title: Case C-203/03: Action brought on 12 May 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
5.7.2003                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 158/15
Action brought on 13 May 2003 by the Commission                           Action brought on 12 May 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                        of the European Communities against the Republic of
                                Sweden                                                                 Austria
                                                                                (Case C-203/03)
                           (Case C-201/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 158/26)
                           (2003/C 158/25)
                                                                          An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before
                                                                          the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 12 May
                                                                          2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          represented by Nicola Yerrell, of its Legal Service, and Horstpe-
An action against the Kingdom of Sweden was brought before                ter Kreppel, a Labour Court judge on secondment to the Legal
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 13 May                Service of the Commission in the course of an exchange of
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,                       national officials, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
represented by L. Stöm och and M. Konstantinidis, acting as
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          1.    Declare that, by maintaining in force,
The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (a)   in Paragraph 2 of the Regulation of the Federal
—      declare that, by failing to adopt the necessary measures                       Minister for the Economy and Labour concerning
       to ensure that priority is given to the processing of waste                    prohibitions and restrictions of employment of
       oils by regeneration where technical, economic and                             female workers, a general prohibition, with few
       organisational constraints so allow, the Kingdom of                            exceptions, of employment of women in mining
       Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under                              underground and,
       Article 3(1) of Council Directive 75/439/EEC ( 1) as
       amended by Directive 87/101/EEC (2),                                     (b) in Paragraphs 8 and 31 of the Regulation on
                                                                                compressed air and diving work, a general prohib-
                                                                                ition of employment of women in compressed air
—      order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.                                  work and in diving work,
                                                                                the Republic of Austria has infringed its obligations under
                                                                                Articles 2 and 3 of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of
                                                                                9 February 1976 ( 1) on the implementation of the
                                                                                principle of equal treatment for men and women as
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 regards access to employment, vocational training and
                                                                                promotion, and working conditions, and also under
                                                                                Articles 10 and 249 EC.
Member States are required not only to adopt binding national             2.    Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
measures in order to comply with the provisions of Article 3(1)
of the directive but also to adopt measures which make it
possible to apply the provisions in practice. The percentage
for the recycling of waste oils in Sweden in the period 1995-
2000 was 0 %. The Swedish Government has therefore not                    Pleas in law and main arguments
taken the measures which render it possible de facto to
regenerate waste oils in accordance with the requirements set             —     The prohibition of employment of female workers in
out in Article 3(1) of the directive.                                           mining underground:
                                                                                Under Article 3(1) of Directive 76/207/EEC discrimi-
                                                                                nation on grounds of sex in the conditions for access to
( 1) Of 16 June 1975 on the disposal of waste oils, OJ 1975 L 194,              jobs is prohibited.
     p. 23.
( 2) Of 22 December 1986 amending Directive 75/439/EEC on the                   The general prohibition of employment of women in
     disposal of waste oils, OJ 1987 L 42, p. 43.                               mining underground provided for in Paragraph 16 of the
                                                                                Austrian Working Hours Regulation of 30 April 1938
                                                                                was amended only slightly by Paragraph 2 of the
                                                                                Regulation of the Federal Minister for the Economy and
                                                                                Labour concerning prohibitions and restrictions of
 ---pagebreak--- C 158/16               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                           5.7.2003
      employment of female workers, which came into force                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
      on 1 August 2001. In that regulation exceptions from               Justice (England and Wales), Chancery Division, by order
      the employment prohibition are made merely for women,              of that court dated 7 December 2000, in the case of
      inter alia, in managerial positions, and trainees.                 Commissioners of Customs and Excise against SmithKline
                                                                                Beecham plc
      The directive does indeed itself contain certain restrictions
      concerning the prohibition of unequal treatment                                                 (Case C-206/03)
      (Article 2(2) and (3) of the directive), but in the present
      case they cannot be applied in order to justify the
                                                                                (2003/C 158/27)
      prohibition of employment in issue. Although activities
      carried out underground in the mining industry are
      physically and mentally extremely demanding, they are
      not activities which can be carried out only by men. It is
      not therefore possible to rely on the argument that, by            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      reason of the nature or context in which they are carried          European Communities by an order of the High Court
      out, the sex of the worker constitutes a determining               of Justice (England and Wales), Chancery Division, dated
      factor. The dangers to which women are exposed by                  7 December 2000, which was received at the Court Registry
      working in mines are generally, in essence, no different           on 14 May 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
      from those to which men are also exposed. These dangers            Commissioners of Customs and Excise and SmithKline Beech-
      do not therefore justify any different treatment of men            am plc on the following questions:
      and women. Inasmuch as the Austrian Government refers
      simply to the generally weaker constitution of women in            1)     Is Heading 3004 of annex I to Council Regulation
      comparison with men, the Commission cannot accept                         No 2658/87 (1), as amended, to be interpreted as includ-
      that argument. It cannot be ruled out that there are                      ing a product in the form of a nicotine patch to be used
      female workers for whom employment in mining under-                       to assist when trying to stop smoking, consisting of an
      ground is less oppressive than for a comparable male                      adhesive-plaster impregnated with nicotine which is
      worker with a lesser physical constitution. A general                     absorbed through the skin/presented in a foil pack?
      prohibition of employment of women in mining under-
      ground is therefore disproportionate.                              2)     In circumstances where
      Moreover, it is necessary to adjust the Austrian rules to                 (a)    a customs authority of a Member State has given
      the directive even if the mining industry is in decline;                         binding tariff information pursuant to article 12 of
      otherwise the practical effect of the prohibition of                             Council Regulation 2913/92 (2) (the Customs Code)
      discrimination under Community law would be impaired.                            in respect of a product;
                                                                                (b) the binding tariff information in question is consist-
      Finally, the Austrian Government misses the point in                             ent with a classification opinion previously pub-
      arguing that it is bound by the ILO Convention concern-                          lished by the World Customs Organisation and
      ing the Employment of Women in Underground Work                                  referred to in a communication by the Commission
      and Mines of 1937 and that therefore Community                                   pursuant to article 12(5) of the Customs Code;
      law does not preclude the employment prohibition
      in question. The Republic of Austria must, however,                       (c)    the importer appeals to a national tribunal pursuant
      denounce that Convention.                                                        to article 243 of the Code; and
                                                                                (d) the tribunal disagrees with the classification opinion;
—     The prohibition of employment of women in work
      involving compressed air and diving:                               is article 12(5) of the Code to be interpreted as requiring or
                                                                         permitting the Tribunal to annul the customs authority’s
      As regards the rules on the employment of women in                 decision without -substituting binding tariff information
      work involving compressed air and diving, a general                inconsistent with the classification opinion of the World
      prohibition of the employment of women, without any                Customs Organisation but declaring that the product is
      examination of the individual case, cannot be justified by         properly classifiable otherwise than in accordance with that
      the alleged special need for the protection of women.              opinion?
                                                                         (1 ) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the
                                                                              tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs
( 1) OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40.                                                     Tariff OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1.
                                                                         (2 ) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
                                                                              establishing the Community Customs Code OJ L 302, 19.10.1992,
                                                                              p. 1.


title: Case F-28/15: Action brought on 17 February 2015 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               4.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/49

         Action brought on 17 February 2015 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-28/15)
   (2015/C 146/68)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the final decision to transfer the applicant’s pension rights into the European Union pension scheme under the new general implementing provisions (GIPs) of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Commission of 19 June 2014 fixing the calculation of the applicant’s pension rights to be credited acquired before his entry into service with the Commission;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 15 March 1995 in Case T-514/93: Cobrecaf SA and Others v. Commission of the European Communities (Fisheries - Community financial assistance for the construction of fishing vessels - Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 - Admissibility - Confirmatory decision - Action for damages)

text:
No C 101 /6           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  22 . 4 . 95
                                                   COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                      (Fourth Chamber)                                                    (Fourth Chamber)
                     of 21 February 1995                                                of 23 February 1995
in Case T-506/93 : Andrew Macrae Moat v. Commission of              in Case T-535/93 : F. v. Council of the European
                the European Communities (*)                                                    Union i 1 )
(Officials — Promotion — Consultation of staffreports —             (Officials — Recruitment — Refusal of employment on
Complaint — Failure to give a reasoned reply — Action for           account ofphysical unfitness — Right to a fair hearing —
annulment — Admissibility — Compensation for                                        Manifest error of assessment)
                             damage)                                                         ( 95/C 101 /17
                         ( 95/C 101/16 )
                                                                                (Language of tbe case: French)
                                                                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
               (Language of the case: Englisb)                               published in thé European Court Reports)
                                                                    In Case T-535/93 : F, residing at Esbjerg ( Denmark ),
                                                                    represented by Jean-Noël Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an
                                                                    address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire
In Case T-506/93 : Andrew Macrae Moat, an official of the
                                                                    Myson Sàrl, 1 Rue Glesener, v. Council of the European
Commission of the European Communities, represented by              Union (Agent: O. Petersen) — application for the annulment
Luc Govaert, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service       of the decision of the Council of 6 November 1992 not to
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Lucy Dupong, 14a Rue               recruit the applicant on account of a lack of physical fitness
des Bains, v. Commission of the European Communities                to perform typing duties, adopted in consequence of the
(Agent: T. F. Cusack) — application for the annulment of            medical officer's opinion, confirmed by the medical
various decisions of the Commission appointing and
                                                                    committee, declaring the applicant physically unfit, and for
promoting officials and for compensation for the damage
                                                                    the annulment, in so far as may be necessary, of the decision
allegedly suffered by the applicant on account of the failure       rejecting the applicant's complaint — the Court of First
to give a reasoned reply to his two complaints and of his not
                                                                    Instance (Fourth Chamber ), composed of: C. P. Briët,
having been appointed or promoted — the Court of First              President, and A. Saggio and C. W. Bellamy, Judges; J.
Instance ( Fourth Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts,               Palacio Gonzalez, Registrar, has given a judgment on
President, R. Schintgen and R. Garcia-Valdecasas, Judges,
                                                                    23 February 1995 , in which it:
B. Pastor, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 21 February 1 995 , in which it:                        1 , dismisses the application;
                                                                    2 , orders the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay
                                                                        those of the applicant and half of the costs of the
1 , dismisses the application as inadmissible in so far as it           intervener;
    seeks, first, the annulment of the decisions of the
    Commission making promotions to grade A3 for 1991               3 , orders the intervener to bear half of its own costs.
    and 1992 and making an appointment to the post of
                                                                    (M OJ No C 325 , 9 . 12 . 1993 .
    head of unit which was the subject of Vacancy Notice
    COM/22/92, and secondly, the award of damages for
    the unlawful acts allegedly committed in the course of
    those procedures;                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 15 March 1995
                                                                    in Case T-514/93 : Cobrecaf SA and Others v. Commission
2 , dismisses the remainder of the application as                                 of the European Communities (*)
    unfounded;                                                      (Fisheries — Community financial assistance for the
                                                                    construction of fishing vessels — Regulation (EEC)
                                                                    No 4028/86 — Admissibility — Confirmatory decision —
3 , orders the parties to bear their own costs.                                          Action for damages)
                                                                                ( 95/C 101/18 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(!) OJ No C 277, 15 . 10 . 1993 .
                                                                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                             published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                    In Case T-514/93 : Cobrecaf SA, whose registered office is in
                                                                    Concarneau ( France), Pêche et Froid SA, whose registered
 ---pagebreak--- 22. 4. 95          l_EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 101 /7
office is in Boulogne-sur-Mer ( France ), Klipper                   order to fill a post declared vacant by notice of vacancy
Investissements Sàrl, whose registered office is in                 No 62/91 , secondly, of the decision of the Economic and
Concarneau, v. Commission of the European Communities               Social Committee to reject the applicant's candidature for
(Agent: G. Rozet) — application for, first, annulment of the        the said post and, thirdly, of the decision appointing Mr B.
Commission's letter of 2 June 1993 refusing to allocate to          as a director in the General Secretariat of the Economic and
the applicants the balance of Community assistance granted          Social Committee, the Court of First Instance ( Second
for the construction of a fishing vessel and, secondly, an          Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, D. P. M.
order pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 215 of the        Barrington and A. Saggio, Judges; H. Jung: Registrar, has
EC Treaty that the Commission make good the harm                    given a judgment on 22 March 1 995 in which it:
allegedly suffered by the applicants, the Court of First
Instance ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of: K. Lenaerts,              1 , orders the Economic and Social Committee to pay the
President, and R. Schintgen and R. Garcia-Valdecasas,                     applicant the sum of ECU 2 000 by way of damages for
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 March                   breach of administrative duty;
1995 , the operative part of which is as follows:
1 , the application is dismissed as inadmissible in so far as it    2 , dismisses the remainder of the application;
    seeks annulment of the decision of 2 June 1 993;
                                                                    3,    orders the Economic and Social Committee to bear its
2 , the application is dismissed as inadmissible in so far as it          own costs and halfofthe applicant's costs, the other half
    seeks payment of the balance of the aid sought;                       to be borne by the applicant himself.
3 , the Commission is ordered to pay the applicants interest ,      ( J ) OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 .
    at the rate of 8% per annum of the sum of FF 875 000
    for the period from 10 January to 12 June 1992;
4 , the remainder of the application is dismissed;
5 , the applicants are to bear their own costs and jointly and
    severally one-quarter of the costs of the Commission.                 ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     The Commission is to bear three-quarters of its own                                   of 15 February 1995
     costs.
                                                                    in Case T-l 12/94 : Andrew Macrae Moat v. Commission of
0 ) OJ No C 293 , 29 . 10 . 1993 .                                                   the European Communities i 1 )
                                                                    (Officials — Action for annulment — Pre-litigation
                                                                    procedure — Interest in bringing proceedings — Action for
                                                                    damages — Summary of the pleas in law on which the
                                                                                application is based — Inadmissibility)
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                ( 95/C 101 /20
                      (Second Chamber)
                      of 22 March 1995                                              (Language of the case: English)
in Case T-586/93 : Petros Kotzonis v. Economic and Social
        Committee of the European Communities (*)                   In Case T-l 12/94 : Andrew Macrae Moat, an official of the
(Officials — Recruitmentprocedure — Stating ofreasons —             Commission of the European Communities, represented by
Misuse ofpowers — Transfer from the Language Service to             Luc Govaert, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
 Category A — Articles 7, 25, 27, 29 and 45 of the Staff            in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Lucy Dupong, 14a Rue
                           Regulations)                             des Bains, against the Commission of the European
                         ( 95/C 101/19 )                            Communities (Agent: Thomas F. Cusack ) — application for
                                                                    a judgment ( i ) condemning the Commission for its failure to
               (Language of the case: French)                       tell the applicant what post he occupies and what his duties
                                                                    are and, consequently, its failure to give him work and ( ii )
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        awarding the applicant damages — the Court of First
         published in the European Court Reports)                   Instance (Third Chamber), composed of J. Biancarelli,
                                                                    President, C. P. Briët and C. W. Bellamy, Judges, H. Jung,
In Case T-586/93 : Petros Kotzonis, official of the Economic        Registrar, made an order on 15 February 1995 , the
and Social Committee of the European Communities,                   operative part of which is as follows :
resident in Brussels, represented by Olivier Slusny and
Marcel Slusny, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for             1 , the application is dismissed as inadmissible;
service in Luxembourg at the chambers of Ernest Arendt,
8— 10 Rue Mathias Hardt v . Economic and Social
                                                                    2 , the parties shall bear their own costs. .
Committee of the European Communities (Agent: D.
Lagasse ) — application for annulment, first, of the decision
of the Economic and Social Committee to follow the                  (!) OJ No C 132 , 14 . 5 . 1994 .
procedure laid down in Article 29 ( 2 ) of the Staff
Regulations of Officials of the European Communities in


               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/32

         Removal from the register of Case C-319/04 (1)

   (2005/C 217/66)

      (Language of the case: French)

   By order of 7 July 2005, the President of the Sixth Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-319/04 Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.

      (1)  OJ C 228 of 11.09.2004.


title: Case T-58/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 2007 — Centeno Mediavilla and Others v Commission (Staff cases — Officials — Appointment — Entry into force of the new Staff Regulations — Transitional rules on classification of the grade on recruitment — Article 12 to Annex XIII of the new Staff Regulations)

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/34

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 2007 — Centeno Mediavilla and Others v Commission
   (Case T-58/05) (1)

   (Staff cases - Officials - Appointment - Entry into force of the new Staff Regulations - Transitional rules on classification of the grade on recruitment - Article 12 to Annex XIII of the new Staff Regulations)
   (2007/C 199/64)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Isabel Clara Centeno Mediavilla (Seville, Spain); Delphine Fumey (Evere, Belgium); Eva Gerhards (Brussels, Belgium); Iona M. S. Hamitlon (Brussels); Raymond Hill (Brussels); Jean Huby (Brussels); Patrick Klein (Brussels); Domenico Lombardi (Brussels); Thomas Millar (London, United Kingdom); Miltiadis Moraitis (Woluwe-Saint-Lambert, Belgium); Ansa Norman Palmer (Brussels); Nicola Robinson (Brussels); François-Xavier Rouxel (Brussels); Marta Silva Mendes (Brussels); Peter van den Hul (Tervuren, Belgium); Fritz Von Nordheim Nielsen (Hoeilaart, Belgium); and Michaël Zouridakis (Brussels) (represented by: initially, G. Vandersanden, L. Levi and A. Finchelstein, and subsequently, G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and H. Kraemer, acting as Agents)

      Party intervening in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially, M. Arpio Santacruz, M. Sims and and I. Sulce, and subsequently by M. Arpio Santacruz and and I. Sulce, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the decisions appointing the applicants as probationary officials, in so far as they fix their classification in the grade on the basis of the transitional provisions in Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities, as amended by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 (OJ 2004 L 124, p. 1)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay half the costs incurred by the applicants;

               3.

               orders the applicants to bear half the costs incurred by them;

               4.

               orders the Council to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 93, 16.4.2005.


title: Case C-350/08: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 October 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Lithuania (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — 2003 Act of Accession — Obligations of the accession States — Acquis communautaire — Directives 2001/83/EC and 2003/63/EC — Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 — Medicinal products for human use — Similar biological medicinal products from biotechnical processes — National marketing authorisation granted before accession)

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/5

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 October 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Lithuania
   (Case C-350/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - 2003 Act of Accession - Obligations of the accession States - Acquis communautaire - Directives 2001/83/EC and 2003/63/EC - Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 - Medicinal products for human use - Similar biological medicinal products from biotechnical processes - National marketing authorisation granted before accession)
   2010/C 346/07
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Steiblytė and M. Šimerdová, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas and R. Mackevičienė, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Article 6(1) of and Section 4 of Part II of Annex I to Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67), as amended by Directive 2003/63/EC, and of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 of 22 July 1993 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (OJ 1993 L 214, p. 1) and Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1) — Maintenance of the national marketing authorisation for the similar biological medicinal product ‘Grasalva’

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by maintaining in force the national marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Grasalva, the Republic of Lithuania has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Commission Directive 2003/63/EC of 25 June 2003, under Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 of 22 July 1993 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products, and under Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Lithuania to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 247, 27.9.2008.


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European CommunitiesOJ C 144, 15.6.2002

text:
C 156/40        EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                      29.6.2002
                                                           III
                                                        (Notices)
                                                   (2002/C 156/74)
         Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Communities
         OJ C 144, 15.6.2002
         Past publications
         OJ C 131, 1.6.2002
         OJ C 118, 18.5.2002
         OJ C 109, 4.5.2002
         OJ C 97, 20.4.2002
         OJ C 84, 6.4.2002
         OJ C 68, 16.3.2002
                                              These texts are available on:
                                         EUR-Lex: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex
                                           CELEX: http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 December 2000 in Case T-69/99: Danish Satellite TV (DSTV) A/S (Eurotica Rendez-Vous Television) v Commission of the European Communities ("Television Without Frontiers" directive — National restrictions on the retransmission across frontiers of television broadcasts — Finding by the Commission that those restrictions are compatible with Community law — Action for annulment — Admissibility)

text:
C 108/16                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         7.4.2001
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 26 October 2000
                                                                                of 13 December 2000
in Case T-154/98: Asia Motor France SA and Others v
        Commission of the European Communities (1)                         in Case T-69/99: Danish Satellite TV (DSTV) A/S (Eurotica
                                                                           Rendez-Vous Television) v Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities (1)
(Competition — Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81
EC) — Obligations regarding the investigation of complaints
— Legality of grounds for rejection — Manifest error of
assessment — Article 176 of the EC Treaty (now Article 233                 (‘Television Without Frontiers’ directive — National restric-
           EC) — Admissibility of a new plea in law)                       tions on the retransmission across frontiers of television
                                                                           broadcasts — Finding by the Commission that those restric-
                                                                           tions are compatible with Community law — Action for
                                                                                annulment — Admissibility)
                          (2001/C 108/26)
                                                                                (2001/C 108/27)
                     (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-154/98: Asia Motor France SA, established in
Chemille (France), Jean-Michel Cesbron, carrying on business                                  (Language of the case: French)
under the name of JMC Automobiles, residing in Chemille,
Monin Automobiles SA, established in Bourg-de-Péage
(France), Europe Auto Service (EAS) SA, established in Livange
(Luxembourg), all represented by J.-C. Fourgoux, of the Brussels           In Case T-69/99: Danish Satellite TV (DSTV) A/S (Eurotica
and Paris Bars, with an address for service in Luxembourg at               Rendez-Vous Television), established in Frederiksberg, Den-
the Chambers of P. Schiltz, 4 Rue Béatrix de Bourbon,                      mark, represented by J.-P. Hordies and A. Maqua, of the
against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                    Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
represented by G. Marenco, and L. Guérin and, subsequently,                office of Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange, against Com-
by G. Marenco and F. Siredey-Garnier) — application for                    mission of the European Communities (Agents: K. Banks and
annulment of the Commission’s decision of 15 July 1998                     M. Wolfcarius), supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain
rejecting the complaints lodged by the applicants as to the                and Northern Ireland (Agents: R.Plender QC and R.V. Magrill)
existence of cartel practices alleged to be contrary to Article 85         — application for annulment of the act of the Commission of
of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) — the Court of First                  22 December 1998, addressed to the United Kingdom and
Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas,              notified to the applicant on 28 December 1998 — the Court
President, P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal           of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: J. Pirrung,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                  President, A. Potocki and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; G. Herzig,
26 October 2000, in which it:                                              Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                           13 December 2000, in which it:
1.    Dismisses as inadmissible the claim that the Court should take
      formal note that the applicants reserve the right to bring an        1.    Dismisses the application as inadmissible;
      action in damages against the Commission;
                                                                           2.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those of
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the action as unfounded;                        the Commission;
3.    Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and, jointly and
      severally, to pay the costs of the Commission, including those       3.    Orders the United Kingdom to bear its own costs.
      reserved in the order of 21 May 1999.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.
(1) OJ C 358 of 21.11.1998.


title: Case T-59/17: Action brought on 14 April 2017 — L v Parliament

text:
               10.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/29

         Action brought on 14 April 2017 — L v Parliament
   (Case T-59/17)
   (2017/C 221/41)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: L (represented by: I. Coutant Peyre, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the decision of the Parliament to dismiss the applicant dated 24/06/2016 and received on 25/07/2016;

               —

               order the Parliament to pay non-pecuniary damages of 100 000 euros; and

               —

               order the Parliament to pay legal costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of protection of whistle-blowers as defined by Articles 22 (a), Article 22 (b) of the Staff Regulations, Article 6(1) of the Internal Rules.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging absence of motivation.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging obvious error of assessment.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principal of proportionality.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of care.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging absence of response by the Parliament to the applicant’s request of assistance, breach of the right to the defence, breach of the right to conciliation.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging breach of the right of access to the documents.

               8.

               Eighth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers.


title: Case T-373/13: Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2014 — Alsteens v Commission (Appeal — Civil Service — Temporary agents — Extension of contract — Manifest inadmissibility of the action at first instance — Right to a hearing — Severability of the codicil extending the contract)

text:
               28.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2014 — Alsteens v Commission
   (Case T-373/13) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil Service - Temporary agents - Extension of contract - Manifest inadmissibility of the action at first instance - Right to a hearing - Severability of the codicil extending the contract))
   2014/C 129/27
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Geoffroy Alsteens (Marcinelle, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, D. de Abreu Caldas and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal lodged against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 8 May 2013 in Case F-87/12 Alsteens v Commission seeking the annulment of that order.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 8 May 2013 in Case F-87/12 Alsteens v Commission;

               2.

               Refers the action back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

               3.

               Orders the costs to be reserved.

      (1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 May 2001 in Case T-178/96: Eridania SpA and Others v Council of the European Union (Sugar — System of prices — Regionalisation — Deficit areas — Classification of Italy — Marketing year 1996 — 1997 — Regulations No 1580/96 and No 1785/81 — Action for annulment — Manifest inadmissibility — Claim for damages manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
15.9.2001              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 259/11
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                Industriale Romagnola SpA), whose registered office is at
                                                                           Cesena (Italy), represented by B. O’Connor, solicitor, and
                          of 30 May 2001                                   I. Vigliotti and P. Crocetta, lawyers, with an address for service
                                                                           in Luxembourg, supported by Comité Européen des Fabricants
in Case T-348/00: Artin Barth v Commission of the                          de Sucre, established in Brussels, represented by B. Garcı́a
                   European Communities (1)                                Porras, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
                                                                           against Council of the European Union (Agents: I. Diez Parra
(Officials — Household allowance — Recovery of sums                        and J.-P. Hix), supported by Commission of the European
                              overpaid)                                    Communities (Agent: P. Ziotti) — application for, first,
                                                                           annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1580/96 of 30 July
                          (2001/C 259/17)                                  1996 fixing, for the 1996/97 marketing year, the derived
                                                                           intervention prices for white sugar, the intervention price for
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)                           raw sugar, the minimum prices for A and B beet, and the
                                                                           amount of compensation for storage costs (OJ 1996 L 206,
In Case T-348/00: Artin Barth, former official of the Com-                 p. 9), and a finding that certain provisions of Council
mission of the European Communities, residing in Lenzkirch                 Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 on the
(Germany), represented by E.J.H. Moons and J. Vercammen,                   common organization of the markets in the sugar sector (OJ
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against                1981 L 177, p. 4) are inapplicable, as amended by Council
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall                 Regulation (EC) No 1101/95 of 24 April 1995 (OJ 1995
and W. Wils) — application for annulment of the decision of                L 110, p. 1) and, secondly, a claim for compensation to make
the Commission of 17 August 2000 withdrawing, with effect                  good the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants —
from 1 October 1998, the household allowance of which the                  the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of
applicant had been in receipt until then and recovery of sums              B. Vesterdorf, President, M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood, Judges;
overpaid by virtue of that allowance during the period running             H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 11 May 2001, the
from 1 October 1998 to 28 February 2000 — the Court of                     operative part of which is as follows:
First Instance (Single Judge: M. Vilaras); Blanca Pastor, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 30 May                1.    The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible in so
2001, in which it:                                                               far as it seeks the annulment of Article 1 (f) of Regulation
                                                                                No 1580/96.
1.    Dismisses the application.
                                                                           2.    The application is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foun-
2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                                dation in law inasmuch as it seeks an order requiring the
                                                                                Council to make good the damage allegedly caused to the
(1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.01.                                                          applicants by the adoption and application of Regulation
                                                                                No 1580/96, cited above.
                                                                           3.    The applicants shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred
                                                                                by the Council.
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                4.    The Commission and the Comité Européen des Fabricants de
                                                                                Sucre shall bear their own costs.
                          of 11 May 2001
in Case T-178/96: Eridania SpA and Others v Council of                     (1) OJ 1997 C 54.
                     the European Union (1)
(Sugar — System of prices — Regionalisation — Deficit
areas — Classification of Italy — Marketing year 1996 —
1997 — Regulations No 1580/96 and No 1785/81 —                                   ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Action for annulment — Manifest inadmissibility — Claim
    for damages manifestly lacking any foundation in law)                                             of 2 May 2001
                          (2001/C 259/18)                                  in Case T-208/00: Jeremı́as Augusto Barleycorn Mongolue
                                                                           and Marc Boixader Rivas against the Council of the
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                               European Union and the European Parliament (1)
In Case T-178/96: Società Eridiana SpA, whose registered                   (Officials — Application for annulment — Conditions of
office is at Genoa (Italy), Società ISI (Industria Saccarifera             admission to a competition — Spanish technical engineers —
Italiana Agroindustriale SpA), whose registered office is at               Type of university qualification required — Inadmissibility)
Padua (Italy), Società Sadam Zuccherifici, a division of S.E.C.I.
(Società Esercizi Commerciali Industriali SpA), whose regis-                                         (2001/C 259/19)
tered office is at Bologna (Italy), Società Sadam Castiglionese
SpA, whose registered office is at Bologna (Italy), Società                                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
Sadam Abruzzo SpA, whose registered office is at Bologna
(Italy), Società Zuccherificio del Molise SpA, whose registered            In Case T-208/00, Jeremı́as Augusto Barleycorn Mongolue and
office is at Termoli (Italy), Società S.F.I.R. (Società Fondiaria          Marc Boixader Rivas residing in Madrid, represented by


title: Case T-297/13: Action brought on 29 May 2013 — Junited Autoglas Deutschland/OHIM — Belron Hungary (United Autoglas)

text:
               27.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 215/16

         Action brought on 29 May 2013 — Junited Autoglas Deutschland/OHIM — Belron Hungary (United Autoglas)
   (Case T-297/13)
   2013/C 215/22
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Junited Autoglas Deutschland (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: C. Weil, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Belron Hungary Kft — Zug Branch (Zug, Switzerland)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the contested decision;

               —

               Dismiss the opposition filed by the intervener to the application for registration of the Community trademark ‘United Autoglas’;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs, including those incurred by the applicant before the board of Appeal;

               —

               Order the intervener to pay the costs, including those incurred by the applicant before the board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘United Autoglas’ for goods and services in classes 1, 12 and 37 — Community trade mark registration No 6 025 498

      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: United Kingdom and Polish trade mark registrations of figurative marks containing the word element ‘AUTOGLASS’ and the word marks ‘AUTOGLASS’ for goods and services in classes 12, 21 et 37

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 2 April 1998 in Case C-367/95 P: Commission of the European Communities v. Chambre Syndicale Nationale des Entreprises de Transport de Fonds et Valeurs (Sytraval) and Brink's France SARL (Appeal - State aid - Complaint by a competitor - Commission's obligations concerning the investigation of a complaint and the provision of reasons for rejecting it)

text:
4.7.98               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 209/3
Wales for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending          Philippe Sands and Mark Hoskins, Barristers, instructed
before that court between The Queen and Commissioners              by Leigh, Day & Co., Solicitors, with an address for
of Customs and Excise, ex parte EMU Tabac SARL, The                service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jean-Paul
Man in Black Limited and John Cunningham; intervener:              Noesen, 18 Rue des Glacis Ð appeal against the order of
Imperial Tobacco Ltd Ð on the interpretation of Council            the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general             (First Chamber) of 9 August 1995 in Case T-585/93
arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on            Greenpeace and Others v. Commission [1995] ECR
the holding, movement and monitoring of such products              II-2205, seeking to have that order set aside, the other
(OJ L 76 of 23.3.1992, p. 1), as amended by Council                party to the proceedings being Commission of the
Directive 92/108/EEC of 14 December 1992 (OJ L 390 of              European Communities (Agent: Peter Oliver), supported
31.12.1992, p. 124) Ð the Court, composed of: G. C.                by Kingdom of Spain (Agents: Alberto JoseÂ Navarro
Rodríguez Iglesias, President, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet           GonzaÂlez and Gloria Calvo Díaz) Ð the Court, composed
and R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini,          of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann,
J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray (Rapporteur), J.-          H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet (Presidents of Chambers),
P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges;            G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur),
D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; D.                       P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P.
Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the                 Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges;
Registrar, has given a judgment on 2 April 1998, in which          G. Cosmas, Advocate General; for the Registrar, has given
it has ruled:                                                      a judgment on 2 April 1998, in which it:
                                                                   1. Dismisses the appeal.
Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the
general arrangements for products subject to excise duty
and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such
products, as amended by Council Directive 92/108/EEC               2. Orders the appellants to pay the costs.
of 14 December 1992, must be interpreted as not
precluding the levying of excise duty in Member State A
on goods released for consumption in Member State B,               3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.
where the goods were acquired from a company, X, for
the use of private individuals in Member State A, through          (1) OJ C 315 of 25.11.1995.
a company, Y, acting in return for payment as agent for
those individuals, and where transportation of the goods
from Member State B to Member State A was also
arranged by company Y on behalf of those individuals and
effected by a professional carrier charging for his services.
(1) OJ C 299 of 11.11.1995.                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 2 April 1998
                                                                   in Case C-367/95 P: Commission of the European
                                                                   Communities v. Chambre Syndicale Nationale des Entre-
                                                                   prises de Transport de Fonds et Valeurs (Sytraval) and
                                                                                Brink's France SARL (1)
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                (Appeal Ð State aid Ð Complaint by a competitor Ð
                                                                   Commission's obligations concerning the investigation of a
                       of 2 April 1998                                complaint and the provision of reasons for rejecting it)
in Case C-321/95 P: Stichting Greenpeace Council                                           (98/C 209/05)
(Greenpeace International) and Others v. Commission of
the European Communities, supported by Kingdom of
                           Spain (1)                                              (Language of the case: French)
(Appeal Ð Natural or legal persons Ð Measures of direct
              and individual concern to them)
                                                                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                        (98/C 209/04)                                       published in the European Court Reports)
               (Language of the case: English)                     In Case C-367/95 P: Commission of the European
                                                                   Communities (Agents: Jean-Louis Dewost, Jean-Paul
                                                                   Keppenne and Michel Nolin), supported by French
                                                                   Republic (Agents: Catherine de Salins and Jean-Marc
In Case C-321/95 P: Stichting Greenpeace Council                   Belorgey), Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: Ernst
(Greenpeace International) and Others, represented by              Röder and Bernd Kloke), Kingdom of Spain (Agent:
 ---pagebreak--- C 209/4               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       4.7.98
Gloria Calvo Díaz) and Kingdom of the Netherlands                    Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H. von Holstein,
(Agent: Marc Fierstra) Ð appeal against the judgment of              Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities              on 2 April 1998, in which it has ruled:
(Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 28 September
1995 in Case T-95/94 Sytraval and Brink's France v.
Commission [1995] ECR II-2651, seeking to have that                  The first paragraph of Article 95 of the EC Treaty
judgment set aside, the other parties to the proceedings             precludes an excise duty which forms part of a national
being Chambre Syndicale Nationale des Entreprises de                 system of taxation on sources of energy from being levied
Transport de Fonds et Valeurs (Sytraval) and Brink's                 on electricity of domestic origin at rates which vary
France SARL Ð the Court, composed of G. C. Rodríguez                 according to its method of production while being levied
Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), H.                     on imported electricity, whatever its method of
Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet (Presidents of Chambers),                  production, at a flat rate which, although lower than the
G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G.                   highest rate applicable to electricity of domestic origin,
Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet,            leads, if only in certain cases, to higher taxation being
G. Hirsch, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges, C. O. Lenz,                 imposed on imported electricity.
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 2 April 1998 in which it:                                (1) OJ C 247 of 24.8.1996.
1. Dismisses the appeal.
2. Orders       the    Commission       of    the    European
     Communities, the Federal Republic of Germany, the
     Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic and the                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
     Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear their own costs.                                    of 28 April 1998
                                                                     in Case C-120/95: (reference for a preliminary ruling from
(1) OJ C 16 of 20.1.1996.                                            the Conseil Arbitral des Assurances Sociales): Nicolas
                                                                         Decker v. Caisse de Maladie des EmployeÂs PriveÂs (1)
                                                                     (Free movement of goods Ð Articles 30 and 36 of the EC
                                                                     Treaty Ð Reimbursement of medical expenses incurred in
                                                                     another Member State Ð Prior authorisation of the
                                                                           competent institution Ð Purchase of spectacles)
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                          (98/C 209/07)
                       of 2 April 1998
in Case C-213/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                           (Language of the case: French)
the Uudenmaan Lääninoikeus): proceedings brought by
                      Outokumpu Oy (1)
(Excise duty on electricity Ð Rates of duty varying                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
according to the method of producing electricity of                           published in the European Court Reports)
    domestic origin Ð Flat rate for imported electricity)
                        (98/C 209/06)                                In Case C-120/95: reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                     of the EC Treaty from the Conseil Arbitral des Assurances
                                                                     Sociales    (Social     Insurance     Arbitration     Council)
               (Language of the case: Finnish)                       (Luxembourg) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
                                                                     pending before that tribunal between Nicolas Decker and
                                                                     Caisse de Maladie des EmployeÂs PriveÂs Ð on the
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       interpretation of Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty Ð
         published in the European Court Reports)                    the Court, composed of G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias,
                                                                     President, C. Gulmann and H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur),
                                                                     (Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho
In Case C-213/96: reference to the Court under Article 177           de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O.
of the EC Treaty from the Uudenmaan Lääninoikeus                     Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann, Judges;
(Uusimaa Provincial Administrative Court), Finland, for a            G. Tesauro, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that            Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
court brought by Outokumpu Oy Ð on the interpretation                judgment on 28 April 1998, in which it has ruled:
of Articles 9, 12 and 95 of the EC Treaty Ð the Court,
composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, C.
Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen (Rapporteur)                  Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty preclude national
(Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho              rules under which a social security institution of a
de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O.                 Member State refuses to reimburse to an insured person
Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and L. Sevón,           on a flat-rate basis the cost of a pair of spectacles with


title: Case C-262/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 27 May 2010 — Döhler Neuenkirchen GmbH v Hauptzollamt Oldenburg

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 27 May 2010 — Döhler Neuenkirchen GmbH v Hauptzollamt Oldenburg
   (Case C-262/10)
   ()
   2010/C 246/29
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Döhler Neuenkirchen GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Oldenburg

      Question referred

   Is Article 204(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (1) to be interpreted as meaning that it also applies to non-fulfilment of those obligations which are to be fulfilled only after discharge of the relevant customs procedure which has been used, so that where goods imported under an inward processing procedure in the form of a system of suspension have been partly re-exported within the time-limit the failure to fulfil the obligation to supply the bill of discharge to the supervising office within 30 days of the expiry of the time-limit for discharging the procedure gives rise to a customs debt in respect of the entire quantity of the imported goods covered by the bill of discharge if the requirements of Article 859(9) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (2) establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Article 1(30)(b) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 993/2001 of 4 May 2001 (3) are not fulfilled?

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code;  OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1.

      (3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 993/2001 of 4 May 2001 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code; OJ 2001 L 141, p. 1.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 24 October 1995 in Case C-70/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof): Bayerische Motorenwerke AG v. ALD Auto-Leasing D GmbH (Selective distribution system - Motor vehicles - Refusal to supply - Territorial protection - Interpretation of Article 85 (1) of the EEC Treaty and Regulation (EEC) No 123/85)

text:
9 . 12 . 95           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 333/1
                                                                 I
                                                           (Information)
                                             COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                       COURT OF JUSTICE
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 question, or from calling on such dealers to act in that
                                                                     manner .
                      of 24 October 1995
in Case C-70/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the        Commission Regulation (EEC) No 123/85 of 12 December
Bundesgerichtshof): Bayerische Motorenwerke AG v. ALD                1984 on the application of Article 85 (3) of the Treaty to
                  Auto-Leasing D GmbH ( ! )                          certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and
(Selective distribution system — Motor vehicles — Refusal            servicing agreements must be interpreted as meaning that it
to supply — Territorial protection — Interpretation of               does not exempt such an agreement.
Article 85 (1) of the EEC Treaty and Regulation (EEC)
                           No 123/85)                                (') OJ No C 112 , 22 . 4 . 1993 .
                         ( 95/C 333/01 )
                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                               of 24 October 1995
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     in Case C-266/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
In Case C-70/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of        the Bundesgerichtshof): Bundeskartellamt v. Volkswagen
the EC Treaty from the Bundesgerichtshof ( Federal Court of                        AG and VAG Leasing GmbH (*)
Justice ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending        (Leasing in the motor vehicles sector — Dealers acting as
 before that court between Bayerische Motorenwerke AG                agents exclusively for the manufacturer's subsidiary
and ALD Auto-Leasing D GmbH — on the interpretation of               primarily engaged in leasing — Interpretation of
Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EEC Treaty and Commission                    Article 85 (1) of the EEC Treaty and of Regulation (EEC)
 Regulation ( EEC ) No 123/85 of 12 December 1984 on the                                          No 123/85)
 application of Article 85 ( 3 ) of the Treaty to certain                                       ( 95/C 333/02 )
 categories of motor vehicle distribution and servicing
 agreements ( OJ 1985 L 15 , p. 16 ) — the Court, composed of                       (Language of the case: German)
 G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O.
 Edward, G. Hirsch ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F.                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
 Mancini , F. A. Schockweiler ( Rapporteur ), J. C. Moitinho                  published in the European Court Reports)
 de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and
 L. Sevón, Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate-General; H. A.                In Case C-266/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
 Rühl , Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a       of the EEC Treaty from the Bundesgerichtshof ( Federal
 judgment on 24 October 1995 , in which it rules :                    Court of Justice ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
                                                                      pending before that court between Bundeskartellamt and
 Article 85 (1 ) of the EEC Treaty must be interpreted as             ( 1 ) Volkswagen AG and ( 2 ) VAG Leasing GmbH,
 meaning that it precludes a motor vehicle manufacturer               supported by VAG-Händlerbeirat eV — on the
 which sells its vehicles through a selective distribution            interpretation of Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EEC Treaty and
 system from agreeing with its authorized dealers that they           Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 123/85 of 12 December
 are not to deliver vehicles to independent leasing companies         1984 on the application of Article 85 ( 3 ) of the Treaty to
 where, without granting an option to purchase, those                 certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and
 companies make them available to lessees whose residence             servicing agreements ( OJ 1985 L 15 , p. 16 ) — the Court,
 or seat is outside the contract territory of the dealer in           composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, C. N. Kakouris,


title: Case T-455/16 P: Appeal brought on 14 August 2016 by Elia Fernández González against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14 June 2016 in Case F-121/15, Fernández González v Commission

text:
               17.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/17

         Appeal brought on 14 August 2016 by Elia Fernández González against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14 June 2016 in Case F-121/15, Fernández González v Commission
   (Case T-455/16 P)
   (2016/C 383/24)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Elia Fernández González (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by M. Casado García-Hirschfeld and É. Boigelot, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) in Case F-121/15 delivered on 14 June 2016 in Elia Fernández González v European Commission;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay all the costs, including those incurred before the CST.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on a single plea in law, alleging a distortion of the facts by the judgment under appeal and manifest errors of assessment resulting in an imprecise reasoning in law. The appellant contests in particular paragraphs 29 to 31 and 36 to 39 of the judgment under appeal.


title: Case T-163/15: Action brought on 2 April 2015 — Delta Group agroalimentare v Commission

text:
               1.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/22

         Action brought on 2 April 2015 — Delta Group agroalimentare v Commission
   (Case T-163/15)
   (2015/C 178/22)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Delta Group agroalimentare Srl (Porto Viro, Italy) (represented by: V. Migliorini, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Forms of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare null and void and, at all events, annul letter Ref. Ares (2015) 528512, of 9 February 2015, from Jerzy Plewa, Director-General of the Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development at the European Commission, addressed to Mr Scabin, the applicant’s authorised representative, received on the same date, rejecting the applicant’s request of 13 January 2015 that the Commission take measures pursuant to either Article 219(1) or Article 221 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, and, in particular, fix the export refunds pursuant to Article 196 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, in the poultrymeat sector.

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment and breach of Article 219(1) and Article 221 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 671).

                           —

                           The applicant claims in that regard that the Commission’s statement that the trade statistics for the first 11 months of 2014 show a 5 % increase in exports compared to the same period in 2013 is contradicted by the right-hand column of the table found on page 19 of the same report on the market situation for poultrymeat of the Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets of 22 January 2015, cited by the Commission, which showed that in the first 11 months of 2013, European Union exports of poultrymeat came to EUR 1  93 6 0 00  000, while in the first 11 months of 2014 those exports came to only EUR 1  88 6 8 38  000, amounting to a 2,5 % decline and not a 5 % increase, and that the Commission also erred in its assessment of prices, which it defined as ‘stable’, even though they represent a severe decrease of approximately 8 %, as page 9 of the report shows and therefore constitutes a manifest error of assessment and a breach of Article 219(1) and Article 221 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements, and in particular, of Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.

                           —

                           The applicant claims in that regard that the Commission’s decision to reject the request for measures to be taken pursuant to Article 221 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 has been taken without the advice of the Committee for the Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets, thereby breaching an essential procedural requirement set out in Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011, applicable by virtue of the reference made in Article 229 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, which, in turn, is referred to in Article 221 of the latter regulation.


title: Case T-342/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 May 2007 — Henkel KGaA v OHIM — SERCA(COR) ( Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark COR — Earlier national figurative mark including the word element dor in gothic script — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 )

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/23

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 May 2007 — Henkel KGaA v OHIM — SERCA(COR)
   (Case T-342/05) (1)

   (‘Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark COR - Earlier national figurative mark including the word element “dor’ in gothic script - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94’)
   (2007/C 155/46)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Henkel KGaA (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by C. Osterrieth, lawyer)

      Defendant(s): Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by A. Folliard-Monguiral then by G. Schneider, agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Serra Y Roca, SA (SERCA) (Barcelona, Spain)
   Re:
   Action for annulment brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 July 2005 (Case R 556/2003-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Henkel KGaA and Serra y Roca, SA (SERCA).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 296 of 26.11.2005.


C 3/50                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                   5.1.2002
      Removal from the Register of Case T-247/99 (1)                            Removal from the Register of Case T-225/00 (1)
                         (2002/C 3/86)                                                              (2002/C 3/89)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                                          (Language of the case: German)
By order of 20 September 2001, the President of the First
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                    By order of 13 September 2001, the President of the Fifth
Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of                  Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Case T-247/99, Flavia Angeletti and André Van Meuter v                    Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
Commission of the European Communities.                                   Case T-225/00: Andrea Gaul v Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities.
(1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.
      Removal from the Register of Case T-167/00 (1)
                                                                                Removal from the Register of Case T-55/01 (1)
                         (2002/C 3/87)
                                                                                (2002/C 3/90)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
By order of 14 September 2001, the President of the Second
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of                  By order of 12 September 2001, the President of the Chamber
Case T-167/00: Jaume Costa v Commission of the European                   of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
Communities.                                                              has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-55/01,
                                                                          Asahi Vet SA v Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001.
      Removal from the Register of Case T-192/00 (1)
                         (2002/C 3/88)                                          Removal from the Register of Case T-112/01 (1)
                   (Language of the case: French)                                                   (2002/C 3/91)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 10 September 2001, the President of the Fifth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
                                                                          By order of 10 September 2001, the President of the Fifth
Case T-192/00: Sabrina Tesoka v Commission of the European
                                                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities.
                                                                          Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
                                                                          Case T-112/01: Ursula Klug v Council of the European Union.
(1) OJ C 273 of 23.9.2000.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 275 of 29.9.2001.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 September 2005 in Joined Cases C-281/03 and C-282/03, Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven: Cindu Chemicals BV and Others v College voor de toelating van bestrijdingsmiddelen (Directive 76/769/EEC — Dangerous substances — Ability of the Member States to lay down additional conditions for the placing on the market and use of a biocidal product the use of whose active substance is restricted by the directive — Wood preservatives containing coal-tar distillates (carbolineum and creosote) — Wood preservatives containing copper, chrome and arsenic)

text:
               29.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 271/3

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 15 September 2005
   in Joined Cases C-281/03 and C-282/03, Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven: Cindu Chemicals BV and Others v College voor de toelating van bestrijdingsmiddelen (1)

   (Directive 76/769/EEC - Dangerous substances - Ability of the Member States to lay down additional conditions for the placing on the market and use of a biocidal product the use of whose active substance is restricted by the directive - Wood preservatives containing coal-tar distillates (carbolineum and creosote) - Wood preservatives containing copper, chrome and arsenic)
   (2005/C 271/06)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Joined Cases C-281/03 and C-282/03: references for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands), made by decision of 26 June 2003, received at the Court on 30 June 2003, in the proceedings between Cindu Chemicals BV (C-281/03), Rütgers VFT AG, Touwen & Co. BV, Pearl Paint Holland BV, Elf Atochem Nederland BV, Zijlstra & Co. Verf BV, Chemische Producten Struyk & Co. BV, Van Swaay Schijndel BV, Houtbereiding G. Rozendaal BV, Arch Timber Protection BV (C-282/03) and College voor de toelating van bestrijdingsmiddelen, intervener: Stichting Behoud Leefmilieu en Natuur Maas en Waal — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta, J. Makarczyk, P. Kūris and G. Arestis (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 September 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
   Council Directive 76/769/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations, as amended by European Parliament and Council Directive 94/60/EC of 20 December 1994, must be interpreted as not permitting a Member State to impose on the placing on the market and use of a biocidal product the active substance of which is included in Annex I thereto conditions other than those which the directive lays down, without prejudice to the application of other relevant Community provisions laying down specific conditions for that product.

      (1)  OJ C 251, 18.10.2003.


title: Case C-585/13 P: Appeal brought on 19 November 2013 by Europäisch-Iranische Handelsbank AG against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 6 September 2013 in Case T-434/11: Europäisch-Iranische Handelsbank AG v Council of the European Union

text:
               18.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 15/11

         Appeal brought on 19 November 2013 by Europäisch-Iranische Handelsbank AG against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 6 September 2013 in Case T-434/11: Europäisch-Iranische Handelsbank AG v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-585/13 P)
   2014/C 15/16
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Europäisch-Iranische Handelsbank AG (represented by: S. Jeffrey, Solicitor, S. Ashley, Solicitor, A. Irvine, Solicitor, H. Hohmann, Rechtsanwalt, D. Wyatt QC, R. Blakeley, Barrister)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the Judgment of the General Court in the detailed respects indicated in this Appeal;

               —

               Annul the Contested Measures immediately in so far as they apply to EIH;

               —

               Order that the Council pay EIH's costs of the proceedings before the General Court and before this Court on Appeal.

         and

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The General Court erred in law and reached a conclusion incompatible with the pleadings in concluding that EIH conceded that it carried out the transactions relied upon by the Council to justify its designation:

                           —

                           EIH did not concede that it carried out the transactions contained in the Council’s statement of reasons.

                           —

                           EIH's denial that it had carried out the transactions in the statement of reasons was sufficiently pleaded in its written pleadings and was, therefore, admissible.

               2.

               The General Court erred in law in finding that the substantive criteria for designation were met:

                           —

                           EIH did not concede that it carried out the transactions relied upon by the Council to justify its designation and the Council failed to provide evidence to the contrary.

                           —

                           The transactions referred to in EIH's Application did not correspond to the transactions relied upon by the Council to justify designation.

                           —

                           EIH's submission that certain transactions were excluded from the scope of the EU sanctions regime (viz., payments into frozen accounts) was sufficiently substantiated and accordingly admissible.

                           —

                           EIH did not fail to provide evidence of authorisations under Articles 8-10 of Council Regulation (EU) No 423/2007 (1) or sufficient evidence of authorisations under Article 21 of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (2) for transactions which took place after 2 September 2010.

                           —

                           The so-called Third Way transactions were approved by the competent national authority responsible for enforcing sanctions in Germany and for supervising EIH (the Bundesbank), and the General Court was wrong to hold that the Bundesbank had exceeded its powers, and wrong to hold that EIH should have questioned the authority of the Bundesbank to give the approvals which it gave.

               3.

               The General Court erred in law in dismissing EIH’s legitimate expectations/legal certainty ground:

                           —

                           The General Court adopted an incorrect characterisation of the facts on the Court file and was wrong to hold that EIH should have foreseen that it would be designated for complying with the binding assurances of the Bundesbank.

                           —

                           The General Court was wrong to hold that EIH could not rely on the principle of protection of legitimate expectations because the Bundesbank had exceeded its powers, because it did not exceed its powers, and even if it had, this would not preclude reliance upon the principle of legitimate expectations.

                           —

                           The General Court erred in law in holding that the relevant rules pursuant to which EIH was designated were unambiguous.

               4.

               The General Court erred in law in holding that EIH could not rely upon Article 32(2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 in contesting its designation and in holding that the sanctions imposed on EIH ensured a preventative effect that could not be achieved by the Bundesbank no longer approving the Third Way or authorising such transactions:

                           —

                           On the hypothesis (which is denied) that EIH acted unlawfully, Article 32(2) precluded the designation of EIH, because EIH acted in accordance with the advice and directions of the Bundesbank in every respect and did not know nor did it have reasonable cause to suspect that it had acted unlawfully.

                           —

                           The imposition of restrictive measures on EIH was disproportionate because more proportionate measures existed, since if the Council considered that the German regulatory regime required review and perhaps modification, it could have suggested such a review to the German authorities, and the German authorities would have been bound to cooperate under their duty of sincere cooperation, which the General Court wrongly failed to take into account.

                           —

                           The General Court also erred in law and reached a conclusion inconsistent with the documents in the file in concluding that the restrictive measures were proportionate because in EIH’s case the relevant transactions only came to light after the event. In the first place, the Bundesbank approved the Third Way before EIH acted in accordance with that approval. In the second place, if a review of its approval of Third Way transactions by the Bundesbank had led to a change in the Bundesbank’s position that would have had a preventative effect for all future transactions.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 of 19 April 2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran
   OJ L 103, p. 1

      (2)  Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007
   OJ L 281, p. 1