title: Appeal brought on 8 September 1997 by Augusto Fichtner, an official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing at Besozzo, Varese (Italy), against the order made on 9 July 1997 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-63/96 between Augusto Fichtner and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-312/97 P)

text:
1 . 11 . 97              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 331 /11
7. Does it follow from Article 222 of the EC Treaty, or                    the European Communities in Case T-63/96 between
     from the application by analogy of Article 174                        Augusto Fichtner and the Commission of the European
     thereof, that any right to pay in accordance with                     Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
     another collective agreement ( between the same                       the European Communities on 8 September 1997 by
     parties ) which may be inferred from Article 119 of the               Augusto Fichtner, represented by Vincenzo Salvatore,
     EC Treaty or from Directive 75/117/EEC exists only                    Avvocato in Pavia (Italy ).
     from the date of a finding to that effect by the Court
     of Justice ? •
                                                                           The appellant claims that the Court should           set aside the
                                                                           order of the Court of First Instance ( Fourth        Chamber) of
(') OJ L 45 , 19 . 2 . 1975 , p . 19 .
                                                                           9 July 1997 in Case T-63/96 H, notified to          the applicant
                                                                           on 11 July 1997, dismissing his application,        and refer the
                                                                           case back to the Court of First Instance .
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko
Protodikio Piraeus ( 8th Chamber), by a decision of 30 June
                                                                           Proceedings before the Court of First Instance were
1997, in the case of Royal Bank of Scotland PLC v.
                                Greek State                                brought in good time and in accordance with the proper
                                                                           procedure, by means of an application lodged on 10 May
                            Case C-3 11/97 )                               1996, against the decision adopted on 5 February 1996,
                                                                           which was notified to the applicant through official
                             ( 97/C 331/18 )
                                                                           channels on 20 February 1996 .
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     That is indisputably the measure concluding the
European Communities by a decision of 30 June 1997 of                      complaints      procedure.           The   character     of the
the Diikitiko Protodikio (Administrative Court of First                    communication from the Director-General of the Rights
Instance ) Piraeus ( 8th Chamber), which was received at the               and Obligations Directorate of DG IX is quite clear and it
Court Registry on 8 September 1997, for a preliminary                      cannot be regarded merely as an express reply, still less as
ruling in the case of Royal Bank of Scotland PLC v. Greek                  a confirmatory act.
State on the following question:
                                                                           In the alternative, the applicant asks the Court, in the
Is Article 109 ( 1 ) ( a ) of the Greek Income Tax Code                    event that his pleas in law are rejected, to acknowledge
contained in Law 2238/1994 ( FEK ( Greek Official                          that his error was excusable. As was pointed out in the
Gazette) 151 A), which imposes a different tax charge                      grounds of the order under appeal, the Court of First
unfavourable to foreign companies by applying a 40 % tax                   Instance has consistently held that failure to comply with
rate on their taxable income, as against domestic                          the time-limits set by Article 91 ( 3 ) of the Staff
companies to which a tax rate of 35% is applied,                           Regulations does not prevent an application from being
permissible under Community law and, in particular, is it                  admissible where the applicant has committed a justifiable
in compliance with Articles 7 and 52 of the Treaty; in                     error.
other words, is the Greek State entitled to impose the said
differential tax treatment which is unfavourable to foreign
companies ?                                                                 H OJ C 233 , 10 . 8 . 1996, p . 9 . ■
Appeal brought on 8 September 1997 by Augusto                               Action brought on 10 September 1997 by the Commission
Fichtner, an official of the Commission of the European                     of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
 Communities, residing at Besozzo, Varese (Italy), against                                          ( Case C-3 13/97)
the order made on 9 July 1997 by the Fourth Chamber of
 the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                                              ( 97/C 331 /20)
 in Case T-63/96 between Augusto Fichtner and the
           Commission of the European Communities
                          ( Case C-3 12/97 P)                               An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
                                                                            the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                              ( 97/C 331 / 19 )                             10 September 1997 by the Commission of the European
                                                                            Communities, represented by Laura Pignataro, of its Legal
                                                                            Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
 An appeal against the order made on 9 July 1997 by the                     Luxembourg at the offices of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
 Fourth     Chamber of the             Court of First Instance     of       Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.


title: Case F-77/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 5 March 2014  — DC v Europol (Civil service — Europol staff — Invalidity — Invalidity allowance — Calculation of interest — Application for damages — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               28.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/36

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 5 March 2014 — DC v Europol
   (Case F-77/13) (1)

   ((Civil service - Europol staff - Invalidity - Invalidity allowance - Calculation of interest - Application for damages - Manifest inadmissibility))
   2014/C 129/44
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: DC (represented by: W. Brouwer, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Police Office (Europol) (represented by: D.C. Neumann and J. Arnould, Agents)

      Re:

   Application to annul the decision fixing the interest payable on the sum paid in respect of total incapacity for work following two accidents which occurred during two work-related journeys.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               DC is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Police Office.

      (1)  OJ C 352, 30.11.2013, p. 27.


title: Case T-131/14 P: Appeal brought on 21 February 2014 by Catherine Teughels against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 December 2013 in Case F-117/11 Teughels v Commission

text:
               26.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 159/29

         Appeal brought on 21 February 2014 by Catherine Teughels against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 December 2013 in Case F-117/11 Teughels v Commission

   (Case T-131/14 P)
   2014/C 159/39
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Catherine Teughels (Eppegem, Belgium) (represented by L. Vogel, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               set aside entirely the judgment under appeal, delivered on 11 December 2013 by the European Union Civil Service Tribunal sitting in full court, notified by fax of 11 December 2013, whereby it dismissed the action brought by the appellant dated 8 November 2011;

               —

               examine the substance of the action brought by the appellant before the Civil Service Tribunal, find the action to be well founded and, consequently, annul the decisions which were the subject-matter of that action;

               —

               order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings, under Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure, including essential expenses incurred for the purposes of the proceedings, and particularly the costs of maintaining an address for service, the travel and subsistence expenses and the remuneration of the lawyers, under Article 91(b) of the Rules of Procedure.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on two grounds.

               1.

               First ground based on a claimed infringement of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) and Article 26(1) and (4) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, a disregard of acquired rights and infringement of the principles of legal certainty and non-retroactivity, and a failure to state reasons. The appellant claims that:

                           —

                           the Civil Service Tribunal gave retroactive effect to the general implementing provisions adopted in 2011 relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations on the transfer of pension rights by deciding that, in order to determine the number of years of pensionable service corresponding, under the Community pension scheme, to the actuarial equivalent of the appellant’s pension rights under the Belgian pension scheme, the appointing authority could properly apply the 2011 general implementing provisions on the ground that at the date when those provisions entered into force, the appellant was not in a situation which was ‘fully constituted’ under the 2004 general implementing provisions, since she had not accepted the proposed calculation which had prior to that date been communicated to her, notwithstanding that the application for transfer of pension rights had been made in November 2009, that the appellant’s rights had therefore definitively crystallised on that date and that they had consequently to be determined by applying the 2004 general implementing provisions;

                           —

                           the Civil Service Tribunal did not provide any legal basis for its analysis and did not explain on what ground the Staff Regulations provisions relied on by the appellant in her application at first instance and the principles enshrined therein should be disregarded in this case.

               2.

               Second ground based on a claimed infringement of the principles of legal certainty and ‘patere legem quam ipse fecisti’, a disregard of acquired rights, failure to state reasons and disregard of the authority and binding force stemming from any administrative measure pertaining to an individual, and more particularly the decision adopted with regard to the appellant on 29 June 2010. The appellant claims that:

                           —

                           the Civil Service Tribunal held, wrongly, that the situation of the appellant was not fully constituted under the 2004 general implementing provisions at the date when the 2011 general implementing provisions entered into force, on the ground that the appellant had not ‘either accepted or refused formally’ the proposed calculation communicated to her on 29 June 2010, although that proposed calculation constituted a genuine administrative decision, definitively affecting the rights of the appellant;

                           —

                           the authority could not, unilaterally, restrict the rights which followed from the proposed calculation, which was legally binding on it;

                           —

                           the Civil Service Tribunal disregarded the principle that the question whether a unilateral decision of the Commission is definitive and binding does not depend on the agreement of the person to whom it is addressed.


title: Case T-498/07 P: Appeal brought on 2 May 2008 by Erika Krcova against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 18 October 2007 in Case F-112/06, Krcova v Court of Justice

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/54

         Appeal brought on 2 May 2008 by Erika Krcova against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 18 October 2007 in Case F-112/06, Krcova v Court of Justice
   (Case T-498/07 P)
   (2008/C 209/98)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Erika Krcova (Trnava, Slovakia) (represented by J. Rooy, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Communities
   Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 18 October 2007 in Case F-112/06 Krcova v Court of Justice, not yet published in the ECR,

               —

               Annul the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 17 October 2005 by which the appellant was dismissed following her probationary period and, in so far as necessary, the decision of 16 September 2005 to extend her probationary period by two months, and the report on the probationary period of 12 September 2005 recommending her dismissal,

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs incurred before the Civil Service Tribunal and before the Court of First Instance.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the present appeal, the appellant seeks annulment of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) of 18 October 2007 in Case F-112/06 Krcova v Court of Justice dismissing the action by which the appellant sought annulment of the decision of the Court of Justice dismissing the appellant at the end of her probationary period.
   The appellant claims that the CST ruled ultra petita and incorrectly interpreted Article 34 of the Staff Regulations of the European Communities.


title: Case C-620/13 P: Appeal brought on 27 November 2013 by British Telecommunications plc against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Case T-226/09: British Telecommunications plc v European Commission

text:
               1.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/3

         Appeal brought on 27 November 2013 by British Telecommunications plc against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Case T-226/09: British Telecommunications plc v European Commission
   (Case C-620/13 P)
   2014/C 61/05
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: British Telecommunications plc (represented by: J. Holmes, Barrister, H. Legge QC)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, BT Pension Scheme Trustees Ltd

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal as it relates to the first and second pleas of the appellant’s application before the General Court;

               —

               uphold those pleas as well founded;

               —

               set aside Commission Decision 2009/703/EC of 11 February 2009 (1); and

               —

               grant the appellant its costs of the present appeal and of the application to the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant puts forward three pleas in law in support of its appeal.
   By its first ground of appeal, the appellant submits that in the judgment under appeal the General Court set out its own reasons, which are not contained in the Commission Decision, for disregarding certain special liabilities in its assessment of selectivity. The General Court thereby impermissibly sought to substitute its own reasoning for that of the Commission in assessing whether there was any selective advantage to the appellant.
   By its second ground of appeal, the appellant submits that, in any event, the General Court’s own reasons contain errors of law because in disregarding the special liabilities: the legal standard the General Court applied was incorrect; and the reasons it relied upon were in each case either irrelevant from the legal perspective or distorted the clear sense of the evidence.
   By its third ground of appeal, the appellant maintains that the General Court erred in law in its review of the Commission’s reasons for disregarding the special liabilities by upholding those reasons as legally relevant and sufficient to sustain the Commission Decision. The General Court’s review is inadequate. In some instances, it is unclear whether or not the General Court accepts the Commission’s reasoning and, if so, on what basis. In other instances, the General Court takes into account factors that are legally irrelevant and substitutes its own reasoning for that of the Commission.

      (1)  Commission Decision of 11 February 2009 concerning the State aid C-55/07 (ex NN-63/07, CP-106/06) implemented by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland — Crown guarantee to BT (notified under document C(2009) 685).
   OJ L 242, p. 21


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 July 2000 in Case T-139/99: Alsace International Car Services (AICS) v European Parliament (Public services contract — Passenger transport by chauffeur-driven vehicles — Invitation to tender — Compliance with national law — Principles of sound administration and of the duty to cooperate in good faith — Rejection of a tender)

text:
C 273/12                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        23.9.2000
1.    Dismisses the action;                                              ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                                                                                INSTANCE
2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                                of 28 June 2000
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.                                                in Case T-191/98 R II, Cho Yang Shipping Co. Ltd v
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         (Competition — Payment of fine — Bank guarantee —
                                                                                Urgency — Balance of interests)
                                                                                (2000/C 273/20)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                           of 6 July 2000                                In Case T-191/98 R II: Cho Yang Shipping Co. Ltd, established
                                                                         in Seoul, South Korea, represented by N. Bromfield and
in Case T-139/99: Alsace International Car Services (AICS)               C. Thomas, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                    v European Parliament (1)                            Luxembourg at the chambers of De Bandt, Van Hecke, Lagae
                                                                         and Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe, v Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities (Agent: R. Lyal) — Application for suspension
(Public services contract — Passenger transport by chauf-                of the operation of Commission Decision 1999/243/EC of
feur-driven vehicles — Invitation to tender — Compliance                 16 September 1998 relating to a proceeding pursuant to
with national law — Principles of sound administration and               Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty (Case No IV/35.134 —
of the duty to cooperate in good faith — Rejection of a                  Trans-Atlantic Conference Agreement) (OJ 1999 L 95, p. 1) in
                               tender)                                   so far as, in Article 8, it imposes a fine of EUR 13 750 000 on
                                                                         the applicant, the President of the Court of First Instance has
                                                                         given an order on 28 June 2000, in which:
                          (2000/C 273/19)
                                                                         1.   The application for interim relief is dismissed.
                   (Language of the case: French)                        2.   The applicant is given 15 days in which to lodge at the Registry
                                                                              a request for confidential treatment.
In Case T-139/99: Alsace International Car Services (AICS),              3.   Costs are reserved.
established in Strasbourg (France), represented by C. Imbach
and A. Dissler, of the Strasbourg Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of P. Schiltz, 4 Rue
Béatrix de Bourbon, v European Parliament (agents: P. Runge
Nielsen and O. Caisou-Rousseau) — application, first, for
annulment of the Parliament’s decision not to accept the
tender submitted by the applicant in the context of invitation
                                                                         ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
to tender No 99/S 18-8765/FR relating to a contract for
                                                                                INSTANCE
passenger transport by chauffeur-driven vehicles during the
Parliamentary sessions in Strasbourg and, second, for compen-
sation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a                                     of 28 June 2000
result of that decision — the Court of First Instance (Fifth
Chamber), composed of: R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, President, and             in Case T-74/00 R: Artegodan GmbH v Commission of
P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator, for                             the European Communities
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 July 2000, in which
it:                                                                      (Procedure for interim relief — Withdrawal of authorisation
                                                                         for medicinal products for human use which contain ‘amfe-
1.    Dismisses the action;                                              pramon’ — Directive 75/319/EEC — Urgency — Balancing
                                                                                of interests)
2.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay the
      Parliament’s costs.                                                                          (2000/C 273/21)
(1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.                                                                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         In Case T-74/00 R: Artegodan GmbH, established in Lüchow,
                                                                         Germany, represented by U. Doepner, Rechtsanwalt, Düssel-


title: Case T-365/00: Action brought on 29 November 2000 by Alsace International Car Service (A.I.C.S.) against European Parliament

text:
27.1.2001             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 28/29
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the            —     Set aside the decision of 12 September 2000 by the Third
      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade                  Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
      Marks and Designs) of 12 September 2000 in appeal                       the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) in Case
      No R 477/1999-3;                                                        R 569/1999-3;
—     order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market         —     Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
      (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.                             (Trademarks and Designs) to pay the costs of the present
                                                                              proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
The trade mark con-           Verbal mark ‘CARCARD’ — appli-
cerned:                       cation No 115 014
                                                                        Trade mark concerned:         Verbal trade mark ‘TRUCKCARD’,
                                                                                Application No 113 274
Goods or services con-        Goods and services in Classes 9,
cerned:                       36, 37, 38, 39, 42 (including
                              data media for vehicles, leasing of       Goods or service:             Goods and services in Classes 9,
                              motor vehicles and accounting in                                        36, 37, 38, 39, 42 (inter alia, data
                              that regard, arranging the pro-                                         carrier for vehicle data, leasing
                              vision of services in the field of                                      of motor vehicles and calculation
                              traffic and transport logistics,                                        thereof, provision of services in
                              emergency assistance, repairs and                                       the areas of traffic and transport
                              towing-away services)                                                   logistics, emergency, repair and
                                                                                vehicle-removal services)
Decision        contested     Refusal of registration by the
before the Board of           examiner                                  Decision        challenged    Refusal of registration by the
Appeal:                                                                 before the Board of           examiner
                                                                        Appeal:
Grounds of claim:             — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)
                                  of Regulation (EC) No 40/94           Pleas in law:                 — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)
                                                                                of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
                              — Infringement of Article 7(1)(c)
                                  of Regulation (EC) No 40/94                                         — Infringement of Article 7(1)(c)
                                                                                of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
Action brought on 24 November 2000 by Daimler Chrys-
ler AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the                      Action brought on 29 November 2000 by Alsace Inter-
          Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs)                      national Car Service (A.I.C.S.) against European Parlia-
                                                                                ment
                        (Case T-358/00)
                                                                                (Case T-365/00)
                         (2001/C 28/53)
                                                                                (2001/C 28/54)
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trademarks and Designs) was brought before the                  An action against the European Parliament was brought before
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                  the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
24 November 2000 by Daimler Chrysler AG, Stuttgart (Germ-               29 November 2000 by Alsace International Car Service
any), represented by Stefan Völker, Rechtsanwalt, of Gleiss             (A.I.C.S.), whose registered office is at Strasbourg (France),
Lutz Hootz Hirsch, Stuttgart, Germany.                                  represented by Jean Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar.
 ---pagebreak--- C 28/30               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  27.1.2001
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           mission. The pleas in law and main arguments are substantially
                                                                      the same as those put forward in that case.
—     annul the decision of the European Parliament of
      4 October 2000 refusing to terminate TAXI 13’s contract;
                                                                      The applicant submits in particular that:
—     subject to the appeal against the Case T-139/99, order
      the Parliament to pay, pursuant to Article 288 of the EC        —    French law prohibits taxi firms from carrying on a
      Treaty, compensation at a monthly rate of EUR 10 000                 business which is incompatible with the specific rules
      from 4 October 2000 until TAXI 13’s contract is                      which enable them to benefit from the advantages under
      terminated;                                                          the memorandum and articles of association, according
                                                                           to a final judgment of the Strasbourg Criminal Court
—     order the Parliament to pay the costs.                               delivered on 7 April 2000.
                                                                      —    the European Parliament was aware that awarding the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            contract in question to TAXI 13 was illegal.
The problem raised by the present case is related to that in
Case T-139/99 (1) Alsace International Car Service v Com-             (1) Not yet published.


title: Case F-74/06: Action brought on 19 June 2006 — Longinidis v Cedefop

text:
               30.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 237/15

         Action brought on 19 June 2006 — Longinidis v Cedefop
   (Case F-74/06)
   (2006/C 237/26)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Pavlos Longinidis (Thessalonius, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and N. Keramidas, lawyers)

      Defendant: Centre européen pour le développement de la formation professionnelle (‘European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training’) (‘Cedefop’)
   Forms of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of Cedefop′s Directorate of 30 November 2005 terminating the applicant's indefinite term contract;

               —

               annul the decision of Cedefop′s Directorate of 10 March 2006 refusing the applicant′s request to suspend enforcement of that decision;

               —

               annul the decision of Cedefop′s Directorate of 9 December 2005 downgrading the applicant from his post as Head of Legal and Contract Management Services to the rank of advisor to Cedefop;

               —

               annul the decision of 24 May 2006 by which the Cedefop′s Appeals Committee rejected the applicant′s complaint seeking the annulment of the three abovementioned decisions; this decision contained the grounds on which the appointing authority terminated the applicant′s contract;

               —

               annul the decision of 11 November 2005 by which Cedefop′s Directorate amended the composition of the Appeals Committee;

               —

               annul the decision of 14 November 2005 by which Cedefop′s Appeals Committee amended its rules of procedure;

               —

               annul the decision of Cedefop′s Appeals Committee′s of 10 March 2006 refusing the applicant′s complaint seeking annulment of the abovementioned decisions of 11 November 2005 and of 14 November;

               —

               annul the decision of Cedefop′s Directorate of 28 April 2006 rejecting the applicant's request that the deputy director of Cedefop should be excluded from leading the administrative investigation concerning him and the applicant;

               —

               annul the decision of Cedefop's Appeals Committee of 9 March 2006, relating to the complaint lodged by one of Cedefop's agent, so far as this decision affects the applicant′s reputation and his professional integrity;

               —

               order Cedefop to compensate the applicant for the financial damage — equal to the basic rate of salary, additional salary and pension rights — that the abovementioned decision of 30 November 2005 has caused him;

               —

               order Cedefop to pay the applicant 50 000 euros as compensation for pain and suffering caused by the abovementioned decision of 30 November 2005 by the abovementioned decision of 9 March 2006;

               —

               order Cedefop to pay the applicant one euro symbolically as compensation for pain and suffering caused by the abovementioned decision of 11 November 2005;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the decision of 30 November 2005, the Director of Cedefop terminated the employment contract for an indefinite term linking the applicant to Cedefop. According to the applicant this decision was taken beyond the limits of the discretionary power of the appointing authority and it is marred by misuse of power, breach of the right to be heard and of the right to a fair hearing, and also contradictions in the statement of reasons.
   According to the applicant, it is apparent from the explanations given by the appointing authority in the course of examining the administrative complaint that the reason for the dismissal must be found in the proposal, made by the applicant, in August 2005, not to renew the fixed-term employment contract of an employee, of whom the applicant was the hierarchical superior. The appointing authority, following the reappointment of the governing board of Cedefop, reinstated that employee and dismissed the applicant. The appointing authority took this decision on the basis of a manifestly incorrect assessment of the circumstances and the decision to dismiss the applicant was clearly against the interests of the service.
   Next, the applicant states that the other contested decisions are marred by breach of Cedefop's internal procedures, such as the provisions concerning the Appeals Committee, the provisions concerning administrative inquiries and disciplinary procedures.
   The applicant also requests compensation for the illegal termination of his contract. Finally, he requests compensation from Cedefop, relying on the provisions relating to non-contractual responsibility of the community bodies, because of the alleged attack made on his character and his professional reputation by the decision to dismiss him and by the content of the decision taken by the Appeals committee concerning the complaint lodged by the abovementioned employee.


title: Case T-379/07: Action brought on 3 October 2007 — Poland v Commission

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/38

         Action brought on 3 October 2007 — Poland v Commission
   (Case T-379/07)
   (2007/C 283/69)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: T. Nowakowski, Agent)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare invalid Commission Regulation (EC) No 804/2007 of 9 July 2007 establishing a prohibition of fishing for cod in the Baltic Sea (Subdivisions 25-32, EC Waters) by vessels flying the flag of Poland (1);

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks a declaration that Commission Regulation (EC) No 804/2007 of 9 July 2007 establishing a prohibition of fishing for cod in the Baltic Sea (Subdivisions 25-32, EC Waters) by vessels flying the flag of Poland is invalid. The contested regulation provides that, as from 11 July 2007, the part of the catch quota for cod allocated to the applicant for 2007 in the Baltic Sea is deemed to have been exhausted and prohibits, for the period from 11 July 2007 to 31 December 2007, further fishing for cod in that area by vessels flying the Polish flag and the retention on board, transhipment or landing of cod caught by such vessels.
   In support of its contention, the applicant accuses the Commission of committing flagrant mistakes in calculating the quantities of cod landed by Polish fishing vessels and alleges a breach of Council Regulation (EC) No 1941/2006 of 11 December 2006 fixing the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Baltic Sea for 2007 (2). In the context of the present head of complaint the applicant submits that the Commission based its findings in respect of the amounts of cod caught by Polish fishing vessels on data which, in the applicant's opinion, are arbitrary and unrepresentative, derived from inspections carried out by the Commission's own inspectors and in disregard of data from the Polish Sea Fishing Information System.
   The applicant further submits that the contested regulation infringes the principle of proportionality inasmuch as, in its view, the prohibition of catches which it introduces gives rise to fundamental unfavourable socio-economic effects which are significantly greater than the hypothetical advantages with regard to the conservation of cod stocks. The applicant accuses the Commission of foregoing an appraisal of those effects before it adopted the contested regulation and of failing to consider the possibility of attaining the objectives pursued by using means which would be less detrimental to the society and economy of maritime areas.
   In the grounds of its action the applicant also argues that the contested regulation is inadequately reasoned and that this, in its opinion, makes it impossible to verify the expediency and legality of the prohibition which it introduces.
   The applicant also alleges infringement of the principle of solidarity and genuine cooperation, and criticises the Commission for failing to engage in dialogue and not making it possible for the applicant to clarify certain contentious issues before it adopted the contested regulation.
   The applicant concludes by contending that the contested regulation infringes the right freely to exercise an economic activity inasmuch as the prohibition of catches which it introduces affects persons who are unable in practical terms to alter the type of activity which they pursue and for whom fishing is their only means of subsistence, a fortiori as that prohibition is total and does not allow of any exceptions.

      (1)  OJ 2007 L 180, p. 3.

      (2)  OJ 2006 L 367, p. 1.


title: Case C-595/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Steinel Vertrieb GmbH v Hauptzollamt Bielefeld (Commercial policy — Regulation (EC) No 1470/2001 — Regulation (EC) No 1205/2007 — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of fluorescent compact lamps — Applicability of definitive anti-dumping duties to products classed in the tariff subheading referred to in the anti-dumping regulation — Product concerned — Scope)

text:
               8.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 164/6

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Steinel Vertrieb GmbH v Hauptzollamt Bielefeld
   (Case C-595/11) (1)

   (Commercial policy - Regulation (EC) No 1470/2001 - Regulation (EC) No 1205/2007 - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of fluorescent compact lamps - Applicability of definitive anti-dumping duties to products classed in the tariff subheading referred to in the anti-dumping regulation - Product concerned - Scope)
   2013/C 164/09
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Steinel Vertrieb GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Bielefeld

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1470/2001 of 16 July 2001 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2001 L 195, p. 8), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1322/2006 of 1 September 2006 (OJ 2006 L 244, p. 1), and of Council Regulation (EC) No 1205/2007 of 15 October 2007 imposing anti-dumping duties on imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 and extending to imports of the same product consigned from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Republic of the Philippines (OJ 2007 L 272, p. 1) — Applicability of those regulations to compact fluorescent lamps with a twilight switch

      Operative part of the judgment

   Council Regulation (EC) No 1470/2001 of 16 July 2001 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in the People’s Republic of China, and Council Regulation (EC) No 1205/2007 of 15 October 2007 imposing anti-dumping duties on imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 and extending to imports of the same product consigned from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Republic of the Philippines, cover all products bearing the same essential characteristics as those referred to in Article 1 of those regulations and which also fall within heading ex 8539 31 90 of the combined nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 254/2000 of 31 January 2000. It is for the national court to assess whether that is the case for the products at issue in spite of the addition of a twilight switch, or whether the products at issue constitute different products on the ground that they bear additional characteristics which are not referred to in those regulations.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.


title: Case T-429/07: Action brought on 27 November 2007 — BP Aromatics v Commission

text:
               9.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/24

         Action brought on 27 November 2007 — BP Aromatics v Commission
   (Case T-429/07)
   (2008/C 37/37)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: BP Aromatics Ltd (Sunbury on Thames, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Renshaw and G. Bushell, Solicitors)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the defendant and any interveners granted leave to intervene in the proceedings to pay the costs of the proceedings; and

               —

               take any other actions that the Court considers to be appropriate.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 3202 final of 10 July 2007 by which the Commission found State aid notified by the Portuguese authorities in favour of Artensa (Artenius) for the construction of a new plant for the production of chemical products to be compatible with the common market pursuant to Article 87(3)(a) EC.
   In support of its application, the applicant submits that the Commission infringed Articles 87 EC and 88 EC, the rules relating to their application, certain essential procedural requirements and a number of principles of Community law, in that the Commission:

               —

               misconstrued and misapplied the multisectoral framework on regional aid for large investment projects 2002 (1), which requires an analysis based on the EEA market and not on a worldwide market;

               —

               committed a manifest error of assessment in concluding that the relevant market for purified terephthalic acid is worldwide when it is, according to the applicant, an EEA-wide market; and

               —

               committed a manifest error of assessment in concluding that the relevant share of sales of Artensa will be below 25 % when in fact it will exceed 25 % on an EEA-wide basis.

         The applicant alleges that if the Commission had conducted a detailed and proper investigation of the EEA market for purified terephthalic acid, it would have had serious difficulties in determining whether the aid is compatible with the common market which would have made it necessary to open the formal investigation procedure pursuant to Article 88(2) EC.
   According to the applicant, the fact that the Commission had serious difficulties in assessing the aid during its preliminary investigation and that it should, accordingly, have initiated the formal procedure pursuant to Article 88(2) EC is corroborated by the length of time elapsed between the notification from the Portuguese authorities and the adoption of the contested decision.
   The applicant further contends that its procedural rights were infringed as the Commission did not, as it should have, open a formal investigation under Article 88(2) EC.
   Finally, the applicant claims that the Commission infringed its obligation to state reasons in accordance with Article 253 EC.

      (1)  Communication from the Commission — Multisectoral framework on regional aid for large investment projects (notified under document No C(2002) 315) (OJ 2002 C 70, p. 8).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 9 July 1997 in Case T-92/96: Roberto Monaco v. European Parliament (Officials - Appointment - Classification in grade - Infringement of the notice of competition and notice of vacancy - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - Article 31 (2) of the Staff Regulations - Principle of equality of treatment and non-discrimination)

text:
16 . 8 . 97            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 252/27
3 . orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.
                                                                                of 9 July 1997
(') OJ No C 290 , 6 . 11 . 1992 .                                     in Case T-4/96: S v. Court of Justice of the European
                                                                                Communities ( ! )
                                                                      (Officials — Occupational disease — Medical Committee
                                                                      — Basis for calculating the benefits provided for by
                                                                                Article 73 (2) of the Staff Regulations)
                                                                                ( 97/C 252/59 )
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                           of 9 July 1997                                             (Language of the case: French)
in Case T-156/95 : Diego Echauz Brigaldi and Others v.
         Commission of the European Communities (')
                                                                      In Case T-4/96 : S v. Court of Justice of the European
(Officials — Decisions of the Commission refusing special             Communities ( Agent: Timothy Millett), application for,
    leave for elections and travelling time — Admissibility)          first, the annulment of the decision of the Court of Justice
                                                                      of 11 April 1995 , in so far as it adopted an invalidity rate
                           ( 97/C 252/58 )                            of 6 % for the purpose of calculating the lump sum
                                                                      provided for in Article 73 of the Staff Regulations of
                                                                      Officials of the European Communities; secondly,
                 (Language of the case: English)                      acknowledgement of the applicant's right to that lump
                                                                      sum calculated on the basis of an invalidity rate of 30% ;
                                                                      and, thirdly, compensatory interest — the Court of First
In Case T-156/95 : Diego Echauz Brigaldi, Jose Luis                   Instance ( Fourth Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts,
Buendía Sierra, Cesar Montoliu Garcia, Maria Jesus Ruiz               President, P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; A. Mair,
Monroy, Carmen Ochoa de Michelena, Victoria                           Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 July
Pagadigorria Wicke, Miguel Abellan Lopez, Inmaculada                   1997, in which it:
Gil Tardón, Antonio Garcia Velazquez, Maria Carmen
Labrador Rubio, Carmen Casado Salinas, Diego Gonzalez
Marin, Eva Maria Rasines Martin, Julio Vizcarra Soriano                1 . dismisses the application;
and Leopoldo Fabra Utray, officials of the Commission of
the European Communities, represented by Ramon
García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier, of the Burgos Bar, with an              2 . orders each party to bear its own costs.
address for service in Brussels at the Chambers of J. and
B. Cremades and Associates, 391 Avenue Louise, against
Commission of the European Communities ( Agents : Ana                  (') OJ No C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .
Maria Alves Vieira and Blanca Vila Costa ) — application
for annulment of the decisions of the Commission of
2 May 1995 refusing to grant the applicants special leave
for elections and travelling time in order to enable them to
exercise their right to vote in Spain, where they had
retained official residence and where they went to vote in
the elections to the European Parliament in June 1994,                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
and for an order that the Commission grant each official
the number of days' travelling time used by them in order                                        of 9 July 1997
to go to vote in Spain or pay them the amount                                 in Case T-92/96: Roberto Monaco v. European
corresponding to the number of days used — the Court of                                           Parliament (M
First Instance ( Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenarts,
President, P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio                (Officials — Appointment — Classification in grade —
Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a                     Infringement of the notice of competition and notice of
judgment on 9 July 1997, in which it:                                  vacancy — Principle of the protection of legitimate
                                                                       expectations — Article 31 (2) of the Staff Regulations —
                                                                        Principle of equality of treatment and non-discrimination)
 1 . dismisses the application;
                                                                                ( 97/C 252/60 )
 2 . orders the parties each to bear their own costs.                                  (Language of the case: French)
 O OJNoC 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .
                                                                       In Case T-92/96 : Roberto Monaco, an official of the
                                                                       European Parliament, residing at Capellen ( Luxembourg),
                                                                       represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and
 ---pagebreak---  No C 252/28            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   16 . 8 . 97
 Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for                Chamber, Extended Composition ), composed of: B.
 service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson              Vesterdorf, President, C. P. Briët, P. Lindh, A. Potocki and
 Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange, v. European Parliament ( Agents:            J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator,
 Manfred Peter, Francis Herbert and Daniel M. Tomasevic )              for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 July 1997,
 — application for annulment of the decision of the                    in which it :
 European Parliament of 22 August 1995 appointing the
 applicant to a post as clerical assistant, in so far as that
 appointment was in grade C 5 — the Court of First                      1 . dismisses the claim for annulment as inadmissible;
 Instance ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of: K. Lenaerts,
 President, and P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges, A. Mair,
 Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on             2 . declares that it is unnecessary to proceed to judgment
 9 July 1997, in which it:                                                  on the claim alleging failure to act;
 1 . annuls the Parliament 's decision of 22 August 1995 in
                                                                       3 . orders the Commission to bear its own costs, to pay
      so far as it concerns the classification of the applicant             half of the costs incurred by the applicant in
                                                                            connection with the claim for annulment and the
      in grade;
                                                                            whole of the costs incurred by the applicant in
                                                                            connection with the claim alleging failure to act;
 2 . orders the Council to pay the costs.
                                                                       4 . orders the applicant to bear half of the costs which it
 (') OJ No C 233 , 10 . 8 . 1996 .                                          incurred in connection with the claim for annulment;
                                                                       5 . orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.
                                                                       (•) OJ No C 64, 2 . 3 . 1996 .
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                           of 10 July 1997
in Case T-212/95 : Asociación de Fabricantes de Cemento
de España (Oficemen) v. Commission of the European
                           Communities (M                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 (Anti-dumping — Commission proposal to close an anti                                          of 10 July 1997
dumping proceeding without imposing protective measures               in Case T-227/95 : AssiDomän Kraft Products AB and
— Rejection by the Council — Action for annulment —
                    Action for failure to act)                            Others v. Commission of the European Communities (')
                            ( 97/C 252/61 )
                                                                       (Competition — Consequences of partial annulment by
                                                                       the Court of Justice of a decision relating to a proceeding
                                                                       under Article 85 of the Treaty — Effects of the judgment
                (Language of the case: Spanish)                        on persons to whom the decision was addressed who did
                                                                      not bring an action for annulment — Article 176 of the
                                                                             Treaty — Request for partial refund of fines paid)
In Case T-2 12/95 : Asociacion de Fabricantes de Cemento
                                                                                ( 97/C 252/62 )
de Espana ( Oficemen ), established in Madrid, represented
by Jaime Folguera Crespo and Edurne Navarro Varona, of
the Barcelona Bar, with an address for service in                                     (Language of the case: English)
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Luc Frieden, 62 Avenue
Guillaume, supported by the Kingdom of Spain ( Agents:
initially Gloria Calvo Diaz, subsequently Luis Perez De               In Case T-227/95 : AssiDomän Kraft Products AB, whose
Ayala Becerril ), against Commission of the European                  registered office is in Stockholm, AB Iggesunds Bruk,
Communities (Agents : initially Nicholas Kahn and                     whose registered office is in Ornsköldsvik, Sweden,
Francisco Enrique Gonzalez-Diaz, subsequently Nicholas                Korsnäs AB, whose registered office is in Gävle, Sweden,
Kahn and Fernando Castillo De la Torre ) — application,               MoDo Paper AB, whose registered office is in
on the one hand, for annulment of the Commission's                    Ornsköldsvik, Sweden, Södra Cell AB, whose registered
decision to terminate de facto in February 1994 the anti             office is in Växjö, Sweden, Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags
dumping proceeding initiated in April 1992 at the request             AB, whose registered office is in Falun, Sweden, Svenska
of Oficemen, thereby refusing the protective measures                 Cellulosa AB, whose registered office is in Sundsvall,
requested by that association, and, on the other hand, for            Sweden, represented by John E. Pheasant, solicitor of the
a declaration that, by formally maintaining the said anti            Supreme Court of England and Wales, and Christopohe
dumping procedure open without adopting measures                      Raux, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
enabling it formally to be terminated, possibly through the           Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11
imposition of protective measures, the Commission has                 Rue Goethe, against Commission of the European
failed to act — the Court of First Instance (Third                    Communities ( Agent: Wouter Wils ) — application for


title: Case T-327/99: Action brought on 19 November 1999 by the Front National against the European Parliament

text:
C 47/34               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      19.2.2000
— the Commission and the EMEA committed further errors                   Pleas in law and main arguments
    of law, namely by relying upon ‘exceptional circumstances’
    to justify authorisation of deferiprone pursuant to                  The applicant, a political organisation within the European
    Article 13 of Regulation No 2309/93, when there were no              Parliament, states that on 19 July 1999 the constitution of the
    such ‘exceptional circumstances’ within the meaning of               ‘Groupe Technique des Députés Indépendants (TDI) — Groupe
    Article 13;                                                          mixte’ was communicated to the President of the Parliament,
                                                                         in accordance with Rule 29 of the Parliament’s Rules of
— The Commission and the EMEA failed to take account of,                 Procedure. At the plenary sitting on 20 July all the political
    and properly apply, the principle of proportionality as well         groups opposed the creation of that mixed group. The
    as the precautionary principle.                                      Committee on Constitutional Affairs and the Rules of Pro-
                                                                         cedure was therefore called upon to furnish an opinion on the
                                                                         conformity of that new group with Rule 29(1) of the Rules of
                                                                         Procedure. It proposed an interpretation to the effect that it is
                                                                         not possible, within the meaning of that rule, to accept the
                                                                         constitution of a group which openly denies possessing any
                                                                         political character and the existence of any political affinities
                                                                         between its members. On 14 September 1999 the matter was
                                                                         submitted to a vote of the Parliament, which, by a simple
                                                                         majority, adopted the interpretation proposed by the Com-
Action brought on 19 November 1999 by the Front                          mittee. It is that decision of the Parliament which is contested
         National against the European Parliament                        in the present case.
                        (Case T-327/99)                                  The decision likewise forms the subject-matter of other actions
                                                                         brought by Members of the European Parliament in Cases
                                                                         T-222/99, T-222/99 R (1) and T-329/99.
                         (2000/C 47/59)
                                                                         In support of its action, the applicant pleads as follows:
                   (Language of the case: French)                        Illegality as to form
An action against the European Parliament was brought before             — The nature of the contested measure is such that it amounts
                                                                             to more than a mere interpretation and constitutes a
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                             retroactive decision dissolving a political group. However,
19 November 1999 by the Front National, having its seat at
Saint-Cloud (France), represented by Alain Nivière, of the Lyon              at no time during any previous period of its existence as a
                                                                             legislative body has the European Parliament ever exercised
Bar, 155 Rue Vendôme, Lyon.
                                                                             the slightest control over the existence of political diver-
                                                                             gences within groups.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         — The plenary sitting of the Parliament did not vote on
                                                                             the entire text of the opinion of the Committee on
— annul the decision of the European Parliament dated
                                                                             Constitutional Affairs; in particular, it did not deal with
    14 September 1999 announcing the dissolution of the                      matters contained in the specific part of the decision
    Groupe Technique des Députés Indépendants;                               relating to the dissolution of the TDI Group.
— reinstate the Parliamentary members of that group, restor-             — The refusal to allow any spokesperson to speak on behalf
    ing to them all their rights and prerogatives, both material             of the group concerned at the plenary sitting violated the
    and non-material, with effect from 19 July 1999, the date                principles of the right to a fair hearing and the audi alteram
    on which it was declared that their group was constituted;               partem rule.
— order the reinstatement in their careers of the persons                Illegality as to substance
    placed at the disposal of the group, in such a way that
    those persons may be restored to the position which they             — Rule 29 of the Parliament’s Rules of Procedure was
    should have occupied in indexing terms, in accordance                    wrongly applied, inasmuch as that rule does not lay down
    with the grades and steps applicable to them as assistants,              any special procedure concerning the recognition of a
    technical staff and secretaries of a Parliamentary group;                group. Consequently, the constitution of a group cannot
                                                                             be subjected to any scrutiny regarding the substance of
                                                                             political affinities.
— order the payment of the various allowances paid to
    political groups pursuant to the rules applicable to all             — The principle of equality has been infringed, in that to
    other political groups, with effect from the date of the                 accord the status of a non-affiliated Member of the
    declaration made by the Groupe Technique des Députés                     European Parliament is discriminatory by comparison with
    Indépendants, namely 19 July 1999;                                       that of a member of an officially declared political group.
                                                                             Such a distinction does not exist to the same extent under
— order the European Parliament to pay the costs.                            the parliamentary laws of the Member States.
 ---pagebreak--- 19.2.2000            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 47/35
— The amendments to the Rules of Procedure were an abuse                   and in a refusal to accept the exercise of a ‘dictatorship by
   of process, since they were effected, without exception, to             large groups’.
   the detriment of the same Members of the Parliament, in
   particular members of the applicant party.                         — Lastly, it follows from the general principles of law, in
                                                                           particular the right to equal treatment, that the Parliament
                                                                           is bound to guarantee to each of its Members rights which
— The contested measure lacks any legal basis, in that the                 are equal to those enjoyed by all the other Members. The
   political independence of the members of the mixed group                contested measure infringes that principle.
   does not preclude the existence of a certain political affinity
   between them. That affinity is to be found in the defence          (1) In Case T-222/99 R, the President of the Court of First Instance,
   of the rights of Members of the Parliament, in the assertion           by order of 25 November 1999, ordered the suspension of
   of the principle of equality between members of minority               operation of the contested measure adopted by the European
   parliamentary groups and members of majority groups,                   Parliament.


title: Case T-35/03: Action brought on 31 January 2003 by Aventis Cropscience S.A. against Office for the Harmonisation of the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)

text:
C 83/24               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         5.4.2003
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the Commission’s decision rejecting the applicant’s           —     annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of
      candidature and refusing to admit him to the written                      OHIM of 18 November 2002 in file R 803/2001-2;
      procedure in open competition EUR/A/166/01, as noti-
      fied to him by decision of the appointing authority of              —     uphold, therefore, the applicant’s opposition to regis-
      8 April 2002;                                                             tration of the trade mark ‘CARPO’, and
—     in the alternative, order compensation for non-material             —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
      damage provisionally estimated at EUR 2 500;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Applicant for the Com-        Basf Aktiengegesellschaft
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           munity trade mark:
                                                                          The Community trade           Word mark ‘CARPO’ for products
The applicant in the present case challenges the decision                 mark concerned:               in class 5 (fungicides, herbicides,
refusing to allow him to take part in the tests in competition                                          insecticides and pesticides).
EUR/A/166/01, held for the purpose of constituting a reserve
for recruitment of A7/A6 administrators in the area of                    Proprietor of the right to    Applicant.
auditing, on the ground that the qualifications and diplomas              the trade mark or sign
produced by the applicant did not satisfy the conditions laid             asserted by way of oppo-
down in point III.B.2 of the notice of competition. The                   sition in the opposition
Selection Board considered that the applicant’s qualifications of         proceedings:
‘Ragioniere e Perito Commerciale’ and ‘Revisore Commerciale’
could not be regarded as equivalent to the qualification of               Trade mark or sign            Spanish word mark ‘HARPO Z’
‘Dottore Commercialista’.                                                 asserted by way of oppo-      for products in Class 5 (prep-
                                                                          sition in the opposition      arations for destroying vermin,
                                                                          proceedings:                  fungicides, herbicides).
In support of his claims, the applicant alleges failure to comply
with of the notice of competition and infringement of the duty            Decision of the Oppo-         Opposition rejected.
to state reasons, and alleges that there was in the circumstances         sition Division:
of the case a manifest error of assessment. Specifically, he
argues that the Selection Board erred in its assessment of his            Decision of the Board of      Action dismissed.
qualifications, diplomas, professional activity and training              Appeal:
periods in auditing which in fact enable him to claim a
professional qualification of equivalent level.                           Grounds of claim:             Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b)
                                                                                of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (like-
                                                                                lihood of confusion)
Action brought on 31 January 2003 by Aventis Cropscien-
ce S.A. against Office for the Harmonisation of the                       Action brought on 4 February 2003 by Open Mobile
     Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)
                                                                          Alliance Ltd. against the Office for Harmonization in the
                                                                                Internal Market
                         (Case T-35/03)
                                                                                (Case T-37/03)
                         (2003/C 83/53)
                                                                                (2003/C 83/54)
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (trade marks and designs (OHIM) was brought before                 An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
31 January 2003 by Aventis Cropscience S.A., the registered               European Communities on 4 February 2003 by Open Mobile
office of which is in Lyon (France), represented by Enrique               Alliance Ltd., Reading, United Kingdom, represented by Ms
Armijo Chávarri.                                                          Alexandra Dellmeier, Attorney at Law.


title: Case C-42/06: Action brought on  27 January 2006  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               25.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 74/8

         Action brought on 27 January 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-42/06)
   (2006/C 74/15)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 January 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by B. Stromsky, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by imposing, in the Brussels-Capital Region, a system of approval of natural and legal persons manufacturing and/or distributing refuse collection bags, the detailed rules of which infringe the principle of proportionality, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 and 30 of the EC Treaty;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   No Community harmonisation governs the approval of natural and legal persons manufacturing and/or distributing refuse collection bags.
   In those circumstances, national legislation requiring the approval of natural and legal persons manufacturing and/or distributing refuse collection bags must be evaluated in the light of Articles 28 and 30 of the Treaty establishing the European Community.
   According to the case-law of the Court of Justice, a prior authorisation procedure such as that laid down by Article 10a of the Regulations of the Brussels-Capital Region of 15 July 1993 on refuse collection, can restrict the free movement of goods.
   To be justified with regard to the fundamental freedom of the free movement of goods, such a prior authorisation procedure must pursue a public interest purpose recognised by Community law and comply with the principle of proportionality, that is to say be appropriate to ensure the attainment of the objective pursued and not go beyond what is necessary for its attainment.
   The Commission can conceive that an approval procedure might be such as to pursue the public interest purposes of protection of workers' health and of the environment.
   However, the Commission submits that, in this case, the detailed rules of the approval procedure under Article 10a of the Regulations do not comply with the principle of proportionality because it is not easily accessible.


title: Case T-66/99: Action brought on 4 March 1999 by Minoikes Grammes ANE against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 136/18               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      15.5.1999
— In the alternative, the Commission calculated arbitrarily              Grounds for annulment and main arguments
    the period during which the applicant is alleged to have
    been party to an agreement or agreements for the joint
    setting of the carriage charges.                                     — Manifest errors by the Commission in its assessment of the
                                                                             facts and with regard to the applications of Article 85 (1)
                                                                             of the Treaty and of Regulation (EEC) No 4056/86.
— Assuming that the applicant was party to such an agree-
    ment, that agreement is not covered by the prohibition in                Insufficient reasoning in relation to the Commission’s view
    Article 85 (1) of the Treaty, being an agreement of minor                that the applicant had not lost its independence so far as
    significance, because as the Commission acknowledged,                    concerns the setting of carriage charges in the international
    the applicant is a small or medium-sized enterprise.                     section of the timetable.
    Furthermore, the Commission contradicted itself because,
    while it accepted that the infringement had limited impact,              The above defects in the contested decision lead to the
    it stated that the agreement significantly impeded compe-                conclusion that the Commission misused its power to
    tition in a substantial part of the relevant market.                     impose fines.
— In the further alternative, the amount of the fine imposed             — Manifest error by the Commission in its assessment of
    on the applicant offends against the principle of pro-                   the content of the letters from the Greek Permanent
    portionality.                                                            Representative’s Office and the Greek Ministry for
                                                                             Merchant Shipping and failure to set out the reasons why
                                                                             it ignored the applicant’s analysis of those letters.
                                                                         — Manifest error by the Commission relating to the appli-
                                                                             cation of Community law and insufficient reasoning: the
                                                                             consultation between the companies involved does not fall
                                                                             within the scope of Article 85 (1) of the Treaty.
                                                                         — The fine which the Commission imposed on the applicant
Action brought on 3 March 1999 by Grammes Strintzi                           amounts to a misuse of powers.
Naftiliaki AE against the Commission of the European
                          Communities
                                                                         — In the alternative, that fine is disproportionately high.
                         (Case T-65/99)
                                                                         — Finally, it is alleged that the illegality of the inspection
                                                                             carried out by the Commission at the offices of the
                        (1999/C 136/39)                                      company ETA constitutes a substantive infringement.
                    (Language of the case: Greek)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 3 March 1999 by Grammes Strintzi
Naftiliaki AE, whose registered office is in Piraeus, Greece,            Action brought on 4 March 1999 by Minoikes Grammes
represented by Konstantinos Adamantopoulos and Basilios                  ANE against the Commission of the European Communi-
Akritidis, of the Athens Bar, with an address for service in                                            ties
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Claude Medernach, 8-10 rue
Mathias Hardt, L-2010 Luxembourg.
                                                                                (Case T-66/99)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                     (1999/C 136/40)
— annul in its entirety the Commission decision of 9
    December 1998 relating to a proceeding under Article 85                                 (Language of the case: Greek)
    of the Treaty (IV/34.466 — Greek Ferry Boats);
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
— in the alternative, annul Article 1 of that decision with
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
    regard to the duration of the infringement of Article 85 (1)
                                                                         European Communities on 4 March 1999 by Minoikes
    of the Treaty so far as concerns the applicant, or in any
                                                                         Grammes ANE whose registered office is in Heraklion, Crete
    event reduce the fine imposed on the applicant;
                                                                         (Greece), represented by Ilias Soufleros, of the Athens Bar, with
                                                                         an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                 Aloyse May, 31 Grand-rue, L-1661 Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- 15.5.1999             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 136/19
The applicant claims that the Court should:                          — As regards the individual ‘infringements’ referred to in
                                                                        the contested decision, the applicant maintains that the
— annul the Commission decision of 9 December 1998                      ‘agreements’ formed part of the practice of every company
   relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the Treaty              for demonstrating compliance with the legislative and
   (IV/34.466 — Greek Ferry Boats);                                     regulatory regime, so as not to provoke intervention by
                                                                        the Greek Ministry for Merchant Shipping.
— in the alternative, annul the fine imposed by that decision
   on the applicant, or in any event reduce it to the
   appropriate amount;                                               — In the contested decision, the Commission made merely
                                                                        selective reference to certain points of the reply of
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                17 March 1995 from the Greek Permanent Representa-
                                                                        tive’s Office and, in particular, ascribed a different meaning
Grounds for annulment and main arguments                                to them.
— Procedural infringements were committed in the conduct             — As regards the fine imposed, the applicant maintains
   of the investigation.                                                that the contested decision wrongly characterised the
— The acts and initiatives of the company ETA were unlaw-               ‘infringement’ as ‘serious’ and wrongly divided up the
   fully attributed to the applicant.                                   carriers into large, medium-sized and small carriers. The
                                                                        fact that the ‘infringement’ went back for decades before
— While the documents relied on by the Commission make                  Regulation (ECC) No 4056/86 entered into force should
   frequent reference to the terms ‘agreement’, ‘was agreed’,           not have been treated by the Commission as a particularly
   ‘we agree’ and so forth, agreements within the meaning of            aggravating factor because it was due to ‘momentum’ and
   Article 85 of the Treaty are not in fact involved, because           long-standing usage. The applicant disputes that it was the
   the alleged ‘agreements’ were not binding and were not               prime mover behind the cartel, submits that the principle
   accompanied by enforcement mechanisms.                               of equal treatment was infringed in the imputation of
                                                                        aggravating factors and maintains that the Commission
— Those ‘agreements’ dealt solely with the carriage charges             should have accepted that all the extenuating circum-
   announced to the outside world for foreign routes and                stances set out in the guidelines of 14 January 1998 are
   were not implemented in practice.                                    present so far as concerns the applicant.


title: Case T-321/17: Action brought on 22 May 2017 — Niemelä and Others v ECB

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/52

         Action brought on 22 May 2017 — Niemelä and Others v ECB
   (Case T-321/17)
   (2017/C 283/82)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Heikki Niemelä (Ohain, Belgium), Mika Lehto (Espoo, Finland), Nemea plc (St. Julians, Malta), Nevestor SA (Ohain) and Nemea Bank plc (St. Julians) (represented by: A. Meriläinen, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Central Bank

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the European Central Bank’s decision of 23 March 2017 ECB/SSM/2017– 213800JENPXTUY75VS0/1 WHD-2017-0003, withdrawing the authorisation of Nemea Bank plc (‘the supervised entity’) as a credit institution;

               —

               secondarily, amend the ECB’s decision so as to suspend its application in view the irreparable damage that the immediate and continued application of the decision is likely to have on the supervised entity’s stakeholders, principally the Bank’s depositors, employees and the shareholders, allowing or otherwise requiring the direct/indirect shareholders of the supervised entity to divest themselves of their holding in the Bank within such reasonable period as may be prescribed;

               —

               order the defendant to compensate the applicants in the sum of EUR 10 million with legal interest from 23 March 2017 for damage suffered as a result of the decision;

               —

               order the defendant to bear all costs and expenses incurred in the present case.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on five pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the facts of the case are not correctly reproduced in the statement of reasons and/or that the statement of reasons is insufficient.

                           —

                           It is argued that the ECB was not in a position to adopt a fully reasoned decision owing to ongoing appeal procedures under national law.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment by the ECB.

                           —

                           It is argued that the ECB erred in so far as it relied on the directives of the Malta Financial Services Authority as being final and conclusive notwithstanding that the latter remain subject to confirmation, reversal or variation by the Financial Services Tribunal. In any case the ECB was manifestly wrong to hold that the withdrawal of the supervised entity’s licence was preferable to the forced sale of the Bank and that there was low probability that the sale option would materialise.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision errs in law.

                           —

                           It is argued that the ECB lacked jurisdiction to adopt the contested decision as the competence to withdraw the licence issued to the supervised entity as a credit institution lies with the Malta Financial Services Authority and not the ECB. The ECB’s decision was ultra vires and in violation of the applicants’ rights of appeal under national law as well as of their right to an effective remedy and a fair trial under EU law.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the ECB misused its powers.

                           —

                           It is argued that the ECB, even if it did enjoy the disputed competence, misused its powers in such a way as to deprive the supervised entity and the other applicants of their rights of appeal under national law.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the ECB’s decision is not in conformity with EU law in that it fails to respect the proportionality principle.

                           —

                           It is argued that the proportionality principle should have operated in the present case so as to preclude withdrawal of the supervised entity’s licence. In the circumstances, the sale of the Bank would have been less damaging to the supervised entity and would not have been prejudicial to the supervised entity’s depositors, employees and shareholders.


title: Case C-245/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien — Austria) — Thomas Cook Belgium NV v Thurner Hotel GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 — European order for payment procedure — Late statement of opposition — Article 20(2) — Application for review of the European order for payment — Objection to the jurisdiction of the court of origin — European order for payment wrongly issued having regard to the requirements laid down in the regulation — Not ‘clearly’ wrongly issued — No ‘exceptional’ circumstances)

text:
               14.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 414/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien — Austria) — Thomas Cook Belgium NV v Thurner Hotel GmbH
   (Case C-245/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 - European order for payment procedure - Late statement of opposition - Article 20(2) - Application for review of the European order for payment - Objection to the jurisdiction of the court of origin - European order for payment wrongly issued having regard to the requirements laid down in the regulation - Not ‘clearly’ wrongly issued - No ‘exceptional’ circumstances))
   (2015/C 414/07)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Handelsgericht Wien

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Thomas Cook Belgium NV

      Defendant: Thurner Hotel GmbH

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 20(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 936/2012 of 4 October 2012, must be interpreted as precluding, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, a defendant on whom a European order for payment has been served in accordance with that regulation from being entitled to apply for a review of that order by claiming that the court of origin incorrectly held that it had jurisdiction on the basis of allegedly false information provided by the claimant in the application form.

      (1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.


title: Case C-452/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 29 September 2014  — Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA), Ministry for Health v Doc Generici srl

text:
               15.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 448/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 29 September 2014 — Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA), Ministry for Health v Doc Generici srl
   (Case C-452/14)
   (2014/C 448/11)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA), Ministry for Health

      Defendant: Doc Generici srl

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 3(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 297/95 of 10 February 1995 (1), in the version currently in force, be interpreted as meaning that Type I marketing authorisation variations — and, in particular, in respect of the case in the main proceedings, Type IA variations — where an identical variation affecting several authorisations belonging to the same holder are concerned, are subject to a single fee, to the extent specified therein, or to as many fees as there are authorisations affected by the variation?

               2.

               In the circumstances in the present proceedings, may or must, as held by this Chamber, the question be referred to the Court of Justice?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 297/95 of 10 February 1995 on fees payable to the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (OJ 1995 L 35, 15.2.1995, p. 1).