint;
on board its vessels, to make a profit. The applicant now
claims compensation for the loss of profit suffered by Nordisk           —     order the defendant to pay to the applicant, by way of
Faergefart as a result of the cessation of its business.                       compensation for non-material damage, the sum of
                                                                               6 200 euro together with statutory interest until payment
In support of its claim, the applicant maintains in particular                 in full;
that the directive infringes higher-ranking law, namely:
—     the Community principle of the rule of law, in that it             —     order the defendant to pay all the costs in any event.
      contains contradictory and unclear rules;
—     the Treaty objective of the creation of an internal market,        Pleas in law and main arguments
      in accordance with Article 14 (ex Article 7a) EC;
—     the prohibition of customs duties or charges having                The applicant, who had been assigned to Directorate-General
      equivalent effect, in accordance with Article 25 (ex               IX — Personnel and Administration for the duration of the
      Article 12) EC;                                                    performance of his duties as representative of staff working
                                                                         outside the Community on the Central Staff Committee,
—     the prohibitions laid down in Article 28 (ex Article 30)           complains of the fact that he was not immediately re-assigned
      and Article 29 (ex Article 34) EC;                                 to his original post on the expiration of his term of office on
                                                                         18 May 1999.
—     Article 93 (ex Article 99) EC, permitting the harmonis-
      ation of indirect taxes;
                                                                         He maintains that the defendant failed to take that decision
—     the principle of proportionality, on account of the lack of        within a reasonable time, and that it:
      appropriateness to the internal market;
—     the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations;        —     has disregarded Articles 1a, 36, 38(g) and 45 of the
                                                                               Staff Regulations of officials and the final paragraph of
—     a series of fundamental rights and freedoms, such as the                 Article 1 of Annex II to those Regulations, as well as the
      freedom to exercise a trade or profession, the right to                  principle of equal treatment, the duty to have regard for
      property and free trade.                                                 the welfare and interests of officials and the principle of
                                                                               the protection of legitimate expectations; and
(1) Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general
    arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the          —     has prejudiced his career and caused him non-material
    holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992                 damage.
    L 76, p. 1).


title: Case C-243/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Divisional Court), by order of that court of 23 May 2000, in the case of The Queen against Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Ex parte: Trades Union Congress

text:
26.8.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 247/21
            other hand, Member States are not supposed to be             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court
            able to take account of the regional-political trading       of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division
            needs established by the Commission itself using the         (Divisional Court), by order of that court of 23 May 2000,
            objective standard of regional disparities in those          in the case of The Queen against Secretary of State for
            Member States. Such ‘corrections’ also mean that                Trade and Industry, Ex parte: Trades Union Congress
            the level of the population in the region eligible for
            aid exceeds the target percentage level laid down by
                                                                                (Case C-243/00)
            the Commission of 42,7 % of the Community
            population. In any event, the fact that the Com-
            mission allows some Member States to have bigger                                      (2000/C 247/28)
            regions eligible for aid than is necessary having
            regard to the actual size of regional disparities in
            those Member States cannot constitute an objective           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
            reason for reducing the size of the German regions           European Communities by an order of the High Court of
            eligible for aid.                                            Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Divisional
                                                                         Court) of 23 May 2000, which was received at the Court
                                                                         Registry on 19 June 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case
                                                                         of The Queen against Secretary of State for Trade and Industry,
      —     Germany does not challenge the Commission’s                  Ex parte: Trades Union Congress, on the following question:
            chosen goal to devolve decisions on the size of the
            regional aid areas to the Member States. However,
            the measures taken by the Commission to achieve              ‘Whether Directive 96/34/EC (1) (as extended to the United
            that goal are both unnecessary and wholly dispro-            Kingdom by Directive 97/75/EC) (2), and the Framework
            portionate. Reducing the size of regions of Germany          Agreement of 14 December 1995 to which it gave effect,
            eligible for aid is not the least restrictive possible       required Member States to confer the right to parental leave in
            measure to attain the objective of reducing the              relation to children under the specified age born or adopted
            size of those regions eligible for aid within the            before the date on which the Directive was given effect in the
            Community as a whole. For example, the Com-                  national law of Member States or only to children born or
            mission could have omitted to adopt ‘correction              adopted on or after that date.’
            measures’, or structured them in such a way that the
            increase in the overall population of the region
            eligible for aid was less. The Commission could also,        (1) Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on the framework
            to even out the ‘corrections’, have applied the same             agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the
            reductions in all Member States, that is, including              ETUC (OJ L 145, 19.06.96, p. 4).
                                                                         (2) OJ L 10, 16.01.98, p. 24.
            those for whom the ‘corrections’ work in their
            favour.
—     Infringement of essential procedural requirements. The
      Commission does not give sufficient reasons for reducing
      the size of the German regions eligible for aid as such or
      the effect of applying dissimilar treatment to Community
      trade and competition.                                             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichts-
                                                                         hof by order of that court of 11 May 2000 in the case of
                                                                         van Doren + Q. GmbH against lifestyle sports + sports-
      Nor do the ‘Guidelines on National Regional Aid’ publi-                 wear Handelsgesellschaft mbH and Michael Orth
      shed by the Commission in Official Journal C 74 of
      10 March 1998 contain any reasons for the Com-
      mission’s subsequent decision. Even if they did, Germany                                    (Case C-244/00)
      could not have challenged those guidelines of its own
      motion.                                                                                (2000/C 247/29)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Federal Court of Justice
(1) The Commission’s decision of 14 March 2000 redefining the
                                                                         of 11 May 2000, received at the Court Registry on 19 June
    borders of areas eligible for aid for the purpose of the Com-        2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of van Doren + Q.
    munity’s project entitled ‘Improvement of regional economic          GmbH v lifestyle sports + sportswear Handelsgesellschaft mbH
    structures’ in Germany for the period 1 January 2000 to              on the following question:
    31 December 2003 — West Germany and Berlin.
                                                                         Are Articles 28 and 30 EC to be interpreted as meaning that
                                                                         they permit the application of national legislation under which
                                                                         an infringer against whom proceedings are brought on the
                                                                         basis of a trade mark for marketing original goods, and who
                                                                         claims that the trade-mark right has been exhausted within the


title: Case T-317/03: Action brought on 15 September 2003 by Volkswagen AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
C 304/30                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                       13.12.2003
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
                     of 29 September 2003
                                                                            —     annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the
in Case T-354/02: Bristol-Myers Squibb International                              Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
Corporation v Commission of the European Communi-                                 Marks and Designs) of 17 June 2003 in Appeal R 610/
                                ties (1)                                          2001-4;
(Action for annulment — Withdrawal of the contested
               measure — No need to adjudicate)                             —     order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
                         (2003/C 304/55)
                   (Language of the case: English)
In Case T-354/02: Bristol-Myers Squibb International Corpor-                Pleas in law and main arguments
ation, established in Brussels (Belgium), represented by
D. Anderson QC, K. Bacon, barrister, and I. Dodds-Smith,
solicitor, against Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: X. Lewis and H.C. Støvlbaek) — application for                     Applicant for Com-           Volkswagen AG.
annulment of Commission Decision C(2002)3370 of 9 Sep-                      munity trade mark:
tember 2002 concerning the placing on the market of the
medicinal products for human use which contain the substance
‘Captopril’ — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),                 Community trade mark         The word mark ‘VARIANT’ for
composed of V. Tiili, President, P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras,                applied for:                 goods and services in Classes 7,
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 29 September                                            12 and 37 (inter alia, motors and
2003, the operative part of which is as follows:                                                         their parts, vehicles and repair).
1.    There is no need to adjudicate on the action;
                                                                            Proprietor of mark or        Nacional Motor S.A.
2.    The Commission is to bear its own costs and to pay those of the       sign cited in the oppo-
      applicant.                                                            sition proceedings:
(1) OJ C 44 of 22.2.2003.
                                                                            Mark or sign cited in        The Spanish word marks ‘DERBI-
                                                                            opposition:                  VARIANT’, ‘DERBI VARIANT’,
                                                                                and ‘VARIANTDERBI’ for goods
                                                                                in Class 12 (inter alia vehicles).
Action brought on 15 September 2003 by Volkswagen                           Decision of the Oppo-        Rejection of the opposition.
AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                     sition Division:
              Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                          (Case T-317/03)                                   Decision of the Board of     Annulment of the decision of the
                                                                            Appeal:                      Opposition Division and rejection
                         (2003/C 304/56)                                                                 of the application.
(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was           Pleas in law:                —     Infringement of Article 74(1)
                           drafted: German)                                                                    of Regulation (EC) No 40/
                                                                                94;
                                                                                —     Misapplication               of
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                                 Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the                                                        (EC) No 40/94.
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
15 September 2003 by Volkswagen AG, Wolfsburg (Ger-
many), represented by S. Risthaus, lawyer. Nacional Motor
S.A., Martorelles (Spain), was also a party to the proceedings
before the Board of Appeal.


title: Case T-26/11: Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2012 — Fraas v OHIM (Tartan pattern in black, beige, brown, dark red and grey) (Community trade mark — Application for a figurative Community trade mark representing a tartan pattern in black, beige, brown, dark red and grey — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b), Article 75 and Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               27.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/20

      Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2012 — Fraas v OHIM (Tartan pattern in black, beige, brown, dark red and grey)
      (Case T-26/11) (1)

      (Community trade mark - Application for a figurative Community trade mark representing a tartan pattern in black, beige, brown, dark red and grey - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b), Article 75 and Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
      (2012/C 331/34)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: V. Fraas GmbH (Helmbrechts-Wüstenselbitz, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunze and G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

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

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 November 2010 (Case R 1317/2010-4) concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing a tartan pattern in black, beige, brown, dark red and grey as a Community trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders V. Fraas GmbH to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.


title: Case C-181/05: Order of the President of the Court of 26 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/52

         Order of the President of the Court of 26 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-181/05) (1)

   (2006/C 326/106)

      Language of the case: German

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

      (1)  OJ C 171, 09.07.2005.


title: Order of the Court of 20 March 2015 in Case E-19/13 — Konkurrenten.no AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority (Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — State aid — Local bus transport services — Decision not to open the formal investigation procedure — Decision following the formal investigation procedure — Admissibility — Measures of organization of procedure)

text:
               29.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 357/32

         ORDER OF THE COURT
   of 20 March 2015
   in Case E-19/13
   Konkurrenten.no AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority
   (Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — State aid — Local bus transport services — Decision not to open the formal investigation procedure — Decision following the formal investigation procedure — Admissibility — Measures of organization of procedure)
   (2016/C 357/13)
   In Case E-19/13: Konkurrenten.no AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority — Application for annulment of EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 519/12/COL of 19 December 2012, closing a formal investigation concerning aid granted by Oslo Municipality to AS Oslo Sporveier, and of EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 181/13/COL of 8 May 2013, refusing to open a formal investigation into aid measures not covered by Decision No 519/12/COL, the Court, composed of: Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave order of 20 March 2015, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The application is dismissed as inadmissible;

               2.

               Konkurrenten.no AS is to bear its own costs and the costs incurred by the EFTA Surveillance Authority;

               3.

               Sporveien Oslo AS is to bear its own costs.


title: Case F-65/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 9 June 2015 — EF v EEAS (Civil service — Member of staff of the EEAS — Officials — 2013 promotion procedure — Decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 13 — Applicant’s objection to the list of officials proposed for promotion — Article 45 of the Staff Regulations — Completion of a minimum of 2 years in the grade — Calculation of the two-year period — Date of the promotion decision)

text:
               27.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/48

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 9 June 2015 — EF v EEAS
   (Case F-65/14) (1)

   ((Civil service - Member of staff of the EEAS - Officials - 2013 promotion procedure - Decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 13 - Applicant’s objection to the list of officials proposed for promotion - Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - Completion of a minimum of 2 years in the grade - Calculation of the two-year period - Date of the promotion decision))
   (2015/C 245/59)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: EF (represented by: L. Levi and N. Flandin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and M. Silva, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decisions refusing to promote the applicant to grade AD 13 under the 2013 promotion procedure even though he was included on the list of official eligible for promotion.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Declares that EF is to bear his own costs and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the European External Action Service.

      (1)  OJ C 380, 27/10/2014, p. 26.


title: Case C-417/06 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 November 2007 — Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Admissibility — Structural Funds — Financing of Community initiatives — Amendment of indicative allocations — Enforcement of the final judgment)

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/10

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 November 2007 — Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-417/06 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Admissibility - Structural Funds - Financing of Community initiatives - Amendment of indicative allocations - Enforcement of the final judgment)
   (2008/C 22/19)
   Language of the case: italian
   Parties

      Appellant: Italian Republic (represented by: I. Braguglia, Agent, D. Del Gaizo and G. Albenzio, avvocati dello Stato)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. de March and L. Flynn, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, avvocato)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 13 July 2006 in Case T-225/04 Italy v Commission dismissing the action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2003) 3971 final of 26 November 2003 establishing indicative allocations between the Member States of the commitment appropriations under Community initiatives for the period 1994-1999 and of all related prior measures.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay its own costs and those of the Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 310 of 16.12.2006.


title: Case C-36/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of that Court of 24 October 2001 in the case of OMEGA Spielhallen- und Automatenaufstellungs-GmbH against Oberbürgermeisterin der Bundesstadt Bonn

text:
4.5.2002              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 109/25
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwal-               1.    Does a procedure to constitute a liability limitation fund
tungsgericht by order of that Court of 24 October 2001                      pursuant to an application by a shipowner under the
in the case of OMEGA Spielhallen- und Automatenaufstel-                     Brussels Convention of 10 October 1957 constitute
lungs-GmbH against Oberbürgermeisterin der Bundes-                          proceedings within the meaning of Article 21 of the
                           stadt Bonn                                       1968 Brussels Convention (1) where it is evident from the
                                                                            application, where the relevant names are stated, who
                                                                            might be affected thereby as a potential injured party?
                         (Case C-36/02)
                                                                      2.    Is an order to constitute a liability limitation fund under
                                                                            the Netherlands procedural rules in force in 1986 a
                        (2002/C 109/40)                                     judgment within the meaning of Article 25 of the 1968
                                                                            Brussels Convention?
                                                                      3.    Can a limitation fund which was constituted on 27 May
                                                                            1987 by a Netherlands court pursuant to Netherlands
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      procedural rules then in force without prior service on an
European Communities by order of the Bundesverwaltungsge-                   affected creditor now be denied recognition in another
richt (Federal Administrative Court) of 24 October 2001,                    Member State in relation to the creditor concerned
received at the Court Registry on 12 February 2002, for a                   pursuant to Article 27(2) of the 1968 Brussels Conven-
preliminary ruling in the case of OMEGA Spielhallen- und                    tion?
Automatenaufstellungs-GmbH against Oberbürgermeisterin
der Bundesstadt Bonn on the following question:                       4.    If Question 3 is answered in the affirmative, is the creditor
                                                                            concerned deprived of its right to rely on Article 27(2) by
Is it compatible with the provisions on freedom to provide                  virtue of the fact that in the Member State which
services and the free movement of goods contained in the                    constituted the limitation fund it raised the matter
Treaty establishing the European Community for a particular                 of jurisdiction before a higher court without having
commercial activity — in this case the operation of a so-                   previously objected to default of service?
called ‘laserdrome’ involving simulated killing action — to be
prohibited under national law because it offends against the
values enshrined in the Basic (Constitutional) Law?                   (1) 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of
                                                                          judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ L 204, 1975,
                                                                          p. 28) modified by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the
                                                                          accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic
                                                                          with the adjustments made to them by the Convention on the
                                                                          accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, of Ireland and of the
                                                                          United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the
                                                                          adjustments made to them by the Convention on the accession of
                                                                          the Hellenic Republic (OJ L 285, 1989, p. 1).
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Højesterets
Anke- og Kæremålsudvalg by order of 8 February 2002 in
the case of Mærsk Olie & Gas A/S against M. de Haan en
W. de Boer, in the person of its owners Martinus de Haan
                     and Willem de Boer
                                                                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
                                                                      Verwaltungssenat im Land Niederösterreich, Aussenstelle
                         (Case C-39/02)                               Mistelbach by order of that Court of 29 January 2002 in
                                                                               the case of an appeal by Margareta Scherndl
                        (2002/C 109/41)                                                         (Case C-40/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 109/42)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Højesterets Anke- og
Kæremålsudvalg (Appeals and Objections Committee of the               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Supreme Court) of 8 February 2002, received at the Court              European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-
Registry on 13 February 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the         tungssenat im Land Niederösterreich, Aussenstelle Mistelbach
case of Mærsk Olie & Gas A/S against M. de Haan en W. de              of 29 January 2002, received at the Court Registry on
Boer, in the person of its owners Martinus de Haan and Willem         14 February 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of an
de Boer on the following questions:                                   appeal by Margareta Scherndl on the following questions:


title: Case T-234/11 P: Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2012 — Arango Jaramillo and Others v EIB (Appeals — Staff cases — EIB staff — Pensions — Contribution to the pension scheme — Dismissal of the action at first instance as manifestly inadmissible — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Lateness — Reasonable period of time)

text:
               28.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 227/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2012 — Arango Jaramillo and Others v EIB
   (Case T-234/11 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Staff cases - EIB staff - Pensions - Contribution to the pension scheme - Dismissal of the action at first instance as manifestly inadmissible - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Lateness - Reasonable period of time)
   2012/C 227/30
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellants: Oscar Orlando Arango Jaramillo (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) and the 34 other members of the staff of the European Investment Bank whose names appear in the Annex to the judgment (represented by: B. Cortese and C. Cortese, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank (represented by: C. Gómez de la Cruz and T. Gilliams, acting as Agents, assisted by P.-E. Partsch, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal against the Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 4 February 2011 in Case F-34/10 Arango Jaramillo and Others v EIB ECR SC I-A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000, seeking to have that order set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               orders Mr Oscar Orlando Arango Jaramillo and the 34 other members of the staff of the European Investment Bank (EIB) whose names appear in the Annex to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the EIB in these proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 16.7.2011.


title: Case C-351/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 22 July 2014  — Estrella Rodríguez Sanchez v Consum Sociedad Cooperativa Valenciana

text:
               29.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 339/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 22 July 2014 — Estrella Rodríguez Sanchez v Consum Sociedad Cooperativa Valenciana
   (Case C-351/14)
   2014/C 339/13
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Barcelona

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Estrella Rodríguez Sanchez

      Defendant: Consum Sociedad Cooperativa Valenciana

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the relationship of worker member in a cooperative (cooperativa de trabajo asociado) such as that regulated in Article 80 of (Spanish) Law 27/99 on Cooperatives and Article 89 of Law 8/2003 on Cooperatives of the Autonomous Community of Valencia — a relationship which, although characterised by the national legislation and case-law as ‘associative’ (one of membership), could be considered to amount to an ‘employment contract’ under Community law — come within the scope of Directive 2010/18 (1) relating to the ‘revised Framework Agreement on parental leave’ as defined in Clause 1(2) of [the Agreement]?
               If that first question is answered in the negative, a second, subsidiary question arises.

               2.

               Must Clause 8(2) of the ‘revised Framework Agreement on Parental Leave’ (Directive 2010/18), and, more specifically, the provision in accordance with which ‘[i]mplementation of the provisions of this agreement shall not constitute valid grounds for reducing the general level of protection afforded to workers in the field covered by this agreement’, be interpreted as meaning that, should a Member State fail to implement Directive 2010/18 expressly, the scope of the protection which that State itself defined in transposing the earlier Directive 96/34 (2) may not be reduced?
               Only if the answer to either of those two questions is in the affirmative, Directive 2010/18 being considered applicable to an ‘associative-work’ relationship such as that of the applicant, will the other questions which follow be justified, for the reasons set out below.

               3.

               Must Clause 6 of the new ‘revised Framework Agreement on Parental Leave’, incorporated in Directive 2010/18, be interpreted as meaning that the national implementing provision or agreement must incorporate and make explicit the obligations of employers to ‘consider’ and ‘respond to’ the requests of its workers for ‘changes to … working hours and/or patterns’, when returning from parental leave, taking into account both employers’ and workers’ needs, and that the implementing mandate cannot be understood to be have been complied with by means of national rules — legislative or those of cooperatives — which make the effectiveness of such a right conditional solely upon the mere discretion of the employer as to whether or not to grant such requests?

               4.

               Must it be found that Clause 6 [of the] ‘Revised Framework Agreement on Parental Leave’ — in the light of Article 3 of Directive [2010/18] and the ‘Final provisions’ in Clause 8 of the Agreement — has, where there has been a failure to transpose, ‘horizontal direct effect’ as a result of being a minimum Community standard?

      (1)  Council Directive 2010/18/EU of 8 March 2010 implementing the revised Framework Agreement on parental leave concluded by BUSINESSEUROPE, UEAPME, CEEP and ETUC and repealing Directive 96/34/EC.

      OJ 2010 L 68, p. 13.

      (2)  Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC.

      OJ 1996 L 145, p. 4.


title: Case C-315/06: Order of the President of the Court of 26 February 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikio Verias, Greece) — Georgios Diamantis v Fanco AE

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/30

         Order of the President of the Court of 26 February 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikio Verias, Greece) — Georgios Diamantis v Fanco AE
   (Case C-315/06) (1)

   (2008/C 171/48)

      Language of the case: Greek

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

      (1)  OJ C 224, 16.9.2006.


title: Case T-392/15: Judgment of the General Court of 4 July 2017 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v European Union Agency for Railways (Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — External Service Provision for development, studies and support for information systems for the European Union Agency for Railways — Ranking of a tenderer’s bid — Rejection of the tenderer’s bid — Duty to state reasons — Abnormally low tender)

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/36

         Judgment of the General Court of 4 July 2017 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v European Union Agency for Railways
   (Case T-392/15) (1)

   ((Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - External Service Provision for development, studies and support for information systems for the European Union Agency for Railways - Ranking of a tenderer’s bid - Rejection of the tenderer’s bid - Duty to state reasons - Abnormally low tender))
   (2017/C 277/52)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) and European Dynamics Belgium SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented initially by I. Ampazis, M. Sfyri, C.-N. Dede and D. Papadopoulou and, subsequently, by M. Sfyri, C.-N. Dede and D. Papadopoulou lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Agency for Railways (represented initially by M.J. Doppelbauer, and subsequently by M.G. Stärkle and Z. Pyloridou, acting as Agents and V. Christianos, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the European Union Agency for Railways ranking the tenders submitted by the applicants for Lots 1 and 2 of contract ERA/2015/01/OP ‘ESP EISD 5 — External Service Provision for ERA Information System’

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE and European Dynamics Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 5.10.2015.


title: Case F-42/07: Action brought on 10 May 2007 — Prieto v Parliament

text:
               23.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 140/47

         Action brought on 10 May 2007 — Prieto v Parliament
   (Case F-42/07)
   (2007/C 140/75)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Antonio Prieto (Bousval, Belgium) (represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

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

               —

               annul the European Parliament's decision of 9 June 2006 to appoint the applicant as a probationary official in step 3 of Grade AST 2;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, a successful candidate in internal competition C/348 for Grades C5-4, was a member of the Commission's temporary staff in Grade AST 3 (formerly Grade C4) when he was appointed as a probationary official in Grade AST 2.
   In support of his action, the applicant claims, first, that the decision to appoint him as an official in a grade and step lower than that which was his when he was a member of the temporary staff infringes Article 5(4) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities (‘the Staff Regulations’).
   The applicant also pleads breach of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination, on the ground that only the successful candidates in the competition in question who were previously, as members of the temporary staff, in category D were able to retain their former more advantageous grade and step when they were appointed as officials.
   The applicant claims, finally, that the contested decision also infringes the principles of legal certainty, the protection of legitimate expectations, proper administration and of sound management.


title: Case T-150/09: Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2012 — Ningbo Yonghong Fasteners v Council (Dumping — Imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in China — Market economy treatment — Time-limit for adopting the decision on that treatment — Manifest error of assessment — Burden of proof — Adjustment to costs — Article 2(5) and (7)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Article 2(5) and (7)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009))

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2012 — Ningbo Yonghong Fasteners v Council
   (Case T-150/09) (1)

   (Dumping - Imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in China - Market economy treatment - Time-limit for adopting the decision on that treatment - Manifest error of assessment - Burden of proof - Adjustment to costs - Article 2(5) and (7)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Article 2(5) and (7)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009))
   2012/C 366/54
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ningbo Yonghong Fasteners Co. Ltd (Zhouhan, China) (represented by: F. Graafsma and J. Cornelis, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented: initially by J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, assisted by G. Berrisch and G. Wolf, lawyers, and subsequently by J.-P. Hix and B. Driessen, acting as Agents, assisted by Berrisch)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet and C. Clyne, acting as Agents); and European Industrial Fasteners Institute AISBL (EIFI) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented: initially by J. Bourgeois, Y. van Gerven and E. Wäktare, and subsequently by Bourgeois, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2009 L 29, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ningbo Yonghong Fasteners Co. Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Council of the European Union and of the European Industrial Fasteners Institute AISBL;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 141, 20.6.2009.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 24 October 1996 in Case C-91/95 P: Roger Tremblay, Harry Kestenberg and Syndicat des Exploitants de Lieux de Loisirs (SELL) v. Commission of the European Communities (Appeal - Competition - Rejection of a complaint - Absence of Community interest)

text:
 11.1.97            1 EN 1                Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 9 / 7
Commission to one of its officials on the ground of                  part — the Court ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: J. L.
occupational illness by virtue of Article 73 of the Staff            Murray, President of the Fourth Chamber, acting for the
Regulations of officials of the European Communities —               President of the Sixth Chamber, C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G.
the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: G. F. Mancini,             Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ). G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm,
President of the Chamber, C. N. Kakouris and P. J. G.                Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; R. Grass,
Kapteyn ( Rapporteur), Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate-              Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 October 1996, in
General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the                  which it:
Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 October 1996, in
which it:
                                                                     1 . Dismisses the appeal.
1 . Orders Royal Belge SA, Assurances Générales de
     France SA, Caisse Nationale de Prévoyance, Les                  2 . Orders the appellants to pay the costs.
     Mutuelles du Mans, Assurantie van de Belgische
     Boerenbond SA, Hannover SA, Securitas AG and
                                                                     0 ) OJ No C 189, 22 . 7. 1995, p . 6 .
     Condor to pay the Commission the sum of Bfrs
     25 794 194, plus interest at the rate of 8 % from 6 May
     1994.
2 . Orders Royal Belge SA, Assurances Générales de
     France SA, Caisse Nationale de Prévoyance, Les
     Mutuelles du Mans, Assurantie van de Belgische
     Boerenbond SA, Hannover SA, Securitas AG and                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
     Condor to pay the costs.                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 7 November 1996
(') OJ No C 159, 24 . 6 . 1995 , p. 13 .
                                                                     in    Case C-221/94: Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities v. Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (')
                                                                     (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                     Non-transposition of Directive 91/263/EEC —
                                                                     Telecommunications        —     Telecommunications     terminal
                                                                         equipment — Mutual recognition of their conformity)
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                             ( 97/C 9/ 13
                        ( Sixth Chamber)
                      of 24 October 1996                                             (Language of the case: French)
in Case C-91/95 P: Roger Tremblay, Harry Kestenberg
and Syndicat des Exploitants de Lieux de Loisirs ( SELL ) v.
       Commission of the European Communities ( J )                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                              published in the European Court Reports)
(Appeal — Competition — Rejection of a complaint —
              Absence of Community interest)
                            ( 97/C 9/12 )                            In Case C-221 /94 : Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities (Agents: Anders C. Jessen and Jean-Francis
                                                                     Pasquier) v. Grand Duchy of Luxembourg ( Agent: Nicolas
               (Language of the case: French)                        Schmit) — application for a declaration that, by not
                                                                     adopting within the period laid down the laws, regulations
                                                                     and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                     Council Directive 91/263/EEC of 29 April 1991 on the
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       approximation of the laws of the Member States
         published in the European Court Reports)                    concerning telecommunications terminal equipment,
                                                                     including the mutual recognition of their conformity (2 ),
                                                                     and, in any event, by not immediately informing the
In Case C-91/95 P: Roger Tremblay, Harry Kestenberg                  Commission of such measures, the Grand Duchy of
and Syndicat des Exploitants de Lieux de Loisirs ( SELL )            Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations pursuant to
( Counsel: Jean-Claude Fourgoux ), the other party to the            the Directive and in particular pursuant to Article 17
proceedings being: Commission of the European                        thereof — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: G. F.
Communities ( Agents : Giuliano Marenco and Géraud de                Mancini , President of the Chamber ( Rapporteur), J. L.
Bergues ) — appeal against the judgment of the Court of              Murray, C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn and H.
First Instance ( Second Chamber ) of 24 January 1995 in              Ragnemalm, Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; H. A.
Case T-5/93 Tremblay and Others v. Commission [ 1995]                Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the REgistrar, has given
ECR 11-185 , seeking to have that judgment set aside in              a judgment on 7 November 1996, in which it:


title: Case C-426/04 P: Appeal brought on 4 October 2004 by the European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR) against the judgment delivered on 7 July 2004 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-175/03 between Norbert Schmitt and the European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR)

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/32

         Appeal brought on 4 October 2004 by the European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR) against the judgment delivered on 7 July 2004 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-175/03 between Norbert Schmitt and the European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR)
   (Case C-426/04 P)
   (2004/C 300/61)
   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 7 July 2004 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-175/03 between Norbert Schmitt and the European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR) was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 October 2004 by the European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR), represented by Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis, Etienne Marchal and Sébastien Orlandi, avocats.
   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside that the judgment of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 7 July 2004 in Case T-175/03 (Norbert Schmitt v European Agency for Reconstruction) in full.

         Giving judgment itself,

               —

               dismiss the action for annulment of the decision of the EAR of 25 February 2003 terminating the contract of the applicant at first instance as a member of the temporary staff;

               —

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

         Pleas and main arguments:
   The Court of First Instance disregarded the prohibition on ruling ultra petita in basing its decision on pleas and arguments that had neither been raised directly nor elaborated upon to the requisite legal standard by the applicant at first instance.
   Furthermore, the Court of First Instance made an error of law in interpreting clause 4 of the temporary staff contract concluded with Mr Schmitt as limiting the Agency's right to terminate the contract to situations arising from a significant reduction in, or cessation of, the Agency's operations before the end of its mandate.
   Lastly, the Court of First Instance also made an error of law in considering that the legitimate expectations of the applicant at first instance had been infringed when it is apparent from the judgment that no clear and unconditional assurance, complying and in accordance with the rules of the conditions of employment of other servants had been given to him in relation to his remaining in post until the end of the Agency's actual mandate.


title: Case T-259/10: Action brought on 8 June 2010 — Ax v Council

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/41

         Action brought on 8 June 2010 — Ax v Council
   (Case T-259/10)
   ()
   2010/C 234/75
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Thomas Ax (Neckargemünd, Germany) (represented by: J. Baumann, Rechtsanwalt)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Regulation (EU) No 407/2010 of 11 May 2010 establishing a European financial stabilisation mechanism;

               —

               Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant seeks the annulment of Regulation (EU) No 407/2010. (1)

   The applicant argues, inter alia, that the aid released by the contested regulation would infringe the prohibition under Article 125 TFEU on undertaking liability for or assuming the commitments of other Member States.
   Moreover, Regulation No 407/2010 is not covered by the enabling provision of Article 122 TFEU. The applicant argues that the Member States affected by speculative attacks have not been seriously threatened with severe difficulties within the meaning of that provision. Moreover, the difficulties arising as a result of the speculative attacks are not caused by exceptional occurrences beyond the control of the Member States concerned.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EU) No 407/2010 of 11 May 2010 establishing a European financial stabilisation mechanism (OJ 2010 L 118, p. 1).


title: Case C-287/15: Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 12 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Società LIS Srl, Società Cerutti Lorenzo Srl v Abbanoa SpA: in the presence of: Consorzio Stabile CSI — Consorzio Servizi Integrati Soc. cons. arl, Procelli Costruzioni Srl, Bondini Srl, Assisi Strade Srl

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/12

      Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 12 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Società LIS Srl, Società Cerutti Lorenzo Srl v Abbanoa SpA: in the presence of: Consorzio Stabile CSI — Consorzio Servizi Integrati Soc. cons. arl, Procelli Costruzioni Srl, Bondini Srl, Assisi Strade Srl
      (Case C-287/15) (1)

      (2016/C 364/08)
      Language of the case: Italian
      The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.


title: Case C-334/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Chemnitz (Germany) lodged on 3 August 2006 — Matthias Zerche v Landkreis Mittweida

text:
               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Chemnitz (Germany) lodged on 3 August 2006 — Matthias Zerche v Landkreis Mittweida
   (Case C-334/06)
   (2006/C 261/19)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgericht Chemnitz
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Matthias Zerche

      Defendant: Landkreis Mittweida
   Questions referred
   Are the combined provisions of Article 1(2) and Article 8(2) and (4) of Directive 91/439/EEC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State within its territory may refuse to recognise a right to drive under a driving licence issued by another Member State where the holder of the foreign EU driving licence has previously, in the territory of the first Member State, had his driving licence withdrawn or cancelled for some reason, if the ban on the issue of a new driving licence in that Member State, with which that measure was coupled, had expired before the driving licence was issued in the other Member State and if it is to be concluded on the basis of objective evidence (non-residence in the Member State issuing the driving licence or the failure of an application for the national driving licence to be restored) that the only reason for acquiring the foreign EU driving licence was to circumvent the strict substantive requirements of national procedure for the restoration of a driving licence, particularly the need for a medical/psychological report?

      (1)  OJ L 237, p. 1.


title: Removal from the register of T-300/94

text:
No C 199/40          EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   28 . 6 . 97
     27 February 1997, and in particular Article 2 thereof,        Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
     and                                                           Case T-259/94 : Michel Pouzol v. Court of Auditors of the
                                                                   European Communities .
— to order the Office to pay the costs of the action.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                (') OJ No C 254, 10 . 9 . 1994 .
The applicant, a member of the First Board of Appeal of
the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs ), contests the abovementioned
Decision of the President of the Office, adopted on
21 February 1997.                                                            Removal from the register of T-3 00/94 ( l )
                                                                                ( 97/C 199/93 )
The Decision concerns certain aspects of the organization
of the Boards of Appeal created pursuant to Article 130 of
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Council Regulation (EC ) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993
on the Community trademark.
                                                                   By order of 11 March 1997 the President of the Fifth
The applicant submits that the Decision, and in particular         Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
its Article 2, should be annuled on the following grounds.         Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                   Case T-300/94 : Henri Maurissen v. Court of Auditors of
Firstly, Article 2 of the Decision is contrary to                  the European Communities.
Articles 112 ( 1 ) and 131 ( 2 ) of the Regulation. It thus
infringes a rule relating to the application of the Treaty         O OJ No C 316, 12 . 11 . 1994 .
within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 173
of the EC Treaty.
 Secondly, the Decision is unlawful because the President
 failed to consult two thirds of the members of the Boards
 of Appeal appointed by the Council of Ministers and
 because the Members who were consulted ( i.e. the                           Removal from the register of T-115/95 (')
 chairmen ) were given insufficient time to consider the                                        ( 97/C 199/94 )
 matter properly. That failure to engage in proper
 consultations amounts to an infringement of an essential                           (Language of the case: French)
 procedural requirement within the meaning of the second
 paragraph of Article 173 of the EC Treaty.                         By order of 30 April 1997 the President of the Second
                                                                    Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
 Thirdly, the Decision does not contain an adequate                 Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
 statement of the reasons on which Article 2 is based .             Case T-115/95 : Michel Pouzol v. Court of Auditors of the
                                                                    European Communities .
 Fourthly, the President has no competence to adopt any
 Decision introducing a hierarchical relationship within the
 Boards of Appeal ( as he purports to do in Article 2 (2 ) of       (') OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
 the Decision ) or to subject the entire membership of the
 Boards of Appeal to the hierarchical authority of the Vice
 President for Legal Affairs and of the President himself.
 Article 2 is therefore void for lack of competence within
 the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 173 of the
 EC Treaty.                                                                    Removal from the register of T-8/96 (')
                                                                                ( 97/C 199/95 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                    By order of 28 April 1997 the President of the Second
           Removal from the register of T-259/94 (')
                                                                    Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                         ( 97/C 199/92                              Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                 (Language of the case: French)                      Case T-8/96 : Antonia Carparelli v. Commission of the
                                                                    European Communities.
  By order of 30 April 1997 the President of the Second
  Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European             (') OJ No C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .


title: Case T-177/07: Action brought on 23 May 2007 — Mediaset v Commission

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/31

         Action brought on 23 May 2007 — Mediaset v Commission
   (Case T-177/07)
   (2007/C 170/60)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Mediaset SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: D. O'Keeffe, Solicitor, K. Adamantopoulos and G. Rossi, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul, on the basis of Article 230 of the EC Treaty, (ex Article 173), the Commission's decision of 24 January 2007 on the State aid C 52/2005 which the Republic of Italy has implemented in relation to the subsidy of digital decoders in Italy, in particular Articles 1 to 3 thereof;

               —

               order that all the costs occasioned by the applicant in the course of the present proceedings be borne by the defendant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 6634 final (1) of 24 January 2007 by which the Commission found that the scheme put in place by Italy in favour of digital terrestrial broadcasters offering Pay-TV services and cable Pay-TV operators constitutes State aid which is incompatible with the common market.
   The applicant, who is a beneficiary of the State aid in question, invokes the following pleas in law.
   First of all, the applicant submits that the Commission committed an error of law in the application and interpretation of Article 87(1) EC insofar as i) the Commission considered aid granted directly to the consumers to fall within the ambit of Article 87(1) EC; ii) the Commission concluded that the measure conferred a selective ‘economic advantage’ on the applicant; iii) the Commission concluded that the measure is selective because it allegedly is discriminatory, and iv) the Commission considered the measure to distort competition in the common market.
   The applicant furthermore claims that the Commission committed a manifest error of appraisal and a manifest error of law by concluding that the measure was not compatible with the common market pursuant to Article 87(3)(c) EC.
   Moreover, the applicant alleges that the Commission infringed an essential procedural requirement by giving contradictory and insufficient reasoning contrary to Article 253 EC.
   Finally, the applicant argues that the Commission infringed Article 14 of Council Regulation No 659/1999 (2) in ordering recovery of the measure, because it failed to see that i) the applicant had legitimate expectations to assume the alleged aid was lawful and ii) because it is impossible to establish the amount of the aid and identify the potential indirect beneficiaries.

      (1)  C 52/2005 (ex NN 88/2005, ex CP 101/2004).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 March 2005 in Case C-209/03 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) The Queen (on the application of Dany Bidar) v London Borough of Ealing, Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Citizenship of the Union — Articles 12 EC and 18 EC — Assistance for students in the form of subsidised loans — Provision limiting the grant of such loans to students settled in national territory)

text:
               28.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 132/8

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Grand Chamber)
   of 15 March 2005
   in Case C-209/03 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) The Queen (on the application of Dany Bidar) v London Borough of Ealing, Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1)

   (Citizenship of the Union - Articles 12 EC and 18 EC - Assistance for students in the form of subsidised loans - Provision limiting the grant of such loans to students settled in national territory)
   (2005/C 132/14)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-209/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom), made by decision of 12 February 2003, received at the Court on 15 May 2003, in the proceedings pending before that court between the Queen (on the application of Dany Bidar) and London Borough of Ealing, Secretary of State for Education and Skills — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas, K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur) and A. Borg Barthet, Presidents of Chambers, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric, M. Ilešič, J. Malenovský, J. Klučka and U. Lõhmus, Judges; L.A.Geelhoed, Advocate General, H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 March 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               Assistance, whether in the form of subsidised loans or of grants, provided to students lawfully resident in the host Member State to cover their maintenance costs falls within the scope of application of the EC Treaty for the purposes of the prohibition of discrimination laid down in the first paragraph of Article 12 EC.

               2.

               The first paragraph of Article 12 EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which grants students the right to assistance covering their maintenance costs only if they are settled in the host Member State, while precluding a national of another Member State from obtaining the status of settled person as a student even if that national is lawfully resident and has received a substantial part of his secondary education in the host Member State and has consequently established a genuine link with the society of that State.

               3.

               There is no need to limit the temporal effects of the present judgment.

      (1)  OJ C 171 of 19.07.2003.


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/36

         Removal from the register of Case C-271/03 (1)

   (2004/C 94/105)
   By order of 4 February 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case C-271/03: Ireland v Commission of the European.

      (1)  OJ C 200 of 23.08.2003.


title: Case C-378/05: Order of the President of the Court of 14 September 2006 — (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Belgium) — Samotor SPRL v Belgian State

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/35

         Order of the President of the Court of 14 September 2006 — (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Belgium) — Samotor SPRL v Belgian State
   (Case C-378/05) (1)

   (2006/C 294/63)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 330, 24.12.2005.


title: Case C-538/14: Order of the President of the Court of 3 June 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Finland

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/26

         Order of the President of the Court of 3 June 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Finland
   (Case C-538/14) (1)

   (2015/C 320/40)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 June 2004 in Case T-258/01: Pierre Eveillard v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Disciplinary measures — Relegation in step — Articles 11 and 14 of the Staff Regulations — Contract for the security of the Commission's buildings)

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/36

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 10 June 2004
   in Case T-258/01: Pierre Eveillard v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Officials - Disciplinary measures - Relegation in step - Articles 11 and 14 of the Staff Regulations - Contract for the security of the Commission's buildings)
   (2004/C 228/80)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-258/01: Pierre Eveillard, an official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by L. Vogel, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agent: J. Curral, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of the Commission's decision of 25 June 2001 rejecting the applicant's complaint of 13 March 2001 whereby he contested the decision adopted by the appointing authority on 19 December 2000 imposing on the applicant the disciplinary measure of relegation by two steps — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Lindh, President, and R. Garcia-Valdecasas and J.S. Cooke, Judges; I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 10 June 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of 19 December 2000 imposing on the applicant the disciplinary penalty of reduction by two steps;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 369 of 22.12.2001.


title: Case C-321/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — F. van der Helder, D. Farrington v College voor zorgverzekeringen (Social security — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 28(2)(b) — Sickness insurance benefits — Entitlement to an old-age pension in several Member States — Residence in another Member State — Provision of benefits in kind in the State of residence — Burden of the cost of benefits — Member State ‘legislation’ to which the pensioner has been subject for the longest period of time — Concept)

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/33

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — F. van der Helder, D. Farrington v College voor zorgverzekeringen
   (Case C-321/12) (1)

   (Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 28(2)(b) - Sickness insurance benefits - Entitlement to an old-age pension in several Member States - Residence in another Member State - Provision of benefits in kind in the State of residence - Burden of the cost of benefits - Member State ‘legislation’ to which the pensioner has been subject for the longest period of time - Concept)
   2013/C 344/57
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Centrale Raad van Beroep

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: F. van der Helder, D. Farrington

      Defendant: College voor zorgverzekeringen

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Centrale Raad van Beroep — Interpretation of Articles 4 and 28(2)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416) — Sickness insurance — Benefits for pensioners resident in a Member State other than that of the competent institution — Benefits to be paid by the institution of the Member State in which the person concerned has been covered for the longest period — Concept of ‘legislation [to which] the pensioner has been subject for the longest period of time’

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 28(2)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1992/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that ‘legislation’ to which the pensioner has been subject for the longest period of time, for the purpose of that provision, refers to legislation concerning pensions.

      (1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.


title: Case T-684/13: Action brought on 23 December 2013 — Copernicus-Trademarks v OHIM — Bolloré (BLUECO)

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/41

         Action brought on 23 December 2013 — Copernicus-Trademarks v OHIM — Bolloré (BLUECO)
   (Case T-684/13)
   2014/C 52/78
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Copernicus-Trademarks Ltd (Borehamwood, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Pechan and S. Körber, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bolloré SA (Érgue Gaberic, France)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 October 2013 in Case R 2029/2012-1 and alter it to the effect that the appeal is well founded and the opposition is therefore to be rejected in its entirety;

               —

               Order OHIM and Bolloré SA, should the latter intervene in these proceedings, to pay the costs including those incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘BLUECO’ for goods in Class 12 — Community trade mark application No 9 724 675

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Bolloré SA

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘BLUECAR’ for goods in Class 12 — Community trade mark No 4 597 621

      Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case T-167/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 2007 — Asklepios Kliniken GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Public hospitals — Compensation for operating losses and provision of guarantees — Complaint — Failure by the Commission to define its position — Action for failure to act — Locus standi — Admissibility — Reasonable time frame — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999)

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/31

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 2007 — Asklepios Kliniken GmbH v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-167/04) (1)

   (State aid - Public hospitals - Compensation for operating losses and provision of guarantees - Complaint - Failure by the Commission to define its position - Action for failure to act - Locus standi - Admissibility - Reasonable time frame - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999)
   (2007/C 199/58)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Asklepios Kliniken GmbH (Königstein-Falkenstein, Germany) (represented by: K. Füßer, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Kreuschitz and M. Niejahr, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendants: Federal Republic of Germany (represented: initially by C.-D. Quassowski and A. Tiemann, and subsequently by W.-D. Plessing and C. Schulze-Bahr, Agents); and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented: initially by M. Bethell, and subsequently by C. Gibbs and E. O'Neill, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for a declaration under Article 232 EC that, by failing to take a decision under Article 4(2), (3) or (4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [88] EC (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1) on the complaint lodged by the applicant concerning the award of allegedly unlawful aid to publicly-owned hospitals in Germany, the Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 88 EC and Articles 10(1) and 13(1) of Regulation No 659/1999.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Asklepios Klinken GmbH to pay both its own costs and those incurred by the Commission;

               3.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 201, 7.8.2004.


title: Case C-454/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 10 October 2012 — Pro Med Logistik GmbH v Finanzamt Dresden-Süd

text:
               22.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 10 October 2012 — Pro Med Logistik GmbH v Finanzamt Dresden-Süd
   (Case C-454/12)
   2012/C 399/21
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Pro Med Logistik GmbH

      Defendant: Finanzamt Dresden-Süd

      Questions referred

               1.

               Having regard to the principle of neutrality, do the third subparagraph of Article 12(3)(a) in conjunction with Annex H, Category 5, of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 (1) on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes and Article 98(1) in conjunction with Annex III, Category 5, of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 (2) on the common system of value added tax (OJ L 347, p. 1) preclude national rules which provide for a reduced rate of turnover tax for local passenger transport by taxi, whereas local passenger transport by minicab is subject to the standard rate of tax?

               2.

               For the answer to the first question, is it relevant whether operators of hackney cabs and taxis and operators of minicabs perform journeys on the basis of special agreements with major customers under almost identical conditions?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment; OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.

      (2)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax; OJ L 347, p. 1.