title: Case C-341/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling, by order of the Landesgericht Korneuburg of 4 September 2001 in the case of Pato Plastik Robert Frank GmbH v CAROPACK Handelsgesellschaft mbH

text:
24.11.2001             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 331/7
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster                      (Regional Court) Korneuburg of 4 September 2001, which was
Gerichtshof, Republic of Austria, by order of that court                received at the Court Registry on 11 September 2001, for a
on 25 June 2001, in the case of Carlito Abler and                       preliminary ruling in the case of Pato Plastik Robert Frank
21 others, intervener: Sanrest Großküchen-Betriebsge-                   GmbH v CAROPACK Handelsgesellschaft mbH on the follow-
sellschaft mbH against Sodexho MM Catering Gesellschaft                 ing questions:
                         (Case C-340/01)
                                                                        1.1. Are plastic carrier bags ‘packaging’ within the meaning
                                                                              of European Parliament and the Council Directive
                         (2001/C 331/10)                                      94/62/EC 20 December 1994 (1), particularly Article 3(1)
                                                                              thereof,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        (a)    if a retailer offers them as an article in the cash-
European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof,                           desk area and hands them over to customers upon
Republic of Austria (Supreme Court) of 25 June 2001, received                        request against payment so that the purchased
at the Court Registry on 10 September 2001, for a preliminary                        goods can be taken away, or
ruling in the case of Carlito Abler and 21 others, intervener:
Sanrest Großküchen-Betriebsgesellschaft mbH against Sodex-
ho MM Catering Gesellschaft, on the following question:
                                                                              (b) if a retailer hands them over to customers for the
                                                                                same purpose after the price has been paid for the
Is there a transfer of part of a business within the meaning of                      purchased goods, regardless whether customers ask
Article 1 of Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February                             for them and without obligatory payment of any
1977 (1) on the approximation of the laws of the Member                              extra charge, and they are then filled with the
States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the                      purchased goods?
event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of
businesses where a hospital authority, which has previously
employed a catering undertaking to supply meals and bever-
ages to patients and hospital staff at a price based on a day of        1.2.1. First additional question, in the event that one of the
catering per person, and to that end has made available to that                 above questions is answered in the affirmative on the
undertaking water and energy as well as its service premises                    basis of the German version:
(hospital kitchen) together with the necessary equipment,
transfers, after giving notice of termination of that contract,
those operations and the assets previously made available to                    Is the result different if, for the definition of the word
that first catering undertaking to a second catering undertaking                ‘packaging’ in Article 3(1) of the Directive, not the
which does not take over the assets (staff, stock, accounting                   German text, which only has the words ‘von Waren’,
material and menu, diet, recipe or general records) brought in                  but the French or Italian text [Or. 2] is deemed decisive,
by the first catering undertaking itself?                                       which both refer to specific goods (‘marchandises
                                                                                données’ and ‘determinate merci’), and are the plastic
                                                                                carrier bags made by the plaintiff in this case not
(1) OJ 1997 L 61, p. 26.                                                        packaging for the purposes of the Directive because
                                                                                they are filled with any goods at all (rather than with
                                                                                predetermined goods), and in this case which text
                                                                                applies?
                                                                        1.2.2. Second additional question, in the event that one of
                                                                                the above questions is answered in the negative:
Reference for a preliminary ruling, by order of the
Landesgericht Korneuburg of 4 September 2001 in the
case of Pato Plastik Robert Frank GmbH v CAROPACK                               May the Austrian legislature or the Commission make
                    Handelsgesellschaft mbH                                     products which are not packaging under the Directive
                                                                                subject to the rules governing packaging laid down in
                         (Case C-341/01)                                        the Directive or to similar rules?
                         (2001/C 331/11)                                2.   Is it in conformity with Community law for the operator
                                                                             of the collection and recovery system set up in Austria to
                                                                             charge a fee (Lizengebühr) even for carrier bags not
                                                                             covered by Directive 94/62/EC solely on the ground that
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       the bags bear a mark (‘der Grüne Punkt’) over which the
European Communities by order of the Landesgericht                           operator disposes?
 ---pagebreak--- C 331/8                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   24.11.2001
3.1. Is a ‘producer’, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the               Directive, is ‘essential’, because everything marked with
      Directive, only someone who brings goods into contact                   the ‘Grüner Punkt’ symbol is mixed together and, above
      with the product used as packaging or has them brought                  all, takes away from consumers the right, granted and
      into contact, and not also an undertaking which makes                   guaranteed to consumers by the Sixth VAT Directive, to
      a product intended for use as packaging, and is this                    a VAT rate reduced by half or a lower rate for the disposal
      product then to be regarded as packaging material?                      of their household waste?
                                                                         7.   May the Austrian Packaging Regulation arrange the
                                                                              collection and recovery systems required by Article 7(1)of
                                                                              the Directive in such a way that a monopolist or an
3.2. Additional question, in the event that the preceding
                                                                              oligopolist can have power of disposal over all packaging
      question is answered in the affirmative: May the Austrian
                                                                              waste to be recycled into raw materials and so, by
      legislature or the Commission compel traders who
                                                                              providing subsidies to particular businesses, to particular
      merely make packaging material, that is to say a product
                                                                              branches of industry (for example the cement industry)
      which is intended to be filled with goods, to participate
                                                                              or to certain local authorities (for example, the City of
      in a collection and recovery system set up pursuant to
                                                                              Vienna), can control and subsidise the recycling of
      Article 7(1) of Directive 94/62/EC?
                                                                              waste as it wishes, thereby producing distortions of
                                                                              competition, or is such a system contrary to Community
                                                                              law, in particular Article 30 et. seq. and especially
                                                                              Article 37 EC?
4.   Is it contrary to the ‘polluter pays’ principle referred to in
     the preamble to Directive 94/62/EC for a law to provide,
     as does the first sentence of Paragraph 3(1) of the                 (1) OJ 1994 L 365, p. 10.
     Austrian Verpackungsverordnung (Austrian Packaging
     Regulation), that producers, in particular producers of
     packaging material (see paragraph 3(1) in conjunction
     with paragraph 1(1) of the Austrian Packaging Regu-
     lation), importers, packagers and distributors must take
     back free of charge sales and transport packaging after
     they have been used, in that the group of persons affected
     by this obligation is defined too narrowly and does not             Action brought on 13 September 2001 by the Com-
     include consumers, and/or does such a regulation conflict           mission of the European Communities against the Repub-
     with Article 1(1) of the Directive in so far as it is stated                                  lic of Austria
     there that the Directive’s aim is to avoid obstacles to
     trade, whereas an obligation for a producer to take back                                    (Case C-345/01)
     packaging materials is the greatest imaginable obstacle to
     trade?
                                                                                (2001/C 331/12)
5.   Does a collection and recovery system such as that                  An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
     operated in Austria by Altstoff Recycling Austria Aktien-           before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
     gesellschaft pursuant to paragraph 11 of the Austrian               13 September 2001 by the Commission of the European
     Packaging Regulation [Or. 3] conflict with the principle            Communities represented by Götz zur Hausen, a legal adviser
     of proportionality if it is disproportionate to the needs of        in the legal Service of the Commission of the European
     effective environmetal protection?                                  Communities, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                         the office of Luis Escobar Guerrero, a member of the Legal
                                                                         Service of the European Commission, Wagner Centre C 254,
                                                                         Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
6.   Is it contrary to the principles laid down in Article 30 et
     seq., in particular Article 37 EC, for a Member State to set
     up, in implementation of Article 7 of the Directive, as has         The applicant claims that the Court should:
     happened in Austria pursuant to paragraph 11 of the
     Austrian Packaging Regulation, a collection and recovery            1.   Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
     system occupying a monopoly position (in Austria,                        and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     Altstoffrecycling Austria Aktiengesellschaft) so that com-               Council Directive 98/81/EC of 26 October 1998 (1)
     petition and the fundamental freedoms are dispro-                        amending Directive 90/219/EEC (2) on the contained use
     portionately and excessively restricted, this interference is            of genetically modified micro-organisms, or at least by
     out of proportion to any effective contribution towards                  failing to communicate them to the Commission, the
     increasing the level of environmental protection and                     Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations
     moreover this system, set up in parallel with the munici-                under Article 2(1) of that Directive.
     pal system, is not compatible with the objective of sorting
     waste at source, which, according to the preamble to the            2.   Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.


title: Case T-561/12: Action brought on 19 December 2012 — Beninca v Commission

text:
               16.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/23

         Action brought on 19 December 2012 — Beninca v Commission
   (Case T-561/12)
   2013/C 46/42
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Jürgen Beninca (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: C. Zschocke, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Commission’s Decision of 9 October 2012, refusing access to a document produced in the framework of merger proceedings (Case COMP/M.6166 — NYSE Euronext/Deutsche Börse); and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that none of the exceptions listed in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) applies. This is in particular correct for the exceptions referred to by the Commission in the Decision, namely Article 4(3), second subparagraph and Article 4(2), first indent, of the said regulation.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that if any of these exceptions would apply, the Decision fails to properly consider whether at least partial (or redacted) access to the requested document is possible pursuant to Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the applicant has a right to access to the requested document because of an overriding public interest in making the document in question available, pursuant to Articles 4(2) and 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

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


title: Case C-586/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 15 December 2010 — Bianca Kücük v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

text:
               19.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 15 December 2010 — Bianca Kücük v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen
   (Case C-586/10)
   2011/C 89/09
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesarbeitsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bianca Kücük

      Defendant: Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is it in breach of clause 5(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP in the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 (1) for a national provision, which — like point 3 of the second sentence of Paragraph 14(1) of the Teilzeit- und Befristungsgesetz (Law on part-time working and fixed-term contracts, ‘the TzBfG’) — provides that there are objective grounds for repeated fixed-term work where one employee replaces another, to be interpreted and applied to mean that there are also objective grounds where there is a permanent need for a replacement although the need for a replacement could also be met by the employee concerned being employed for an indefinite duration and the replacement duties of one of the regular staff lost being assigned to him, but the employer reserves the right to decide anew in each case how it is to respond to a specific loss of staff?

         If the answer to the first question should be in the affirmative:

               2.

               Is such interpretation and application of a national provision such as point 3 of the second sentence of Paragraph 14(1) TzBfG, as per the first question, in breach of clause 5(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP in the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 in the circumstances described in the first question even where the national legislature, with the replacement-type objective reason provided for in a national provision such as Paragraph 21(1) of the Bundeselterngeld- und Elternzeitgesetz (Law on parental leave and benefit, ‘BEEG’) justifying fixed-term work, also pursues the social-policy objective of making it easier for an employer to grant special leave and for an employee to avail him/herself of it for reasons of maternity protection or parenting, for instance?

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43


title: Case T-288/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 July 2009 — Regionalny Fundusz Gospodarczy v Commission (State aid — Scheme for restructuring aid granted by the Republic of Poland to a steel producer — Decision declaring the aid to be in part incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery — Protocol No 8 on the restructuring of the Polish steel industry — Rate of interest to be applied for the repayment of incompatible aid — Duty to cooperate closely with the Member State — Articles 9(4) and 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 794/2004)

text:
               15.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/17

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 July 2009 — Regionalny Fundusz Gospodarczy v Commission
   (Case T-288/06) (1)

   (State aid - Scheme for restructuring aid granted by the Republic of Poland to a steel producer - Decision declaring the aid to be in part incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Protocol No 8 on the restructuring of the Polish steel industry - Rate of interest to be applied for the repayment of incompatible aid - Duty to cooperate closely with the Member State - Articles 9(4) and 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 794/2004)
   2009/C 193/24
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Regionalny Fundusz Gospodarczy S.A. (formerly Huta Częstochowa S.A.) (Częstochowa, Poland) (represented by: C. Sadkowski and D. Sałajewski, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Giolito and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, Agents)

      Re:

   Partial annulment of Commission Decision 2006/937/EC of 5 July 2005 on State aid C 20/04 (ex NN 25/04) in favour of Huta Częstochowa S.A. (OJ 2006 L 366, p. 1) to the extent to which it declares some of that aid to be incompatible with the common market and orders the Republic of Poland to effect its recovery.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Regionalny Fundusz Gospodarczy S.A. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.


title: Case C-573/07: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy)) — Sea s.r.l. v Comune di Ponte Nossa (Public procurement — Award procedures — Contract relating to a service for the collection, transport and disposal of urban waste — Awarded without any call for tenders — Awarded to a company limited by shares whose capital is wholly owned by public bodies but under whose statutes a private capital holding is possible)

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/14

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy)) — Sea s.r.l. v Comune di Ponte Nossa
   (Case C-573/07) (1)

   (Public procurement - Award procedures - Contract relating to a service for the collection, transport and disposal of urban waste - Awarded without any call for tenders - Awarded to a company limited by shares whose capital is wholly owned by public bodies but under whose statutes a private capital holding is possible)
   2009/C 267/24
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sea s.r.l.

      Defendant: Comune di Ponte Nossa

      Third party: Servizi Tecnologici Comuni — Se.T.Co. SpA

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) — Interpretation of Articles 12 EC, 43 EC, 49 EC and 86 EC — Procedures for the award of public contracts — Public services for the collection, transport and disposal of urban waste — Direct award of a contract to a limited company with share capital belonging entirely to the public sector but where the statutes of that company allow for the possibility of private investment

      Operative part of the judgment

   It is not contrary to Articles 43 EC and 49 EC, the principles of equal treatment and of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality or the obligation of transparency arising therefrom for a public service contract to be awarded directly to a company limited by shares with wholly public capital so long as the public authority which is the contracting authority exercises over that company control similar to that which it exercises over its own departments and so long as the company carries out the essential part of its activities with the authority or authorities controlling it.
   Without prejudice to the determination by the court making the reference of the effectiveness of the relevant provisions of the statutes, the control exercised over that company by the shareholder authorities may be regarded as similar to that which they exercise over their own departments in circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, when:

               —

               that company’s activity is limited to the territory of those authorities and is carried on essentially for their benefit, and

               —

               through the bodies established under the company’s statutes made up of representatives of those authorities, the latter exercise conclusive influence on both the strategic objectives of the company and on its significant decisions.

      (1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.


title: Case C-537/10 P: Appeal brought on 19 November 2010 by Deltafina SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 8 September 2010 in Case T-29/05 Deltafina v Commission

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/22

         Appeal brought on 19 November 2010 by Deltafina SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 8 September 2010 in Case T-29/05 Deltafina v Commission
   (Case C-537/10 P)
   ()
   2011/C 13/41
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Deltafina SpA (represented by: J.-F. Bellis and F. Di Gianni, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               vary the judgment under appeal in so far as it upholds the fine imposed on Deltafina, by annulling or, alternatively, reducing the fine imposed on Deltafina;

               —

               annul the contested decision in so far as it imposes a fine on Deltafina or, alternatively, reduce the fine imposed on Deltafina;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred before the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its appeal, the appellant relies on two grounds:

               1.

               the first ground of appeal, raised by way of principal claim, alleging that the General Court disregarded the principle of equal treatment, in failing to consider adequately the appellant’s plea relating to the infringement of the principle of equal treatment in the computation of the fine imposed;
               in support of that ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the Commission applied the highest starting amount of the fine to Deltafina, on the basis that Deltafina was the main purchaser of Spanish processed tobacco. By contrast, the fine imposed on the other undertakings involved in the infringement (including Deltafina’s sister company, Taes) was determined solely on the basis of their position on the Spanish raw tobacco market, that is to say, the market in which the infringement had occurred. The fine imposed on Deltafina breaches the principle of equal treatment, since Cetarsa and the undertakings Dimon/Agroexpansión and Standard/WWTE were also vertically integrated undertakings and held prominent positions on the Spanish processed tobacco market. This was not, however, taken into consideration when determining their respective fines. Thus, in determining the fine imposed on Deltafina, the Commission had regard to a factor which was not used in relation to the other undertakings;

               2.

               the second ground of appeal, in the alternative, alleging that the General Court misapplied the concept of ‘undertaking’ in Article 81 EC, in rejecting, by means of contradictory and erroneous reasoning, the appellant’s plea in law alleging the failure to apply to Deltafina the same reduction in fine granted to the sister company Taes following the joint application for leniency submitted by Taes and Deltafina under the auspices of their parent company, Universal.
               In support of that ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court misapplied the concept of ‘undertaking’ in Article 81 EC, departing from the case-law of the Court of Justice and the General Court in the matter, in particular that resulting from Case C-97/08 P Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission [2009] ECR I-8237. The Commission Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in cartel cases of 1996 (OJ 1996 C 207, p. 4) ought to have been applied to the undertaking Taes/Deltafina as a whole, and not to the two companies separately, since that notice applies to ‘undertakings’ and not to individual legal entities. Lastly, the appellant submits that the arguments put forward by the Commission with the aim of denying Deltafina the benefit of the reduction in fine granted to Taes are unfounded. The appellant submits that, in the light of such arguments, Deltafina and Taes constituted a single undertaking and, therefore, Deltafina ought to have received the same reduction in fine granted to Taes.


title: Joined Cases T-15/15 and T-197/15: Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2017 — Costa v Parliament (Rules governing emoluments of Members of the Parliament — Old-age pension — Suspension — Recovery — Rule against overlapping — Rules on payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament — Reference to national legislation — Article 12(2a)(v) of the Regulation on life-annuities of Members of the Italian Chamber of Deputies — Allowance received for exercising the function of President of an Italian Port Authority — Legitimate expectations)

text:
               3.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2017 — Costa v Parliament
   (Joined Cases T-15/15 and T-197/15) (1)

   ((Rules governing emoluments of Members of the Parliament - Old-age pension - Suspension - Recovery - Rule against overlapping - Rules on payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament - Reference to national legislation - Article 12(2a)(v) of the Regulation on life-annuities of Members of the Italian Chamber of Deputies - Allowance received for exercising the function of President of an Italian Port Authority - Legitimate expectations))
   (2017/C 213/33)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Paolo Costa (Venice, Italy) (represented by: G. Orsoni and M. Romeo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: G. Corstens and S. Seyr, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Two actions based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decisions of the Bureau of the Parliament of 20 October 2014 and of 9 February 2015 concerning, respectively, suspension of the provisional retirement pension of the applicant and recovery of the sum of EUR 49 770,42 paid in that respect, as well as annulment of debit note 2015-239 of 23 February 2015 concerning that recovery.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions;

               2.

               Orders Paolo Costa to pay the costs, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 81, 9.3.2015.


title: Case F-118/06: Action brought on 2 October 2006 — Di Bucci v Commission

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/67

         Action brought on 2 October 2006 — Di Bucci v Commission
   (Case F-118/06)
   (2006/C 294/133)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Vittorio Di Bucci (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. van der Woude, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the merit list and the list of officials promoted to grade A*12 in 2005, drawn up pursuant to Article 10(3) and (4) of the General Provisions for Implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and published in Administrative Notice No 85-2005 of 23 November 2005 and, in any event, annul the decision not to include the applicant's name in the list of promoted officials;

               —

               in so far as necessary, annul all of the measures which led to the adoption of that decision and, in particular, the decisions setting the number of points to be awarded to the applicant;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, an official assigned to the Legal Service who has regularly obtained one of the highest assessments, in terms of merit points (MP), in his grade and in his department, invokes firstly infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and of the General Provisions for implementing that article, which require merit to be the determining factor for the awarding of Directorate-General (DG) priority points and for promotion. The non-promotion of the applicant is the result, first, of the unlawful conduct which he has already challenged in Cases F-98/05 (1) and T-312/04 (2); second, of the criteria for awarding DG priority points within the Legal Service, which give priority to the most senior officials in the grade, irrespective of their merit; third, of certain flaws in the awarding of points, in particular by the Promotion Committee, to other officials.
   The applicant further alleges that the contested measures also infringe the principle of equal treatment and the principle that officials should have reasonable career prospects, include a manifest error of assessment and constitute a misuse of powers. Finally, they are marred by several procedural or formal defects.
   Finally, the applicant pleads the illegality of the abovementioned General Provisions, arguing as follows:

               —

               by omitting to take into account the level of responsibility deployed and the use of different languages in the performance of duties, the General Provisions infringe the new version of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               by providing that promotions are to be determined by the unreasoned awarding of priority points, on the proposal of each DG or the Promotion Committee, Articles 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 of the General Provisions infringe in particular Articles 25(2) and 45 of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               by attributing to each DG a uniform quota of points per official, Articles 4 and 6 of the General Provisions infringe Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, the principle that officials should have reasonable career prospects, and the principle of equal treatment;

               —

               by providing for the award of transitional priority points based essentially on seniority within a grade, Article 13(2) of and Annex II to the General Provisions infringe Article 45 of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               by providing for the awarding of priority points of the Personnel Committee in recognition of certain supplementary tasks undertaken in the interest of the institution which are already taken into account during the awarding of MPs and DG priority points, Article 9 of and Annex I to the General Provisions infringe Article 45 of the Staff Regulations as well as the principle that officials should have reasonable career prospects and the principle of equal treatment;

               —

               by providing for more favourable treatment for officials of DGs or services that have fewer staff and for officials seconded to the offices of members of the Commission, Article 6(2) of the General Provisions infringes Article 45 of the Staff Regulations as well as the principle that officials should have reasonable career prospects and the principle of equal treatment.

      (1)  OJ C 10 of 14.1.2006, p. 24 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under number T-381/05 and transferred to the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Communities by order of 15.12.2005).

      (2)  OJ C 262 of 23.10.2004, p. 45.


title: Case C-491/09: Action brought on 30 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/43

         Action brought on 30 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-491/09)
   2010/C 24/74
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Sénéchal and S. La Pergola, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failure to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement Directive 2007/63/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 amending Council Directives 78/855/EEC and 82/891/EEC as regards the requirement of an independent expert’s report on the occasion of merger or division of public limited liability companies (1) or in any event by failing to notify the Commission of the adoption of the necessary provisions for fully transposing the directive, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 of the directive;

               —

               order Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The time-limit for transposing Directive 2007/63/CE expired on 31 December 2008. At the time the present action was lodged, the defendant had not yet adopted the necessary measures for the implementation of this directive, or had in any case not notified the Commission thereof.

      (1)  OJ L 300, 17.11.2007, p. 47


title: Case C-168/04: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 49 EC — Freedom to provide services — Undertaking employing workers who are not nationals of a Member State — Undertaking providing services in another Member State — EU Posting Confirmation )

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/4

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-168/04) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 49 EC - Freedom to provide services - Undertaking employing workers who are not nationals of a Member State - Undertaking providing services in another Member State - ‘EU Posting Confirmation’)
   (2006/C 281/06)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Eggers, E. Traversa and G. Braun, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: E. Riedl, C. Pesendorfer and G. Hesse)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 49 EC — Posting of workers who are third-country nationals in connection with the provision of services by undertakings established in another Member State conditional on a system of acknowledgement of receipt which is a de facto system of authorisation in so far as absence of such an acknowledgement results in fines and refusal of entry and residence for the posted workers concerned.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by making the posting of workers who are nationals of non-Member States by an undertaking established in another Member State subject to obtaining the ‘EU Posting Confirmation’ provided for in Paragraph 18(12) of the Austrian Law on the employment of foreign workers (Ausländerbeschäftigungsgesetz), the issue of which requires, first, that the workers concerned must have been employed for at least one year by that undertaking or must have concluded an employment contract of indefinite duration with it and, secondly, evidence that the Austrian employment and wage conditions are complied with, and by laying down in Paragraph 10(1)(3) of the Law on aliens (Fremdengesetz) a ground for the automatic refusal of an entry and residence permit, without exception, which does not allow the situation of workers from a non-Member State, lawfully posted by an undertaking established in another Member State, to be regularised when those workers have entered the national territory without a visa, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC.

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 146, 29.05.2004.


title: Case F-144/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 28 June 2016 — Lorenzet v EASA (Civil service — Temporary staff — Article 2(f) of the CEOS — Contract for an indefinite period — Unpaid leave — Unpaid leave on personal grounds — Refusal to extend unpaid leave for an additional year — Article 52 of the CEOS)

text:
               5.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/34

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 28 June 2016 — Lorenzet v EASA
   (Case F-144/15) (1)

   ((Civil service - Temporary staff - Article 2(f) of the CEOS - Contract for an indefinite period - Unpaid leave - Unpaid leave on personal grounds - Refusal to extend unpaid leave for an additional year - Article 52 of the CEOS))
   (2016/C 326/57)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Andrea Lorenzet (Paris, France) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Aviation Safety Agency (represented by: initially, F. Manuhutu and A. Haug, Agents, D. Waelbroeck and I. Antypas, lawyers, then F. Manuhutu and A. Haug, Agents, A. Duron and C. Dekemexhe, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the European Aviation Safety Agency’s decision not to extend the applicant’s unpaid leave on personal grounds for an additional year.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Declares that Mr Andrea Lorenzet is to bear his own costs and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the European Aviation Safety Agency.

      (1)  OJ C 48, 8/2/2016, p. 102.


title: Case C-297/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München — Germany) — Data I/O GmbH v Hauptzollamt München (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tariff classification — Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Section XVI, note 2 — Headings 8422, 8456, 8473, 8501, 8504, 8543, 8544 and 8473 — Concepts of ‘parts’ and ‘articles’  — Parts and accessories (motors, power supplies, lasers, generators, cables and heat sealers) intended for programming systems — No precedence of heading 8473 over other headings of Chapters 84 or 85)

text:
               7.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/10

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München — Germany) — Data I/O GmbH v Hauptzollamt München
   (Case C-297/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Tariff classification - Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Section XVI, note 2 - Headings 8422, 8456, 8473, 8501, 8504, 8543, 8544 and 8473 - Concepts of ‘parts’ and ‘articles’ - Parts and accessories (motors, power supplies, lasers, generators, cables and heat sealers) intended for programming systems - No precedence of heading 8473 over other headings of Chapters 84 or 85))
   2014/C 212/10
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht München

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Data I/O GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt München

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht München — Interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulations (EC) Nos 2031/2001 of 6 August 2001 (OJ 2001 L 279, p. 1), 1832/2002 of 1 August 2002 (OJ 2002 L 290, p. 1), 1789/2003 of 11 September 2003 (OJ 2003 L 281, p. 1) and 1810/2004 of 7 September 2004 (OJ 2004 L 327, p. 1) and, inter alia, note 2(a) and (b) to Section XVI — Classification of parts and accessories (motors, generators, lasers, cables and heat sealers) intended for programming systems under heading 8473 — Whether that heading takes precedence over other headings of Chapters 84 or 85

      Operative part of the judgment

   Note 2(a) to Section XVI of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2031/2001 of 6 August 2001, Commission Regulation (EC) No 1832/2002 of 1 August 2002, Commission Regulation (EC) No 1789/2003 of 11 September 2003 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1810/2004 of 7 September 2004, must be interpreted as meaning that goods which may be classified under heading 8473 of the Combined Nomenclature, as parts of a machine under heading 8471 thereof, and under one of headings 8422, 8456, 8501, 8504, 8543 and 8544 thereof, as individual goods, are to be classified as individual goods under one of the latter headings, according to their individual characteristics.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.


title: Case C-265/05: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 January 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation, France) — José Perez Naranjo v Caisse régionale d'assurance maladie (CRAM) Nord-Picardie (Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Articles 4(2a), 10a and 95b — Supplementary old-age allowance — National law making the grant of that allowance conditional on residence — Special non-contributory benefit — Listed in Annex IIa to Regulation No 1408/71)

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/5

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 January 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation, France) — José Perez Naranjo v Caisse régionale d'assurance maladie (CRAM) Nord-Picardie
   (Case C-265/05) (1)

   (Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Articles 4(2a), 10a and 95b - Supplementary old-age allowance - National law making the grant of that allowance conditional on residence - Special non-contributory benefit - Listed in Annex IIa to Regulation No 1408/71)
   (2007/C 42/09)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Cour de cassation — Civil Chamber
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: José Perez Naranjo

      Defendant: Caisse régionale d'assurance maladie (CRAM) Nord-Picardie
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation — Civil chamber — Paris — Interpretation of Articles 4(2a), 10a, 19(1) and 95b of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416), as amended — National legislation making the grant of supplementary allowance from the National Solidarity Fund subject to a residence condition — Concept of a special non-contributory benefit — Listing of the allowance in Annex IIa to Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71
   Operative part of the judgment
   A benefit such as the supplementary allowance mentioned, under the heading ‘France’ in Annex IIa to Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, constitutes a special benefit. Examination of the method of financing the supplementary allowance, on the basis of the information in the file submitted to the Court, shows that there is no sufficiently identifiable link between the general social contribution and the benefit concerned, which leads to the conclusion that the supplementary allowance in non-contributory. However, it is for the national court to confirm the accuracy of the factors set out in paragraphs 48 to 52 of this judgment in order to determine conclusively whether that benefit is contributory or non-contributory.

      (1)  OJ C 217, 3.9.2005.


title: Case T-513/10: Action brought on 1 November 2010 — Hamberger Industriewerke v OHIM (Atrium)

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/29

         Action brought on 1 November 2010 — Hamberger Industriewerke v OHIM (Atrium)
   (Case T-513/10)
   ()
   2011/C 13/57
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Hamberger Industriewerke GmbH (Stephanskirchen, Germany) (represented by T. Schmidpeter, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 August 2010 in Case R 291/2010-4;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal procedure.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Atrium’ for goods in Classes 19 and 27.

      Decision of the Examiner: Application refused.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1), as the Community trade mark concerned is distinctive and not merely descriptive.

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


title: Case T-660/14: Action brought on 12 September 2014 — SV Capital v EBA

text:
               1.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 431/29

         Action brought on 12 September 2014 — SV Capital v EBA
   (Case T-660/14)
   (2014/C 431/52)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: SV Capital OÜ (Tallinn, Estonia) (represented by: M. Greinoman, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Banking Authority (EBA)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the EBA dated 21 February 2014 No EBA C 2013 002 in its entirety;

               —

               set aside the decision of the Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities No BoA 2014-CI-02 in the part dismissing the appeal;

               —

               remit the case to the competent body of the EBA to review the complaint by SV Capital OÜ dated 24 October 2012 (as supplemented) as to its substance;

               —

               order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings before the General Court including costs incurred in enforcing a judgment or order of the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging errors of fact as the contested decision No EBA C 2013 002 stated that ‘neither Ms [RR] nor Mr [OP] were heads of the branch of Nordea Bank Finland or key function holders in the meaning of the EBA Suitability Guidelines’ even though the Board of Appeal accepted the applicant’s evidence to the contrary.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to exercise discretion since it did not take into account the fact i) that Nordea is on the Financial Stability Board list of 29 global systematically important financial institution, ii) that it is a financial conglomerate, iii) that its Estonian branch is a substantial branch and iv) that the alleged violations are of gross nature.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 39(1) of the EBA Regulation (1) and Article 16 of the EBA Code of Good Administrative Behaviour (2) as the applicant was not given an opportunity to express its views on the defendant’s reasoning and statements of facts before the contested decision EBA C 2013 002 was taken since the defendant did not advise the applicant of its intention not to start the requested investigation of Nordea Bank Finland and did not provide reasons therefore.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 3(3), (4) and (5) of the EBA Internal Rules (3) as the EBA’s Alternate Chairperson was not informed on the basis of anonymised information about the intended decision not to initiate an investigation.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging misuse of power and unreasonable conduct of the EBA as the defendant was biased and, taking into account the amount of time and effort spent by the defendant on the complaint and its admissibility, there was no reason to abandon the case without making a reasoned decision as to its merits.

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing an European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority), amending Decision No 716/2009/EC and repealing Commission Decision 2009/78/EC (OJ 2010 L 331, p. 12).

      (2)  Decision DC 006 of the Management Board of 12 January 2011 on EBA Code of Good Administrative Behaviour.

      (3)  Decision DC 054 of the Board of Supervisors of 5 July 2012 concerning the Internal Processing Rules on Investigation regarding Breach of Union Law.


title: Case C-179/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 21 April 2015 — Daimler AG v Együd Garage Gépjárműjavító és Értékesítő Kft.

text:
               13.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 21 April 2015 — Daimler AG v Együd Garage Gépjárműjavító és Értékesítő Kft.
   (Case C-179/15)
   (2015/C 228/05)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Törvényszék

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Daimler AG

      Defendant: Együd Garage Gépjárműjavító és Értékesítő Kft.

      Question referred

   Must Article 5(1)(b) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC (1) of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks be interpreted as meaning that the trade mark proprietor is entitled to take action against a third party named in an advertisement on the internet, which features a sign likely to be confused with the trade mark, referring to a service of that third party identical to the goods or services for which the trade mark is registered, in such a way that the public might be given the mistaken impression that there is an official commercial relationship between the undertaking of that third party and the trade mark proprietor, even though the advertisement was not placed on the internet by the person featuring in it or on his behalf, and it is possible to access that advertisement on the internet despite the fact that the person named in it took all reasonable steps to have it removed, but did not succeed in doing so?

      (1)  First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1).


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht, Hamburg, by order of that court of 28 November 1996 in the case of Peter Michael Jordy against 1. Techniker Krankenkasse and 2. Techniker Krankenkasse Pflegeversicherung (Case C-40/97)

text:
22 . 3 . 97              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 94/ 11
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes                               by that person, thus simply being paid in lieu of a
gerichtshof by order of that court of 12 December 1996                            benefit in kind which could in principle have been
in     the   case    of  Canon     Kabushiki     Kaisha     v. Pathe              provided by the Fund; or
                   Communications Corporation
                           (Case C-39/97)                                  ( ac ) only such benefits in the form of money as are not
                                                                                earmarked for a specific purpose ?
                             ( 97/C 94/20 )
                                                                           Are the benefits listed below benefits in kind within the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of                         meaning of Article 28 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 :
the European Communities by an order of the
Bundesgerichtshof ( Federal Court of Justice ) of                          ( ba ) only benefits in kind provided by the fund without
12 December 1996, which was received at the Court                                 expenditure by the insured person, or albeit with his
Registry on 28 January 1997, for a preliminary ruling in                          participation in the costs but otherwise financed by
the      case   of     Canon      Kabushiki     Kaisha     v.  Pathe
                                                                                the Fund; or
Communications Corporation on the following question :
                                                                           ( bb) in addition to the direct benefits in kind mentioned at
May account be taken, when assessing the similarity of                            ( ba ), and in lieu of a benefit in kind which could in
the goods or services covered by the two marks, of the                            principle have been provided by the fund, but in the
distinctive character, in particular the reputation of the                        individual case was obtained by the insured person
mark with earlier priority ( on the date which determines                         initially at his own expense, also benefits provided in
the seniority of the later mark ), in particular in such a                        the form of money by way of a complete or partial
way that likelihood of confusion within the meaning of                            refund of those costs; or also
Article 4 ( 1 ) ( b ) of Directive 89/104/EEC ( 1 ) must be taken
to exist even if participants in trade attribute the goods
and/or services to different origins ?                                     ( be ) such cash benefits as are not linked to any specific
                                                                                expenditure incurred by the insured person and are
                                                                                refundable in whole or in part by the fund, but are
(') First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to
                                                                                granted to him instead of a benefit in kind which
     approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade
     marks ( OJ No L 40, 12 . 2 . 1992, p. 1 ).                                   could also have been possible, as a cash benefit, if the
                                                                                insured person so chooses, completely irrespective of
                                                                                whether and, if so, in what amount the insured
                                                                                person has incurred or is incurring expenditure ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht,
Hamburg, by order of that court of 28 November 1996
in the case of Peter Michael Jordy against 1 . Techniker
Krankenkasse and 2. Techniker Krankenkasse Pflege                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hof van Beroep,
                             versicherung                                  Antwerp, by judgment of that court of 27 January 1997 in
                                                                               the case of the Belgian State v. Foodie BV and Others
                           (Case C-40/97)
                                                                                ( Case C-41/97)
                               97/C 94/21
                                                                                ( 97/C 94/22 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Sozialgericht                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
( Social Court), Hamburg, of 28 November 1996 , which                      European Communities by judgment of the Hof van Be
was received at the Court Registry on 28 January 1997,                     roep ( Court of Appeal ), Antwerp, of 27 January 1997,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Peter Michael Jordy                which was received at the Court Registry on 30 January
against 1 . Techniker Krankenkasse and 2 . Techniker Kran                 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of the Belgian
kenkasse Pflegeversicherung on the following questions:                    State v. Foodie BV and Others on the following questions:
Are the benefits listed below cash benefits within the                     1 . Does 'Kashkaval ' in Regulation ( EEC ) No 1767/82 (')
meaning of Article 28 of Regulation (EEC ) No 1408/71 :                          refer solely to cheese made from sheep's milk ?
 ( aa ) any benefits provided to the insured person by the                 2 . Does an IMA 1 certificate issued pursuant to
        sickness assurance fund or care assurance fund in the                    Regulation ( EEC ) No 1767/82 but filled out in a
        form of money ( cash, remittance of a money demand,                      manner contrary to the instructions set out in the
        cheque, money transfer, etc .), irrespective of the                      Annexes to that Regulation satisfy the requirements of
        reason for or purpose of that benefit; or                                Article 2 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1767/82, and, if
                                                                                not, does this result in forfeiture of entitlement to a
 ( ab ) benefits so provided in money form, even if they are                     reduced import tariff?
        to serve a specific purpose, provided that they do not
        constitute complete or partial (contributory or lump              (') OJ No L 196 , 5 . 7. 1982 , p . 1 .
        sum ) refunds of certain expenditure specifically
        incurred by the insured person for services obtained


title: Action brought on 3 March 1997 by Isabelle Adine-Blanc against Commission of the European Communities (Case T-43/97)

text:
10 . 5 . 97             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 142/ 19
by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liege Bar, with an address                  — order the defendant to pay the applicant one ecu as
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyne                          token damages in respect of non-material damage,
Korn, 21 Rue de Nassau .
                                                                         — order the defendant to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— annul the Commission's decision of 20 June 1996
     rejecting the applicant's request of 12 March 1996
                                                                         The applicant objects to the reduction to three months of
     that she be regraded,
                                                                         her contract as a member of the auxiliary staff in
                                                                         category A in the service of the defendant. She states that
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the Commission's                 the offer of employment, notified by letter of 30 April
     decision of 22 November 1996 rejecting her                          1 996, expressly referred to a term of 36 months . However,
     administrative complaint of 10 July 1996,                           on the following 7 May, she presented herself at the
                                                                         recruitment department where a contract for the term to
— order the Commission to pay the costs .
                                                                         which she objects was presented to her. In those
                                                                         circumstances, it was only five weeks before the expiry of
                                                                         that three-month contract that the defendant informed her
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      that the offer of employment on the basis of which she
                                                                         made essential family, financial and professional
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                   arrangements had lapsed as a result of a 'typing error'.
Case T-16/97 ( M.
                                                                         In support of her claims, the applicant alleges, first,
(') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.                                    breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate
                                                                         expectations and of the duty to have regard for the
                                                                         welfare of officials. She considers that, in view of the
                                                                         duration of the contract at issue, the administration 's
                                                                         slowness in examining the problems associated with one
                                                                         of the decisive factors prompting her acceptance of the
                                                                         offer, namely the duration of the contract, is manifestly
Action brought on 3 March 1997 by Isabelle Adine-Blanc                   contrary to the principle of legal certainty and the
     against Commission of the European Communities                      principle of the protection of legitimate expectations
                          ( Case T-43/97)                                which any party to a contract is entitled to rely on as
                                                                         regards the conduct of the other party. In her opinion, it is
                            ( 97/C 142/42 )
                                                                         unacceptable for one of the parties unilaterally to change
                                                                         one of the essential features of a bilateral contract during
                (Language of the case: French)                           its currency, particularly on which was decisive in bringing
                                                                         about the consent of the other party to it. Even if —
An action against the Commission of the European                         although that was not the case — a typing error misled
Communities was brought before the Court of First                        the applicant, it was incumbent on the administration to
Instance on 3 March 1997 by Isabelle Adine-Blanc,                        take immediate action to rectify matters .
residing in Paris, represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry
Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an                The applicant also alleges breach of the principles of
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of                       sound administration and good management.
Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the Commission decision changing the duration
     of her contract as a member of the auxiliary staff of               Action brought on 3 March 1997 by Piera Ghignone and
     the 'Industrial Policy' Directorate-General, 'Legislation                  Others against Council of the European Union
     and     standarization        and    telematics     networks '                               Case T-44/97 )
     Directorate, ' Quality, certification and conformity
                                                                                ( 97/C 142/43 )
     marking' Unit ( DG.III.3P.4 ), offered by letter of
     30 April 1996 ,
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
— order the defendant to pay the applicant the
     remuneration to which she is entitled as a member of                An action against the Council of the European Union was
     the auxiliary staff for the period of 36 months                     brought before the Court of First Instance on 3 March
     indicated in the contract, plus interest at the rate of             1997 by Piera Ghignone, Helga Glassl, Colette Jemaa,
     8 % per annum, subject to deduction of any sums                     Enrica Massucco, Giovanni di Maio, Rene Franquinet,
     received and those which may be received by way of                  Klaus-Dietrich Jagstaidt, Michel Perillat, residing in
     remuneration in the same period,                                    Geneva, Jacques Brodin, residing in Tannay ( Switzerland ),


title: Case C-590/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Winsen (Luhe) (Germany) lodged on 17 December 2012 — Andrea Merten v ERGO Lebensversicherung AG

text:
               16.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Winsen (Luhe) (Germany) lodged on 17 December 2012 — Andrea Merten v ERGO Lebensversicherung AG
   (Case C-590/12)
   2013/C 46/31
   Language of the case: German

      Referring Court

   Amtsgericht Winsen (Local Court, Winsen) (Luhe)

      Parties in the main proceedings

      Applicant: Andrea Merten

      Defendant: ERGO Lebensversicherung AG

      Question referred

   Should Article 15(1), first sentence, of Directive 90/619/EEC, (1) in consideration of Article 31(1) of Directive 92/96/EEC (2) as amended by Articles 35 and 36, in conjunction with Article 32, of Directive 2002/83/EC, (3) be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a provision — such as Article 5a(2), fourth indent, of the German Insurance Contracts Act (VVG), as amended by the third Law transposing the Directives of the Council of the European Communities on insurance law of 21 July 1994 — under which the insurance policy holder’s right to withdrawal or objection expires, at the latest, one year after the payment of the first insurance premium, even if the policy holder was not adequately informed of the right to withdrawal or objection?

      (1)  Council Directive 90/619/EEC of 8 November 1990 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance, laying down provisions to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom to provide services and amending Directive 79/267/EEC (Second Life Assurance Directive) (OJ 1990 L 330, p. 50).

      (2)  Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance and amending Directives 79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (third life assurance Directive) (OJ 1992 L 360, p. 1).

      (3)  Directive 2002/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 05 November 2002 concerning life assurance (OJ 2002 L 345, p. 1).


title: Case F-19/08 R: Order of the President of the Civil Service Tribunal of 25 April 2008 — Bennett and Others v OHIM (Civil service — Interim measures — Application to suspend the operation of a measure — Competition notice — Urgency — None)

text:
               21.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 158/24

         Order of the President of the Civil Service Tribunal of 25 April 2008 — Bennett and Others v OHIM
   (Case F-19/08 R)
   (Civil service - Interim measures - Application to suspend the operation of a measure - Competition notice - Urgency - None)
   (2008/C 158/43)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Kelly-Marie Bennett (Alicante, Spain) and Others (represented by: G. Vandersanden, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: I. de Medrano Caballero and E. Maurage, Agents)
   Re:
   Application to suspend the operation of Competition Notices OHIMIAD/02/07 and OHIMIAST/02/07 until judgment has been delivered on the substance of the case, with the effect that the applicants are not required to take part in the tests in those competitions and that their contracts cannot be terminated by reason of the fact that they are not on the reserve lists.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed;

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case C-378/00: Action brought on 13 October 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union

text:
C 355/14               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    9.12.2000
Action brought on 13 October 2000 by the Commission                     —    Infringement of the letter and the purpose of Decision
of the European Communities against the European                             1999/468/EC: The choice of the regulatory procedure for
    Parliament and the Council of the European Union                         the implementation of the LIFE programme goes against
                                                                             the objective of clarifying comitology procedures
                                                                             expressly referred to in Decision 1999/468/EC.
                         (Case C-378/00)
                                                                        (1) OJ 2000 L 192, p. 1.
                         (2000/C 355/27)                                (2) OJ 1999 L 184, p. 23.
An action against the European Parliament and the Council of
the European Union was brought before the Court of Justice
of the European Communities on 13 October 2000 by the
Commission of the European Communities, represented by
Dominique Maidani, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties
Gómez de la Cruz, of the same service, Wagner Centre,                  Tribunal, London, by decision of that court of 24 March
Kirchberg.                                                              2000, in the case of Overland Footwear Ltd (formerly
                                                                        Overland Shoes Ltd) against the Commissioners of Cus-
                                                                                toms and Excise
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:
                                                                                (Case C-379/00)
1.    annul Regulation (EC) No 1655/2000 of the European
                                                                                (2000/C 355/28)
      Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000 concerning
      the Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE) (1) in
      so far as it makes adoption of the measures implementing          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      the LIFE programme subject to the regulatory procedure            European Communities by a decision of the VAT and Duties
      contained in Article 5 of Council Decision 1999/468/EC            Tribunal, London, of 24 March 2000, which was received at
      of 28 June 1999 (2);                                              the Court Registry on 16 October 2000, for a preliminary
                                                                        ruling in the case of Overland Footwear Ltd (formerly Overland
                                                                        Shoes Ltd) against the Commissioners of Customs and Excise,
2.    maintain the effects of the above-mentioned regulation            on the following questions:
      until its amendment, to take place as soon as possible
      after the Court’s judgment;
                                                                        On the basis of the Council Regulation 2913/92 (1) (‘the
                                                                        Customs Code’), in particular Articles 29, 32 and 33 thereof,
3.    order the defendants to pay the costs.                            and the case law of the Court, where, at the time of customs
                                                                        clearance, an importer inadvertently declares as the price paid
                                                                        or payable for the goods an amount inclusive of buying
                                                                        commission and inadvertently fails to show the buying
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         commission separately on the import declaration from the
                                                                        price actually paid or payable but, after the goods have been
—     Infringement of Article 2 of Directive 1999/468/EC: By            released into free circulation, shows to the satisfaction of the
      providing that programmes with substantial budgetary              Customs authorities that the declared price paid or payable for
      implications should be subject to the management pro-             the goods included bona fide buying commission, which could
      cedure, Article 2(a) is obviously intended to make the            have been properly deducted at importation, and makes a
      implementation of all those programmes subject to that            claim for repayment of the duty paid on the buying com-
      procedure. In this case, the executive measures to be             mission within three years of the date on which amount of
      taken under Regulation 1655/2000 are management                   customs duty was communicated:
      measures. The task in question is to establish, on the basis
      of proposals for projects sent by the Member States, the          1.   Could the bona fide buying commission be dutiable as
      list of projects eligible for financing, after checking                part of the price actually paid or payable for the goods
      compliance with all the conditions and criteria set out in             under Article 29 of the Customs Code?
      the basic regulation. It is also a question of establishing
      guidelines strictly linked to the management of the LIFE          2.   If the answer to question 1 is negative, could the bona
      programme, in accordance with Article 4(4) of the                      fide buying commission be deductible from the declared
      regulation.                                                            transaction value bearing in mind the provisions of
                                                                             Articles 32.3 and 33 of the Customs Code?
      If Article 2(a) of Decision 1999/468/EC is not to be              3.   In such circumstances are the customs authorities obliged
      deprived of all purpose, only specific grounds may justify             under the Customs Code, and in particular Article 78.3
      the legislature derogating in a particular case from the               thereof, to accept the amendment to the price paid or
      procedure laid down, indicating the grounds which led it               payable for the imported goods and thereby reduced
      to use a different procedure from that prescribed.                     customs value?


title: Case F-47/08: Action brought on 30 April 2008 — Buschak v European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/52

         Action brought on 30 April 2008 — Buschak v European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions
   (Case F-47/08)
   (2008/C 171/104)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Willy Buschak (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: L. Lévi and C. Ronzi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Foundation for the improvement of living and working conditions
   The subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Application for annulment of the decision amending the applicant's job description and an order that the defendant pay him a sum by way of compensation for the material and non-material harm suffered.
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision delivered by the director of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions to the applicant on 4 July 2007, amending his job description;

               —

               so far as necessary, annul the decision of 29 or 30 January 2008 rejecting the applicant's complaint;

               —

               order the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions to pay EUR 50 000 by way of compensation for the harm suffered;

               —

               order the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions to pay the costs.


title: Case T-229/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 3 April 2008 — PKK v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism — Freezing of funds — Action for annulment — Statement of reasons)

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/23

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 3 April 2008 — PKK v Council
   (Case T-229/02) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism - Freezing of funds - Action for annulment - Statement of reasons)
   (2008/C 142/40)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Osman Ocalan, on behalf of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) (represented by: M. Muller QC, E. Grieves and P. Moser, barristers, and J.G. Pierce, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by: M. Vitsentzatos and M. Bishop, and subsequently by M. Bishop and E. Finnegan, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by: R. Caudwell, and subsequently by E. Jenkinson, Agents, assisted by S. Lee, Barrister) and Commission of the European Communities, (represented by: P. Kuijper and C. Brown, and subsequently by P. Hetsch and P. Aalto, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of Council Decision 2002/460/EC: of 17 June 2002 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2002/334/EC (OJ 2002 L 160, p. 26)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Council Decision 2002/460/EC of 17 June 2002 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2002/334/EC in so far as it concerns the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK).

               2.

               Orders the Council to bear, in addition to its own costs, all the costs incurred by Osman Ocalan on behalf of the PKK before the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice.

               3.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Commission of the European Communities to pay their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 233, 28.9.2002.


title: Case C-449/16: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’appello di Genova — Italy) — Kerly Del Rosario Martinez Silva v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS), Comune di Genova (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Article 3 — Family benefits — Directive 2011/98/EU — Article 12 — Right to equal treatment — Third-country nationals holding single permits)

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/19

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’appello di Genova — Italy) — Kerly Del Rosario Martinez Silva v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS), Comune di Genova
   (Case C-449/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 3 - Family benefits - Directive 2011/98/EU - Article 12 - Right to equal treatment - Third-country nationals holding single permits))
   (2017/C 277/26)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte d’appello di Genova

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Kerly Del Rosario Martinez Silva

      Defendants: Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS), Comune di Genova

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 12 of Directive 2011/98/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on a single application procedure for a single permit for third-country nationals to reside and work in the territory of a Member State and on a common set of rights for third-country workers legally residing in a Member State must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which a third-country national holding a single permit within the meaning of Article 2(c) of that directive cannot receive a benefit such as the benefit for households having at least three minor children established by Legge n. 448 — Misure di finanza pubblica per la stabilizzazione e lo sviluppo (Law No 448 on public finance measures for stabilisation and development) of 23 December 1998.

      (1)  OJ C 410, 7.11.2016.