               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/33

         Removal from the register of Case C-58/05 (1)

   (2006/C 60/67)

      Language of the case: Swedish

   By order of 22 November 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-58/05: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden.

      (1)  OJ C 93 of 16.04.2005.


title: Case T-275/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 2 December 2008 — Ebro Puleva v OHIM — Berenguel (BRILLO'S) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark BRILLO'S — Earlier national figurative marks featuring the word element brillante — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               24.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/28

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 2 December 2008 — Ebro Puleva v OHIM — Berenguel (BRILLO'S)
   (Case T-275/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark BRILLO'S - Earlier national figurative marks featuring the word element ‘brillante’ - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2009/C 19/52)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Ebro Puleva, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: P. Casamitjana Lleonart, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Montalto, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Luis Berenguel, SL (El Barranquete-Níjar, Spain) (represented by: C. Hernández Hernández)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 May 2007 (Case R 493/2006-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Ebro Puleva, SA and Luis Berenguel, SL.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ebro Puleva, SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 6.10.2007.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 April 2005 in Case T-191/02, Giorgio Lebedef v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Framework Agreement of 1974 between the Commission and the trade union and professional organisations — Repudiation — Adoption of the operational rules — Confirmation of the Agreement of 4 April 2001 — Admissibility)

text:
               25.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/11

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 12 April 2005
   in Case T-191/02, Giorgio Lebedef v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Officials - Framework Agreement of 1974 between the Commission and the trade union and professional organisations - Repudiation - Adoption of the operational rules - Confirmation of the Agreement of 4 April 2001 - Admissibility)
   (2005/C 155/22)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-191/02: Giorgio Lebedef, an official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in Senningerberg (Luxembourg), represented by G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agent: J. Currall, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of the Commission's decision of 5 December 2001, by which it repudiated the Framework Agreement of 20 September 1974, adopted the operational rules concerning the levels, process and procedure of consultation agreed between the Commission and the majority of trade union and professional organisations on 19 January 2000, confirmed the Agreement of 4 April 2001 on the resources to be made available to the staff representatives, ratified the provisions on strikes laid down in Annex I to the Framework Agreement of 20 September 1974, requested the Vice-President of the Commission, Mr N. Kinnock, to negotiate with the trade union and professional organisations and to propose for adoption by the Commission, before the end of March 2002, a new Framework Agreement and to include in the series of amendments to the Staff Regulations, on which the trade union and staff organisations were to be consulted, an amendment providing for the opportunity to adopt electoral rules by way of a vote by the staff of the institution, and, if necessary, annulment of Mr Kinnock's letter of 22 November 2001 addressed to the President of each trade union to notify them of his decision to ask the Commission to repudiate, on 5 December 2001, the above-mentioned Framework Agreement of 20 September 1974, and to adopt several of the above-mentioned points, and annulment of Mr E. Halskov's decision of 6 December 2001 refusing to grant the applicant leave to attend, on a mission basis, the meeting of 7 December 2001 on the ‘comprehensive package of proposed amendments to the Staff Regulations’ — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, P. Mengozzi and M.E. Martins Ribeiro, Judges; Registrar: I. Natsinas, Administrator, has given a judgment on 12 April 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Each of the parties is ordered to bear their own costs, including those of the interlocutory proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 233 of 28.9.2002.


title: Case C-448/07 P: Order of the Court of 20 June 2008 — Ayuntamiento de Madrid, Madrid Calle 30, SA v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Provision of data relating to the excessive deficit procedure — Regulation (EC) No 3605/93 — European System of Accounts 1995 (ESA 1995) — Regulation (EC) No 2223/96 — Classification of the body Madrid Calle 30 in the general government sector — Eurostat press release — Actionable act)

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/12

         Order of the Court of 20 June 2008 — Ayuntamiento de Madrid, Madrid Calle 30, SA v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-448/07 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Provision of data relating to the excessive deficit procedure - Regulation (EC) No 3605/93 - European System of Accounts 1995 (ESA 1995) - Regulation (EC) No 2223/96 - Classification of the body ‘Madrid Calle 30’ in the ‘general government sector’ - Eurostat press release - Actionable act)
   (2008/C 285/19)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Appellant: Ayuntamiento de Madrid, Madrid Calle 30, SA (represented by: J. Buendía Sierra and R. González-Gallarza Granizo, abogados)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Aresu and L. Escobar Guerrero, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 12 July 2007, Ayuntamiento de Madrid and Madrid Calle 30, SA v Commission (T-177/06) dismissing as inadmissible an action for annulment of the Eurostat news release No 48/2006 of 24 April 2006 to the extent that it contains a decision of the Commission (Eurostat) on the classification of Madrid Calle 30 in the ‘public administration’ sector within the European System of Accounts (ESA 95)
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Ayuntamiento de Madrid and Madrid Calle 30, SA are ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.


title: Case C-351/04: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 27 September 2007 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division), United Kingdom) — Ikea Wholesale Ltd v Commissioners of Customs & Excise (Dumping — Imports of cotton-type bed linen from Egypt, India and Pakistan — Regulation (EC) No 2398/97 — Regulation (EC) No 1644/2001 — Regulation (EC) No 160/2002 — Regulation (EC) No 696/2002 — Recommendations and decisions of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body — Legal consequences — Regulation (EC) No 1515/2001 — Retroactivity — Reimbursement of duties paid)

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/2

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 27 September 2007 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division), United Kingdom) — Ikea Wholesale Ltd v Commissioners of Customs & Excise
   (Case C-351/04) (1)

   (Dumping - Imports of cotton-type bed linen from Egypt, India and Pakistan - Regulation (EC) No 2398/97 - Regulation (EC) No 1644/2001 - Regulation (EC) No 160/2002 - Regulation (EC) No 696/2002 - Recommendations and decisions of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body - Legal consequences - Regulation (EC) No 1515/2001 - Retroactivity - Reimbursement of duties paid)
   (2007/C 283/02)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ikea Wholesale Ltd

      Defendant: Commissioners of Customs & Excise
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — Validity of Council Regulation (EC) No 2398/97 of 28 November 1997 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton-type bed linen originating in Egypt, India and Pakistan (OJ 1997 L 332, p. 1) — Validity of Council Regulation (EC) No 1644/2001 of 7 August 2001 amending Regulation No 2398/97 and suspending its application with regard to imports originating in India (OJ 2001 L 219, p. 1) — Validity of Council Regulation (EC) No 160/2002 of 28 January 2002 amending Regulation No 2398/97 and terminating the proceeding with regard to imports originating in Pakistan (OJ 2002 L 26, p. 1) — Validity of Council Regulation (EC) No 696/2002 of 22 April 2002 confirming the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of cotton-type bed linen originating in India by Regulation No 2398/97 (OJ 2002 L 109, p. 3)
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2398/97 of 28 November 1997 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton-type bed linen originating in Egypt, India and Pakistan is invalid in so far as the Council of the European Union applied, for the purpose of determining the dumping margin for the product subject to the investigation, the practice of ‘zeroing’ negative dumping margins for each of the product types concerned.

               2.

               An importer, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which has brought an action before a national court against the decisions by which the collection of anti-dumping duties is claimed from it under Regulation No 2398/97, declared invalid by this judgment, is, in principle, entitled to rely on that invalidity in the dispute in the main proceedings in order to obtain repayment of those duties in accordance with Article 236(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.


title: Case C-431/02: Action brought on 29 November 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom

text:
C 19/22                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         25.1.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
The system of quality labels introduced by the Regions of                  Article 10(1) of the Directive, as amended by Council Directive
Abruzzi and Sicily reserves the use of such labels solely to               94/31/EC (2) of 27 June 1994 amending Directive 91/689/EEC
products processed or prepared within those regions which                  on hazardous waste, requires Member States to bring into
comply with mandatory manufacturing rules. The quality of                  force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
the products concerned is therefore explicitly linked to their             necessary to comply with that Directive by 27 June 1995, and
place of origin in Abruzzi or Sicily, which serves to create in            to inform the Commission forthwith. Article 10(3) of the
the mind of the consumer the impression that products from                 Directive provides that Member States shall communicate to
those regions are of a quality superior to that of others. The             the Commission the texts of the main provisions of national
use of that designation tends therefore to encourage consumers             law which they adopt in the field governed by the Directive.
to purchase such products rather than imported products,
stimulating their sale to the detriment of products from other
Member States.                                                             As a result of an assessment of the national legislation
                                                                           communicated, the Commission found the existence of a
                                                                           number of inconsistencies and gaps in the United Kingdom’s
It follows that the system of quality labels introduced by the             transposition. As the United Kingdom authorities have not
Regions of Abruzzi and Sicily constitutes a barrier to intra-              communicated any amending legislation designed to remedy
Community trade contrary to Article 28 EC.                                 the situation, except for a draft concerning Gibraltar which
                                                                           has not yet been adopted, the Commission concludes that the
                                                                           United Kingdom has failed to transpose correctly Articles 1(4),
                                                                           1(5), 2(1), 2(2), 2(4), 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4), 4(1), 4(2), 4(3), 5(1)
                                                                           and 5(2) of the Directive.
                                                                           (1 ) OJ L 377, 31.12.1991, p. 20.
                                                                           (2 ) OJ L 168, 2.7.1994, p. 28.
Action brought on 29 November 2002 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the United
                              Kingdom
                         (Case C-431/02)
                                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Ufficio del
                          (2003/C 19/38)                                   Giudice di Pace di Lendinara by order of that Court of
                                                                           29 October 2002 in the case of Dr Lucio Trombin against
                                                                                Insight World Education Systems Limited
An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the                                         (Case C-432/02)
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 Novem-
ber 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Xavier Lewis and Minas Konstantinidis, acting                                         (2003/C 19/39)
as agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by order of the Ufficio del Giudice di
1)    declare that, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary         Pace di Lendinara (Office of the Lendinara Magistrate) of
      to comply with its obligations under Articles 1(4), 1(5),            29 October 2002, received at the Court Registry on 29 Novem-
      2(1), 2(2), 2(4), 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4), 4(1), 4(2), 4(3), 5(1)     ber 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Dr Lucio
      and 5(2) of Council Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous                Trombin against Insight World Education Systems Limited on
      waste ( 1), the United Kingdom of Great Britain and                  the following questions:
      Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      this Directive and under the Treaty establishing the
      European Community;                                                  1.    Are the rules or administrative practices of the national
                                                                                legal order, such as those described at points III and IV
                                                                                hereof, compatible with the principles of the EC Treaty
2)    order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.                                 concerning the free movement of persons (Article 39 et


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 13 September 1995 in Joined Cases T-244/93 and T-486/93: TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf GmbH v. Commission of the European Communities (State aid - Commission decisions suspending payment of certain aids until previous unlawful aids have been repaid)

text:
28 . 10 . 95             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 286/9
(Third Chamber ), composed of J. Biancarelli, President,                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
C. P. Briet and C. W. Bellamy, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,                                       of 13 July 1995
gave a judgment on 13 July 1995 , in which it:
                                                                            in Case T-176/94: K v. Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities ( ] )
1 . dismisses the applications;                                          (Officials — European Convention for the protection of
                                                                         human rights and fundamental freedoms — Complaint —
2 . orders the applicants to bear their own costs and those                            Right to respect for private life)
     incurred by the Council;                                                                      ( 95/C 286/22 )
3 . orders the Commission to bear its own costs.                                        (Language of the case: French)
(') OJ No C 91 , 1 . 4 . 1993 , OJ No C 124, 6 . 5 . 1993 and OJ No      In Case T-176/94 : K, an official of the Commission of the
     C 159 , 11 . 6 . 1993 .                                             European Communities, residing in Brussels, represented by
                                                                         Jean-Noel Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
                                                                         service in Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire Myson
                                                                         Sari, 1 Rue Glesener, v. Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities ( Agents : Ana Maria Alves Vieira and Denis
                                                                         Waelbroeck ) — application for the annulment of the
                                                                         Commission decision rejecting by implication the
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 applicant's claim for compensation and of the express
                                                                         decision rejecting his complaint and, in addition, an
                             of 13 July 1995                             application for compensation — the Court of First Instance
in Case T-545/93 : Heinz Kschwendt v. Commission of the                  (Third Chamber ), composed of J. Biancarelli, President,
                      European Communities ( ] )                         C. P. Briet and C. W. Bellamy, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez,
(Officials — Dependent child allowance — Education                       Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 July 1 995 , in which it
                                                                         rules :
allowance — Medical expenses — Recovery of undue
                                 payment)
                              ( 95/C 286/21 )                            1 . the application is dismissed;
                  (Language of the case: French)                         2 . the parties are ordered to bear their own costs.
In Case T-545/93 : Heinz Kschwendt, an official of the                   (') OJ No C 161 , 11 . 6 . 1994 .
Commission of the European Communities, residing in
Luxembourg, represented by Georges Vandersanden and
Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 Rue
Glesener, v. Commission of the European Communities
( Agents : Ana Maria Alves Vieira and Bertrand Wagenbaur )
— application for the annulment of the decisions of the                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Commission of 3 February 1993 , 29 March 1993 and                                           of 13 September 1995
2 1 June 1993 declaring that the applicant was not entitled to
certain benefits in respect of his daughter and ordering the             in Joined Cases T-244/93 and T-486/93 : TWD
recovery of sums unduly paid — the Court of First Instance               Textilwerke Deggendorf GmbH v. Commission of the
( Third Chamber ), composed of J. Biancarelli , President, and                            European Communities ( 1 )
C. P. Briet and C. W. Bellamy, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,               (State aid — Commission decisions suspending payment of
has given a judgment on 13 July 1995 , in which it:                      certain aids until previous unlawful aids have been
                                                                                repaid)
 1 . takes cognizance of the partial withdrawal of the claims                                      ( 95/C 286/23 )
     contained in the application, to the extent specified in
     paragraph 25 of the judgment;                                                     (Language of the case: German)
2 . dismisses the action;
                                                                         In Joined Cases T-244/93 and T-486/93 : TWD Textilwerke
                                                                         Deggendorf GmbH, established in Deggendorf ( Germany ),
3 . orders the defendant to pay all of the costs.                        represented by Walter Forstner, Lutz Radtke and
                                                                         Karl-Heinz Schupp, Rechtsanwalte, Deggendorf, assisted by
(') OJ No C 313 , 19 . 11 . 1993 .                                       Michael Schweitzer, Professor at the University of Passau,
                                                                         with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
                                                                         M. Stein, Bayerische Landesbank International SA, 7—9
                                                                         Boulevard Royal, supported by Federal Republic of
 ---pagebreak--- No C 286/ 10           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    28 . 10 . 95
Germany ( Agents : Ernst Röder and Bernd Kloke ) v.                   Claude Chavance ) and Italian Republic ( Agent: Danilo Del
Commission of the European Communities ( Agents :                     Gaizo ) — application for the annulment of Commission
Antonino Abate, Bernhard Jansen, Bernard Langeheine,                  Decision 93/ 127/EEC of 25 February 1993 introducing
Claus Michael Happe and Meinhard Hilf) — application for              safeguard measures in respect of rice originating in the
annulment        of  Article   2   of   Commission      Decision      Netherlands Antilles ( OJ 1993 L 50 , p. 27 ) and of
91 /391 /EEC of 26 March 1991 on aid granted by the                   Commission Decision 93/21 1 /EEC of 13 April 1993
German Government to Deggendorf GmbH, a producer of                   modifying Decision 93/ 127/EEC ( OJ 1993 L 90 , p. 36 ), and
polyamide and polyester yarns located in Deggendorf                   for an order that the Commission make good the damage
( Bavaria ) ( OJ 1991 L 215 , p. 16 ), and of Article 2 of            which the applicants consider they have suffered and may
Commission Decision 92/330/EEC of 18 December 1991 on                 yet suffer as a result of the adoption of those decisions — the
aid by Germany to the Deggendorf textile works ( OJ 1992              Court of First Instance ( Fourth Chamber, extended
L 1 83 , p. 36 ) — the Court of First Instance ( Third Chamber,       composition ), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, R.
extended composition ), composed of J. Biancarelli,                   Schintgen, C. P. Briët, R. García-Valdecasas and C. W.
President, R. Schintgen, C. P. Briët, R. García-Valdecasas            Bellamy, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on
and C. W. Bellamy, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a            14 September 1995 , in which it:
judgment on 13 September 1995 , in which it:
                                                                      1 . annuls Article 1 ( 1 ) of Commission Decision
1 . dismisses the actions;                                                 93/127/EEC of 25 February 1993 introducing
                                                                          safeguard measures in respect of rice originating in the
                                                                           Netherlands Antilles ;
2 . orders the applicant to bear its own costs, as well as
     those of the defendant;
                                                                      2 . dismisses the remainder of the applications;
3.   the intervener shall bear its own costs.
                                                                      3.   orders the Commission to bear its own costs and
0 ) OJ No C 212 , 14 . 8 . 1991 and OJ No C 167, 4 . 7 . 1992 .
                                                                           one-third of the applicant's costs, the applicants to bear
                                                                           two-thirds of their own costs and the interveners to bear
                                                                           their own costs .
                                                                      (') OJ No C 171 , 22 . 6 . 1993 .
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                     of 14 September 1995
in Joined Cases T-480/93 and T-483/93 : Antillean Rice
Mills and Others v. Commission of the European                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                         Communities ( ] )
                                                                                of 14 September 1995
(Association of the overseas countries and territories —
                                                                      in Case T-571 /93 : Lefebvre Frères et Soeurs v. Commission
Safeguard measure — Application for annnulment —
                          Admissibility)                                             of the European Communities ( 1 )
                          ( 95/C 286/24 )                             (Agriculture — Bananas — Action for damages — Delay in
                                                                      submitting a proposal for a regulation establishing the
                                                                      common organiziation of the market — Validity of
                  (Language of the case: Dutch)                       decisions ofthe Commission based on Article 115 of the EC
                                                                                Treaty)
In Joined Cases T-480/93 : Antillean Rice Mills NV,                                              ( 95/C 286/25 )
established in Bonaire, Netherlands Antilles, and Trading &
Shipping Co. Ter Beek BV, established in Amsterdam,                                    (Language of the case: French)
represented by Paul Glazener and Winfred Knibbeler, of the
Rotterdam Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe; and                    In Case T-571 /93 : Lefebvre Freres et Soeurs, established at
T-483/93 : European Rice Brokers AW, established in                   Douai ( France ), GIE Fructifruit, established at Barentin
 Oranjestad, Aruba, Alesie Curaçao NV, established in                 ( France ), Association des Mûrisseurs Indépendants,
Willemstad, Curaçao , Netherlands Antilles, and Guyana                established at Dieppe ( France ), and Star Fruits Cie,
 Investments AW, established in Oranjestad, Aruba,                    established in Brussels, represented by Jean-Philippe Kunlin
 represented by Johan Pel, of the Amsterdam Bar, with an              and Jean-Paul Montenot, of the Paris Bar, with an address
 address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Luc             for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt &
 Frieden, 62 Avenue Guillaume, against Commission of the              Medernach , 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, v. Commission of the
 European Communities (Agents: Etienne Lasnet, Thomas                 European Communities ( agents : Gerard Rozet and Marc de
 van Rijn and Marc van der Woude ), supported by Council              Pauw ), supported by the French Republic ( agents: Catherine
 of the European Union (Agent: Guus Houttuin ), French                 de Salins and Nicolas Eybalin ) — application for damages
 Republic (Agents: Edwige Belliard, Catherine de Salins and            pursuant to Article 178 and the second paragraph


title: Case F-50/15: Action brought on 27 March 2015 — FS v EESC

text:
               8.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/37

         Action brought on 27 March 2015 — FS v EESC
   (Case F-50/15)
   (2015/C 190/44)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: FS (represented by: L. Levi and A. Tymen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee (EESC)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision not to confirm the applicant in her post as head of unit and a claim for damages for the material and non-pecuniary harm allegedly suffered.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 25 May 2014 of the President of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) not confirming the applicant in her post as head of unit;

               —

               Annul the decision of 25 May 2014 entitled ‘Rider No 2’, reassigning the applicant to a non-management post;

               —

               In so far as necessary, annul the decision of 18 December 2014 rejecting the applicant’s claim of 21 August 2014;

               —

               Compensate the applicant for her material and non-pecuniary loss;

               —

               Order the EESC to pay all the costs.


title: Case F-80/08 R: Order of the President of the Civil Service Tribunal of 17 December 2008 — Wenig v Commission (Staff case — Interlocutory proceedings — Application for suspension of the operation of a decision to suspend the party concerned from his duties — Urgency not established)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/74

         Order of the President of the Civil Service Tribunal of 17 December 2008 — Wenig v Commission
   (Case F-80/08 R)
   (Staff case - Interlocutory proceedings - Application for suspension of the operation of a decision to suspend the party concerned from his duties - Urgency not established)
   (2009/C 44/131)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Fritz Harald Wenig (Woluwé-Saint-Pierre, Belgium) (represented by: G.-A. Dal. D. Voillemot, D. Bosquet, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for suspension of operation of the decision of 18 September 2008 by which the Commission suspended the applicant for an indefinite period and ordered EUR 1 000 a month to be withheld from his pay for a maximum period of six months.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim relief is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case C-186/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 12 April 2013 — Air Liquide Italia SpA and Others v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 12 April 2013 — Air Liquide Italia SpA and Others v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico
   (Case C-186/13)
   2013/C 207/11
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Air Liquide Italia SpA and Others

      Defendants: Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the protection of freedom of competition, free movement of undertakings, freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services (under Article 4(3) TEU, Article 101 TFEU, and Articles 49, 56 and 96 TFEU) compatible — and, if so, to what extent — with statutory provisions adopted by EU Member States which lay down minimum operating costs for the road haulage sector which involve the fixing by bodies external [to the contracting parties] of a component of the charge for the service concerned and, accordingly, of the contract price?

               2.

               Are such limitations of those principles justifiable — and, if so, under what conditions — in the light of the need to safeguard the public interest in road traffic safety and, in terms of that functional consideration, is there a proper place for the fixing of minimum operating costs as provided for under Article 83a of Legislative Decree No 112/2008 (as subsequently amended and supplemented)?

               3.

               Can the determination of minimum operating costs, to the above end, be left — in the absence of criteria predetermined by the legislation — to voluntary agreements between the types of trader concerned, failing which to bodies whose composition is characterised by the strong presence of persons representing private traders in that sector?


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 28 January 1999 in Case C-181/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): A. J. van der Kooy v. Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Part Four of the EC Treaty - Article 227 of the EC Treaty - Article 7(1)(a) of Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC - Goods in free circulation in overseas countries and territories)

text:
27.3.1999              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 86/5
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        (Fifth Chamber)                                                      (Fifth Chamber)
                      of 28 January 1999                                                   of 28 January 1999
                                                                     in Case C-181/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
in Case C-77/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from             the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): A. J. van der Kooy v.
the Handelsgericht Wien): Österreichische Unilever GmbH                            Staatssecretaris van FinancieÈn (1)
      v. Smithkline Beecham Markenartikel GmbH (1)
                                                                     (Part Four of the EC Treaty Ð Article 227 of the EC
(Interpretation of Article 30 of the EC Treaty and Council           Treaty Ð Article 7(1)(a) of Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC Ð
Directive 76/768/EEC Ð Cosmetic products Ð National                  Goods in free circulation in overseas countries and
         legislation imposing advertising restrictions)                                         territories)
                         (1999/C 86/08)                                                       (1999/C 86/09)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                              published in the European Court Reports)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     In Case C-181/97: reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                     of the EC Treaty from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
                                                                     (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) for a preliminary
                                                                     ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
In Case C-77/97: reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                     between A. J. van der Kooy and Staatssecretaris van
of the EC Treaty from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria)
                                                                     FinancieÈn Ð on the interpretation of Articles 132(1) and
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
                                                                     227 of the EC Treaty and of Article 7(1)(a) of Sixth
that court between Österreichische Unilever GmbH and
                                                                     Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
Smithkline Beecham Markenartikel GmbH Ð on the
                                                                     harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating
interpretation of Article 30 of the EC Treaty and Council
                                                                     to turnover taxes Ð Common system of value added tax:
Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the
                                                                     uniform basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1),
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
                                                                     as amended by Council Directive 91/680/EEC of
to cosmetic products (OJ L 262, 27.9.1976, p. 169) Ð the
                                                                     16 December 1991 supplementing the common system of
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J. P. Puissochet,
                                                                     value added tax and amending Directive 77/388/EEC with
President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida
                                                                     a view to the abolition of fiscal frontiers (OJ L 376,
(Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward and M.
                                                                     31.12.1991, p. 1) Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber),
Wathelet, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate-General; D.
                                                                     composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,
Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the
                                                                     J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, D. A. O.
Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 January 1999, in
                                                                     Edward (Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Judges; D.
which it has ruled:
                                                                     Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein,
                                                                     Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
                                                                     on 28 January 1999, in which it has ruled:
Article 6(3) of Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July
1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member
                                                                     The entry into a Member State of goods coming from the
States relating to cosmetic products precludes the
                                                                     Netherlands Antilles must be regarded as entry into the
application of national rules which prohibit the
                                                                     Community for the purposes of applying Article 7(1) of
advertising of cosmetic products intended to come into
                                                                     Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on
contact with mucous membranes, where the product in
                                                                     the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States
question is claimed to prevent the formation of tartar and
                                                                     relating to turnover taxes Ð Common system of value
parodontosis but is not in fact composed of any of the
                                                                     added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by
active substances listed in those rules as capable of
                                                                     Council Directive 91/680/EEC of 16 December 1991
achieving such a result and the party concerned has not
                                                                     supplementing the common system of value added tax and
obtained authorisation for the use of other substances.
                                                                     amending Directive 77/388/EEC with a view to the
                                                                     abolition of fiscal frontiers.
(1) OJ C 108, 5.4.1997.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 212, 12.7.1997.


title: Case F-51/08: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 17 February 2009 — Stols v Council (Staff case — Officials — Promotion — 2007 promotion procedure — Consideration of comparative merits — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               4.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/36

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 17 February 2009 — Stols v Council
   (Case F-51/08) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Promotion - 2007 promotion procedure - Consideration of comparative merits - Manifest error of assessment)
   (2009/C 82/63)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Willem Stols (Halsteren, Netherlands) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: Mr Bauer and Ms Balta, Agents)
   Re:
   The annulment of the Appointing Authority's decision not to include the applicant on the list of those promoted to grade AST 11 under the 2007 promotion procedure.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decisions of 16 July 2007 and of 5 February 2008 by which the Council of the European Union refused to promote Mr Stols to grade AST 11 under the 2007 promotion procedure;

               2.

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

      (1)  OJ C 183, 19.7.2008, p. 34.


C 83/16                  EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                        5.4.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            le Strade v SCA RL CMC Cooperativa Muratori Cementisti
                                                                           Ravenna, SpA ICLA Costruzioni Generali and SpA Impresa
                                                                           Toto e Toto.
The period within which the directive had to be transposed
expired on 28 October 2001.
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.
( 1) OJ 1998 L 289, p. 28.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-337/00 ( 1)
Action brought on 21 February 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the                                              (2003/C 83/32)
                             Netherlands
                           (Case C-80/03)
                                                                           By order of 13 December 2002 the President of the Court of
                                                                           Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                           (2003/C 83/30)
                                                                           from the register of Case C-337/00: Federal Republic of
                                                                           Germany v Commission of the European Communities.
An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                 (1 ) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.
21 February 2003 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by W. Wils, acting as Agent.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     Declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,                       Removal from the register of Case C-188/01 ( 1)
      regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
      comply with Directive 1999/93/EC ( 1) of the European
      Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 1999 on                                          (2003/C 83/33)
      a Community framework for electronic signatures, or in
      any event by failing to inform the Commission of those
      provisions, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to             By order of 12 December 2002 the President of the Court of
      fulfil its obligations under that directive;                         Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                           from the register of Case C-188/01 (Reference for a preliminary
—     Order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.               ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenats Salzburg):
                                                                           Francisco Javier Gonzales Moreno.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 200 of 14.7.2001.
The period within which the measures had to be adopted
expired on 19 July 2001.
( 1) OJ L 13 of 19.1.2000, p. 12.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-375/01 ( 1)
                                                                                (2003/C 83/34)
        Removal from the register of Case C-173/00 ( 1)
                                                                           By order of 15 January 2003 the President of the Court of
                           (2003/C 83/31)                                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                           from the register of Case C-375/01: Commission of the
                                                                           European Communities v Ireland.
By order of 14 January 2003 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                    (1 ) OJ C 348 of 8.12.2001.
from the register of Case C-173/00 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Consiglio di Stato): ANAS — Ente Nazionale per


title: Case C-367/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundespatentgericht by order of that Court of 26 June 2002 in the complaint proceedings of Deutsche Telekom AG against DKV Deutsche Krankenversicherung AG

text:
C 19/10                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      25.1.2003
       former employee, at his request, the documents relating to his      Chamber) of 26 October 2002 received at the Court Registry
       qualifications and professional experience gained during his        on 31 October 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the criminal
       employment.                                                         proceedings against Silvio Berlusconi on the following ques-
                                                                           tions:
( 1) OJ C 303, 27.10.2001.
                                                                           1.    Does Article 6 of Directive 68/151/EEC ( 1) on co-ordi-
                                                                                nation of safeguards which, for the protection of the
                                                                                interests of members and others, are required by Member
                                                                                States of companies within the meaning of the second
                                                                                paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, with a view
                                                                                to making such safeguards equivalent throughout the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundespat-                             Community concern not only cases of failure to publish
entgericht by order of that Court of 26 June 2002 in the                         the balance sheet and profit and loss account, but also
complaint proceedings of Deutsche Telekom AG against
                                                                                cases where those documents are published but their
           DKV Deutsche Krankenversicherung AG                                   contents are false, given that the harm to the interests of
                                                                                members and third parties is clearly greater in the latter
                          (Case C-367/02)                                        case? Is the directive intended in that respect to lay down
                                                                                a minimum level of protection at Community level
                           (2003/C 19/18)                                        leaving it to the Member States to put in place means of
                                                                                protection against the submitting of false balance sheets
                                                                                or the publishing of false company accounts?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the (Federal Patent Court)                2.    Do the criteria of effectiveness, proportionality and
of 26 June 2002, received at the Court Registry on 14 October                    dissuasiveness, which the penalties to be adopted by the
2002, for a preliminary ruling in the complaint proceedings                      Member States under Council Directive 68/151 must
of Deutsche Telekom AG against DKV Deutsche Krankenver-                          satisfy in order to be regarded as ‘appropriate’, refer to
sicherung AG on the following question:                                          the nature or type of penalty considered in the abstract,
                                                                                or rather to its application in practice having regard to
Do the words ‘association with the earlier trade mark’ in the                    the structural characteristics of the legal system within
second part of Article 4(1)(b) of the Trademarks Directive (1)                   which it takes effect?
apply to the case where the earlier trade mark is attributed to
the later trade mark, the later trade mark having been formed
by adding a well known company logo, or an element in a                    3.    Are the principles set out in Council Directive 78/660/
trade mark series belonging to the owner of the later trade                      EEC (2) of 25 July 1978 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the
mark, to the earlier trade mark, which is a one-word logo                        Treaty on the annual accounts of certain types of
which is neither the undertaking’s logo nor an element in a                      companies, Council Directive 83/349/EEC (3) of 13 June
trade mark series and is of average distinctiveness?                             1983 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty on consoli-
                                                                                dated accounts and Council Directive 90/605/EEC (4) of
                                                                                8 November 1990 amending Directive 78/660/EEC on
( 1) First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to                   annual accounts and Directive 83/349/EEC on consoli-
     approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade                 dated accounts as regards the scope of those directives,
     marks (OJ L 40 of 11.02.1989, p. 1).                                        upon which national measures relating to the drafting
                                                                                and contents of annual accounts and annual reports, in
                                                                                particular, of capital companies, must be based, to be
                                                                                interpreted as precluding a Member State from setting
                                                                                minimum thresholds below which inaccurate statements
                                                                                in annual accounts and annual reports relating to com-
                                                                                panies limited by shares, partnerships limited by shares
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di                           and limited liability companies are not punishable?
Milano, Prima Sezione penale by order of that court of
26 October 2002 in criminal proceedings against Silvio
                             Berlusconi
                                                                           (1 ) OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (I), p. 41.
                          (Case C-387/02)                                  (2 ) OJ 1978 L 222, p. 11.
                                                                           (3 ) OJ 1983 L 193, p. 1.
                           (2003/C 19/19)                                  (4 ) OJ 1990 L 317, p. 60.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Milano,
Prima Sezione penale (Milan District Court, First Criminal


C 304/20                 EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                     13.12.2003
Action brought on 31 October 2003 by the Commission                           from the register of Case C-28/02: Commission of the
        of the European Communities against Ireland                           European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
                          (Case C-460/03)
                                                                              (1) OJ C 68 of 16.3.2002.
                          (2003/C 304/29)
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 31 October 2003 by
the Commission of the European Communities, represented                              Removal from the register of Case C-162/02 (1)
by X. Lewis and M. Konstantinidis, acting as agents, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.                                                                     (2003/C 304/32)
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
1)    declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                  By order of 14 August 2003 the President of the Court of
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
      Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of                  from the register of Case C-162/02: Commission of the
      the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of life                         European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
      vehicles (1), Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      the directive and in particular its Article 10(1) and under             (1) OJ C 156 of 29.6.2002.
      the Treaty establishing the European Community;
2)    order Ireland to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-231/02 (1)
The period within which the directive had to be transposed
expired on 21 April 2002.                                                                              (2003/C 304/33)
(1) OJ L 269, 21.10.2000, p. 34.
                                                                              By order of 18 September 2003 the President of the Court of
                                                                              Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                              from the register of Case C-231/02 (Reference for a preliminary
                                                                              ruling by the Bundesvergabeamt): Neumayer Bau Ges.m.b.H v
                                                                              Abwasserverband Grossraum Bruck an der Leitha.
       Removal from the register of Case C-379/01 (1)
                          (2003/C 304/30)                                     (1) OJ C 219 of 14.9.2002.
By order of 16 September 2003 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-379/01 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Bundesvergabeamt): Ortner GmbH v Allgemeine                            Removal from the register of Case C-380/02 (1)
Unfallversicherungsanstalt.
                                                                                (2003/C 304/34)
(1) OJ C 3 of 5.1.2002.
                                                                              By order of 18 September 2003 the President of the Court of
                                                                              Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                              from the register of Case C-380/02 (Reference for a preliminary
        Removal from the register of Case C-28/02 (1)                         ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes
                                                                              Vorarlberg): Fantom Gebäudereinigung Gesellschaft GmbH v
                          (2003/C 304/31)                                     Dornbirn.
                                                                              (1) OJ C 7 of 11.1.2003.
By order of 1st August 2003 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal


title: Case C-167/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil régional d’expression française de l’ordre des médecins vétérinaires (Belgique) lodged on 27 March 2013 — Jean Devillers

text:
               8.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 164/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil régional d’expression française de l’ordre des médecins vétérinaires (Belgique) lodged on 27 March 2013 — Jean Devillers
   (Case C-167/13)
   2013/C 164/21
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil régional d’expression française de l’ordre des médecins vétérinaires

      Party to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Jean Devillers

      Question referred

   Must Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and Annex I thereto, Chapter I, entitled ‘Fitness for transport’, (1) paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, which provide that in cases of doubt veterinary advice is to be sought regarding the fitness for transport of an injured animal and, more specifically, regarding the assessment of the additional suffering that the transport would cause, be interpreted as precluding Article 11(4) of the Royal Decree of 9 July 1999 concerning the protection of animals during transport, (2) which allows the transport of an injured animal only where that transport does not cause unnecessary suffering?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97 (OJ 2005 L 3, p. 1).

      (2)  Royal Decree of 9 July 1999 concerning the protection of animals during transport and the conditions of registration of transporters and certification of traders, starting points and assembly centres (Moniteur belge, 2 September 1999, p. 32437).


title: Case C-545/12: Action brought on 27 November 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Cyprus

text:
               2.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/8

         Action brought on 27 November 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Cyprus
   (Case C-545/12)
   2013/C 32/11
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Hetsch, J. Hottiaux and Μ. Constantinidis, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Cyprus

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare that by not adopting all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences (recast) (OJ 2006 L 403 p. 18) and, in any event, by not communicating to the Commission the text of those provisions, the Republic of Cyprus failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16 of that directive;

               —

               impose on the Republic of Cyprus, pursuant to Article 260(3) TFEU, payment of a daily penalty payment amounting to EUR 6 504,96 from the date of publication of the judgment of the Court;

               —

               order the Republic of Cyprus to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Article 16(1) of Directive 2006/126/EC obliges the Member States to adopt and publish, no later than 19 January 2011, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the new provisions which the directive concerned introduces and specifies.
   The Republic of Cyprus has not fully transposed into domestic law the provisions of the directive. In particular, the Commission has ascertained that, at the date of lodging of the action, the Republic of Cyprus had not transposed into its domestic law Articles 1(1), 3, 7(1), 7(3), 7(5), 10 and 15 or Annex Ι, point 2, Annex ΙΙ, point 5.2 or Annexes IV, V and VI of the directive.
   Consequently, the Commission considers that the Republic of Cyprus failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(3) TFEU.


title: Case T-308/07: Action brought on 16 August 2007 — Tegebauer v Parliament

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/49

         Action brought on 16 August 2007 — Tegebauer v Parliament
   (Case T-308/07)
   (2007/C 269/89)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Ingo-Jens Tegebauer (Trier, Germany) (represented by: R. Nieporte, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare null and void the Decision of the Committee on Petitions of 20 June 2007 on Petition No 0095/2007;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant contests the Decision of the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament of 20 June 2007, by which the petition submitted by the applicant in accordance with Article 191(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament was put on the file without further action being taken. The applicant's petition relates to the partial recovery of the candidate's remuneration paid during his pre-service training for the career of senior general administrator with the municipality of Brunswick.
   In support of his application, the applicant submits that the contested decision is not sufficiently well founded. In addition, he points out that the requirements for submission of a petition under Article 194 EC are met, in particular that it relates to a matter which comes within the Community's fields of activity and which affects him directly.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 21 April 2005 in Case T-28/03 Holcim (Deutschland) AG v Commission of the European Communities (Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) — Compliance with a judgment of the Court of First Instance — Reimbursement of bank guarantee charges — Non-contractual liability of the Community)

text:
               25.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/14

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 21 April 2005
   in Case T-28/03 Holcim (Deutschland) AG v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) - Compliance with a judgment of the Court of First Instance - Reimbursement of bank guarantee charges - Non-contractual liability of the Community)
   (2005/C 155/28)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case T-28/03: Holcim (Deutschland) AG, formerly Alsen AG, established in Hamburg (Germany), represented initially by F. Wiemer, and K. Moosecker, then by F. Wiemer, P. Niggemann and B. Menkhaus, lawyers, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: R. Lyal and W. Mölls, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — Application for compensation in the form of reimbursement of the bank guarantee charges incurred by the applicant following a fine fixed by Commission Decision 94/815/EC of 30 November 1994 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty (Cases IV/33.126 and 33.322 — Cement) (OJ 1994 L 343, p. 1), which was annulled by the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 March 2000 in Joined Cases T-25/95, T-26/95, T-30/95 to T-32/95, T-34/95 to T-39/95, T-42/95 to T-46/95, T-48/95, T-50/95 to T-65/95, T-68/95 to T-71/95, T-87/95, T-88/95, T-103/95 and T-104/95 Cimenteries CBR and Others v Commission (‘Cement’) [2000] ECR II-491 — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of J. Azizi, President, M. Jaeger and F. Dehousse, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 21 April 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as inadmissible in so far as it is based on Article 233 EC;

               2.

               Dismisses as inadmissible the alternative request that the action, in so far as it is based on Article 233 EC, be interpreted as being an action for annulment or for failure to act;

               3.

               Dismisses as inadmissible the claim for damages, as regards the bank guarantee charges incurred by the applicant before 31 January 1998;

               4.

               Dismisses the remainder of the application as unfounded;

               5.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 124 of 24.5.2003.


title: Case T-93/11: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2013 — Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents concerning the negotiations between the European Union and the Republic of India for the purposes of concluding a free trade agreement — Refusal of access — Exception relating to the protection of the public interest in the field of international relations — Documents which have entered the public domain — Non-imposition of a restriction on disclosure of documents)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/67

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2013 — Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory v Commission
   (Case T-93/11) (1)

   (Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents concerning the negotiations between the European Union and the Republic of India for the purposes of concluding a free trade agreement - Refusal of access - Exception relating to the protection of the public interest in the field of international relations - Documents which have entered the public domain - Non-imposition of a restriction on disclosure of documents)
   2013/C 225/148
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: S. Crosby, Solicitor, and S. Santoro, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and C. ten Dam, and subsequently F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and I. Zervas, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze, J. Möller, K. Petersen and A. Wiedmann, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of the Commission of 6 December 2010 refusing the applicant full access to several documents relating to the negotiations between the European Union and the Republic of India aimed at concluding a free trade agreement, pursuant to the third indent of Article 4(1)(a) of 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).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The General Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

               3.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 9.4.2011.


title: Case C-126/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Midden-Nederland (Netherlands) lodged on 26 February 2016 — Federatie Nederlandse Vakvereniging and Others v Smallsteps BV

text:
               10.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Midden-Nederland (Netherlands) lodged on 26 February 2016 — Federatie Nederlandse Vakvereniging and Others v Smallsteps BV
   (Case C-126/16)
   (2016/C 165/12)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank Midden-Nederland

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Federatie Nederlandse Vakvereniging, Karin van den Burg-Vergeer, Lyoba Tanja Alida Kukupessy, Danielle Paase-Teeuwen, Astrid Johanna Geertruda Petronelle Schenk

      Defendant: Smallsteps BV

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Netherlands insolvency procedure, in the event of the transfer of the insolvent undertaking in the case where insolvency is preceded by a judicially-monitored pre-pack procedure, which is expressly aimed at securing the survival of (parts of) the undertaking, compatible with the objective and purport of Directive 2001/23/EC, (1) and is Article 7:666(1)(a) of the Burgerlijk Wetboek (Civil Code), in that light, (still) in conformity with the Directive?

               2.

               Is Directive 2001/23/EC applicable in the case where a so-called ‘prospective insolvency administrator’ (‘beoogd curator’) appointed by the Rechtbank acquaints himself, prior to commencement of the insolvency procedure, with the situation of the debtor and investigates the possibilities for a restructuring of the activities of the undertaking by a third party and also prepares for acts which must be carried out shortly after the insolvency in order to enable the restructuring to take place by means of an asset transaction through which the undertaking of the debtor, or part thereof, will be transferred at the date of the insolvency or shortly thereafter, and those activities, in their totality or in part, are continued (virtually) without interruption?

               3.

               Does it make any difference in this regard whether the continuation of the undertaking is the primary objective of the pre-pack, or whether the (prospective) insolvency administrator’s primary objective with the pre-pack and the sale of the assets in the form of a ‘going concern’ immediately after the insolvency is to maximise the proceeds for all of the creditors, or that, in the context of the pre-pack, consensus on the transfer of assets (continuation of the undertaking) is achieved before the insolvency and its implementation is formalised and/or effected after the insolvency? And how should the matter be viewed if it is sought to secure both the continuation of the undertaking and the maximisation of proceeds?

               4.

               Is the date of the transfer of the undertaking for purposes of the applicability of Directive 2001/23/EC and of Article 7:662 et seq. of the Civil Code arising from it, in the context of a pre-pack preceding the insolvency of the undertaking, determined by the actual consensus on the transfer of the undertaking achieved prior to the insolvency, or is that date determined by the point in time at which responsibility as employer for carrying on the business of the unit in question shifts from the transferor to the transferee?

      (1)  Council Directive of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses (OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16).


title: Case F-42/15: Action brought on 10 March 2015 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               1.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/28

         Action brought on 10 March 2015 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-42/15)
   (2015/C 178/32)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: A. Salerno, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the salary statement of May 2014, in so far as it applies Regulation (EU) No 423/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 adjusting with effect from 1 July 2012 the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union, itself unlawful since it does not provide for a weighting of the remuneration of officials who work in Luxembourg, where the cost of living is appreciably higher than in Brussels.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision fixing his pay for May 2014, in so far as it does not provide for him to benefit from any weighting;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case C-493/07: Action brought on 9 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Slovak Republic

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/30

         Action brought on 9 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Slovak Republic
   (Case C-493/07)
   (2007/C 315/51)
   Language of the case: Slovak
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by G. Braun and J. Javorský, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Slovak Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to ensure that that undertakings which operate public telephone networks make caller location information available to authorities handling emergencies for calls to the single European emergency call number ‘112’, the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 26(3) of Directive 2002/22/EC (1);

               —

               order the Slovak Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for adopting measures to transpose the directive expired on 24 July 2003.

      (1)  Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive), OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51.


title: Case C-166/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 7 April 2014  — MedEval — Qualitäts-, Leistungs- und Struktur-Evaluierung im Gesundheitswesen GmbH v Bundesvergabeamt

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/16

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 7 April 2014 — MedEval — Qualitäts-, Leistungs- und Struktur-Evaluierung im Gesundheitswesen GmbH v Bundesvergabeamt
   (Case C-166/14)
   2014/C 282/22
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: MedEval — Qualitäts-, Leistungs- und Struktur-Evaluierung im Gesundheitswesen GmbH

      Defendant: Bundesvergabeamt

      Other parties: Bundesminister für Wissenschaft, Forschung und Wirtschaft; Hauptverband der österreichischen Sozialversicherungsträger; Pharmazeutische Gehaltskasse für Österreich

      Question referred

   Is EU law — in particular the general principles of equivalence and effectiveness and Council Directive 89/665/EEC (1) of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive 2007/66/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 amending Council Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC with regard to improving the effectiveness of review procedures concerning the award of public contracts — to be interpreted as precluding a national legal situation in which an application for a declaration of an infringement of public procurement law must be made within six months of the conclusion of the contract, if the declaration of an infringement of public procurement law is a precondition not only of annulling the contract but also of bringing a claim for damages?

      (1)  OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33.

      (2)  OJ 2007 L 335, p. 31.


title: Case F-53/07: Action brought on 24 December 2007 — Iordanova v Commission

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/44

         Action brought on 24 December 2007 — Iordanova v Commission
   (Case F-53/07)
   (2008/C 107/76)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Ivanka Iordanova (Varna, Bulgaria) (represented by: G. Kerelov, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Annulment of the decision of the selection board in competition EPSO/AST/14/06 of 3 April 2007 refusing to admit the applicant to that competition and damages for material and non-material loss.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the selection board in competition EPSO/AST/14/06 of 3 April 2007 refusing to admit the applicant to that competition;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay to the applicant damages fixed in accordance with the principles of equity at EUR 28 718 for the material and non-material loss suffered as a result of the unlawful decision of the selection board, plus interest from the date of lodging the application;

               —

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


title: Case C-8/15 P: Appeal brought on 12 January 2015 by Ledra Advertising Ltd against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 10 November 2014 in Case T-289/13: Ledra Advertising Ltd v Commission and European Central Bank

text:
               26.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/7

         Appeal brought on 12 January 2015 by Ledra Advertising Ltd against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 10 November 2014 in Case T-289/13: Ledra Advertising Ltd v Commission and European Central Bank
   (Case C-8/15 P)
   (2015/C 171/11)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Ledra Advertising Ltd (represented by: C. Paschalides, Solicitor, A. Paschalides, dikigoros and A. Riza QC)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission and European Central Bank

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               allow the appeal and dismiss the applications of the Defendants and order them to bear the costs, both before this Court and before the General Court and for the case to proceed to trial on the substantive issues.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The General Court infringed EU law in its appraisal of a number of propositions in its judgment as follows.

                           a)

                           That the ‘duties conferred on the Commission… within the ESM Treaty do not entail any power to make decisions of their own and …that the activities of those two institutions within the ESM Treaty solely commit the ESM (1),’ was relied on by the General Court without appraising at all the impact of the proposition of law it accepted arguendo at paragraph 48, that the Commission ‘had not surrendered effective control of its overarching decision making role under Article 136(3) [TFEU] pursuant to its powers under Article 17 [TEU] to act as the EU institution responsible for ensuring that acts concluded under the ESM Treaty were in conformity with EU law.’

                           b)

                           It is submitted that the case of Pringle
                               (2)upon which the General Court relied (3), decides that whereas the Commission and the ECB solely commit the ESM (4), nevertheless at inter alia
                               (5) paragraph 164 of that case the court observed that the ‘tasks allocated to the Commission by the ESM Treaty enable it, as provided in 13(3) and 13(4) of that treaty, to ensure that the memoranda of understanding concluded by the ESM are consistent with EU law’ and at paragraph 174 that ‘under Article 13(3) of the ESM Treaty the MoU which is to be negotiated with the Member State requesting stability support must be fully consistent with EU law.’

                           c)

                           ‘A claim for compensation that is directed against the EU and is based on the mere illegality of an act or course of conduct that has not been adopted by an institution of the EU or by its servants must be rejected as inadmissible (6),’ was applied without an appraisal of the submission in the Appellant’s reply which was that ... the ECB must have been acting as an EU institution since the ESM could not lawfully exercise effective control of the coercive power under EU law to allow and/or make and/or act in furtherance of the unless-demand. The said coercive power is vested exclusively in the ECB ‘... effective control of which could not be surrendered under EU law.’

                           d)

                           ‘The conduct allegedly giving rise to the damage pleaded is a failure by the Commission to act when signing the MoU. However, the MoU was signed after the reduction in the value of the applicant’s deposit... That reduction actually occurred on the entry into force of the measures of 29 March 2013. Therefore the applicant cannot be regarded as having established with necessary certainty that the damage it claims to have suffered was actually caused by the inaction alleged against the Commission’ (7). This proposition ignores the way the applicant put his case referred to at paragraph 41 of the judgment viz. ‘that it is in respect of the conditions attached to FAF provided to [the Republic of Cyprus] on 26 April 2013and the process by which they were required by the Commission and the ECB that caused the applicant damage for which it seeks compensation pursuant to Articles 268 and 340 TFEU.’ The process by which they were required included the failure by the Commission to ensure that the conditionality was in conformity with EU law and the unless-demand made by the ECB to cut the supply of euro to Cyprus off which were continuing acts/failures to act beginning on 15 March 2013 and ending with compliance with the conditionality on 29 March 2013.

                           e)

                           The contents of the MoU were challenged on the basis that they referred back to prior compliance with a conditionality that ex hypothesi arose prior to the diminution in the value of the applicant’s deposit, which the General Court failed to appraise as an integral part of a course of conduct.

                           f)

                           ‘In cases where the conduct allegedly giving rise to the damage pleaded consists in refraining from taking action, it is particularly necessary to be certain that the damage was actually caused by the inaction complained of and could not have been caused by conduct separate from that alleged against the defendant institution’: Portela v Commission
                               (8). In other words ‘even if’ (9) the Commission acted in accordance with its duty to ensure the conditions were consistent with EU law it would have made no difference ‘as the MoU was signed after the reduction in value of the applicant’s deposit at BoC (10).’ Again the General Court failed to appraise the arguments relied on by the Appellant: see inter alia (d) and (e) above.

                           g)

                           Further and alternatively the General Court was wrong in point of fact to hold that the MoU was signed after the diminution deposits in all cases. In the case of BoC the final diminution in value did not occur until after the MoU was signed on 26 April 2013 viz. at the end of June 2013.

               2.

               If the ECJ accepts that the defendants were in law capable of acting as institutions of the EU it follows that the General Court’s decision in respect of the second head of claim [for annulment] referred to at paragraphs 55 to 60 of the judgment would fall away afortiori.

      (1)  At paragraph 45 of its judgment.

      (2)  Case C-370/12 [2012].

      (3)  Paragraph 45 of judgment.

      (4)  Paragraph 45 of judgment dated 10 November 2014.

      (5)  See also 112 and 163.

      (6)  Paragraph 43 of the judgment and case C-520/12 P.

      (7)  Paragraph 54 of judgment.

      (8)  Case T-137/07 at paragraph 80.

      (9)  Case T-7/96 Perillo v Commission.

      (10)  Paragraph 54 of judgment.


title: Case T-198/16: Action brought on 1 May 2016 — Interbank Deposit Protection Fund v Commission

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/33

         Action brought on 1 May 2016 — Interbank Deposit Protection Fund v Commission
   (Case T-198/16)
   (2016/C 222/41)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Interbank Deposit Protection Fund (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Siragusa, G. Scassellati Sforzolini and G. Faella, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul European Commission Decision C(2015) 9526 final of 23 December 2015 on the State aid SA.39451 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN);

               —

               in the alternative, annul that decision in so far as it concerns the assessment and classification of the aid element inherent in measure 3;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs;

               —

               order any other measure, including any measure of inquiry, which it deems appropriate.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The decision contested in the present action is the same one contested in Case T-98/16, Italy v Commission, and Case T-196/16, Banca Tercas v Commission.
   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in those two cases.


title: Case C-177/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 12 de Sevilla (Spain) lodged on 7 April 2010 — Francisco Javier Rosado Santana v Consejería de la Justicia y Administración Pública de la Junta de Andalucía

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 12 de Sevilla (Spain) lodged on 7 April 2010 — Francisco Javier Rosado Santana v Consejería de la Justicia y Administración Pública de la Junta de Andalucía
   (Case C-177/10)
   2010/C 179/27
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 12 de Sevilla

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Francisco Javier Rosado Santana

      Defendant: Consejería de la Justicia y Administración Pública de la Junta de Andalucía

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is [Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP] (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, if the Constitutional Court of a Member State has ruled that the establishment of different rights for temporary civil servants and career civil servants of that State might not be contrary to its Constitution, that necessarily means that the directive is excluded from applying in the sphere of that State’s civil service?

               2.

               Is Directive 1999/70 to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a national court from interpreting the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination in a manner which generally excludes from their scope the placing of temporary civil servants and career civil servants on an equal footing?

               3.

               Is Clause 4 to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a refusal to take into account as length of service, in attaining the status of member of the permanent staff, previous periods of service as a temporary employee, specifically for the purposes of remuneration, grading and career advancement in the civil service?

               4.

               Does Clause 4 require an interpretation of the national legislation to the effect that it does not exclude from the calculation of length of service of civil servants periods worked under a temporary employment relationship?

               5.

               Is Clause 4 to be interpreted as meaning that, even though the rules of a public selection process were published and were not contested by the applicant, the national court must examine whether those rules are contrary to the Community legislation and, in that case, must the national court refrain from applying those rules or the national provision on which they are based in so far as they conflict with that clause?

      (1)  OJ L 175, p. 43


title: Case F-101/12: Action brought on 24 September 2012 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               25.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 147/36

         Action brought on 24 September 2012 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-101/12)
   2013/C 147/69
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and S. Orlandi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision to withdraw the offer of transfer of pension rights accepted by the applicant and to replace it with another, calculated on the basis of the new GIP.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare Article 9 of the General Implementing Provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations unlawful;

               —

               Annul the decision of 21 June 2011 annulling and replacing the offer of transfer of pension rights accepted on 28 July 2010;

               —

               Annul the decision of 21 June 2011 to apply the parameters set out in the General Implementing Provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011 to the applicant’s application for transfer of pension rights;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-393/12: Action brought on 4 September 2012 — Tsujimoto v OHIM — Kenzo (KENZO)

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/32

         Action brought on 4 September 2012 — Tsujimoto v OHIM — Kenzo (KENZO)
   (Case T-393/12)
   2012/C 355/67
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Kenzo Tsujimoto (Osaka, Japan) (represented by: A. Wenninger-Lenz, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kenzo SA (Paris, France)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 May 2012 in case R 1659/2011-2; and

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘KENZO’, for goods in class 33 — Community trade mark application No 6334544

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 720706 for the word mark ‘KENZO’, for goods and services in classes 3, 18 and 25

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the CTM application in its entirety

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(5) of Council Regulation No 40/94; and

               —

               Infringement of Articles 75 and 76 of Council Regulation No 40/94.


title: Case T-223/06 P: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 May 2007 — Parliament v Eistrup (Appeal — Application signed by a lawyer by means of a stamp — Inadmissibility of the action)

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/24

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 May 2007 — Parliament v Eistrup
   (Case T-223/06 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Application signed by a lawyer by means of a stamp - Inadmissibility of the action)
   (2007/C 155/47)
   Language of the case: Danish
   Parties

      Appellant: European Parliament (represented by: H. von Hertzen and L. Knudsen, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Ole Eistrup (Knebel, Denmark) (represented by: S. Hjelmborg and M. Honoré, lawyers)
   Re:
   Appeal against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 13 July 2006 in Case F-102/05 Eistrup v Parliament ECR-SC I-A-0000 and II-0000, seeking to have that order set aside
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal of 13 July 2006 in Case F-102/05 Eistrup v Parliament (not yet published in the ECR);

               2.

               Dismisses the action brought by Mr Eistrup before the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-102/05 as inadmissible;

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs relating to both the proceedings at first instance and the appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 249, 14.10.2006.