title: Case T-299/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 20 June 2008 — Leclercq v Commission (Action for annulment — Applicant's failure to act — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/52

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 20 June 2008 — Leclercq v Commission
   (Case T-299/06) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Applicant's failure to act - No need to adjudicate)
   (2008/C 209/93)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Sylvie Leclercq (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Joris and P. Costa de Oliveira, acting as Agents)
   Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski, Agent)
   Re:
   Annulment of the decision of the Commission of 27 July 2006 refusing, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ L 145, p. 43) to grant the applicant access to certain documents
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no further need to adjudicate on the present action.

               2.

               Ms Sylvie Leclercq is ordered to bear her own costs and to pay those of the Commission. The Republic of Finland shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 326, 3.12.2006.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber) of 14 January 1998 in Case T-30/97: Juana de la Cruz Vela Palacios v. Economic and Social Committee of the European Communities (Officials - Action for annulment and for damages - Time-limit for bringing an action - Inadmissible)

text:
28.3.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 94/23
2. orders the Economic and Social Committee to pay all             Bahnhofstraûe 43c, Konz (Germany), represented by Theo
    of the costs.                                                  Baltes and Bernward Wittschier, Rechtsanwälte, of Trier,
                                                                   with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
(1) OJ C 54, 22.2.1997.                                            Chambers of ReneÂ Weber, 3 Rue de la Loge, v. Court of
                                                                   Justice of the European Communities (Agents: Timothy
                                                                   Millett and Bernd Zimmermann), supported by Council of
                                                                   the European Union (Agents: Diego Canga Fano and
                                                                   Martin Bauer) Ð application, first, for annulment of the
                                                                   decision of the Complaints Committee of the Court of
                                                                   Justice of 1 July 1996, second, for the recalculation and
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                          definitive determination of the applicant's pension for the
                     of 3 February 1998                            period from 1 July 1991 to 30 June 1994 on the basis of
                                                                   the weightings for Berlin fixed annually by the Council,
in Case T-68/96: Dimitrios Polyvios v. Commission of the           and, thirdly and in the alternative, for the designation of a
                  European Communities (1)                         date in the near future when that calculation and
(Fisheries Ð Community financial assistance for projects           determination are to take place Ð the Court of First
by joint enterprises Ð Regulation No 4028/86 Ð Extra-              Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili,
      contractual liability Ð Manifest inadmissibility)            President, and C. P. BrieÈt and A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung,
                                                                   Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 January 1998, in
                         (98/C 94/59)                              which it:
                (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                   1. dismisses the application as manifestly inadmissible;
In Case T-68/96: Dimitrios Polyvios, residing at Piraeus
(Greece), represented by Vassilios Zangas, of the Athens           2. orders the parties to bear their own costs.
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Catherine Thill-Kamitaki, 15 Avenue du                 (1) OJ C 370, 7.12.1996.
Bois, v. Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: Maria Condou Durande and Hubertus van Vliet)
Ð application for compensation for the material damage
allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the
negligence of the Commission on the adoption of a
decision approving an application for financial aid for the
formation of a joint enterprise in Senegal Ð the Court of               ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. Lindh,                                  (Third Chamber)
President, and K. Lenaerts and J. D. Cooke, Judges; H.
Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 February 1998,                               of 14 January 1998
in which it:                                                       in Case T-30/97: Juana de la Cruz Vela Palacios v.
                                                                         Economic and Social Committee of the European
1. dismisses the application as manifestly inadmissible;                                  Communities (1)
                                                                   (Officials Ð Action for annulment and for damages Ð
2. orders the applicant to pay the costs.                                Time-limit for bringing an action Ð Inadmissible)
                                                                                (98/C 94/61)
(1) OJ C 210, 20.7.1996.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                   In Case T-30/97: Juana de la Cruz Vela Palacios, former
                                                                   official of the Economic and Social Committee of the
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                          European Communities, residing in Brussels, represented
                                                                   by Jaime Creus, of the Barcelona Bar, with an address for
                     of 20 January 1998                            service at 377 C/ Consell de Cent, Barcelona, against
in Case T-160/96: Max Kögler v. Court of Justice of the            Economic and Social Committee of the European
                  European Communities (1)                         Communities (Agent: Moises Bermejo Garde) Ð
                                                                   application for the annulment of, first, a decision
(Officials Ð Pension Ð Weighting Ð Change of capital of            imposing on the applicant the disciplinary measure of
           a Member State Ð Retroactive effect)                    relegation in step and, secondly, a decision to reduce her
                         (98/C 94/60)                              annual leave and a claim for compensation for the non-
                                                                   material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a
                                                                   result of those measures Ð the Court of First Instance
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                   (Third Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, President, C. P.
                                                                   BrieÈt and A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
In Case T-160/96: Max Kögler, a former official of the             order on 14 January 1998, the operative part of which is
Court of Justice of the European Communities, residing at          as follows:
 ---pagebreak--- C 94/24              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     28.3.98
1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.                        an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                   Farida Chorfi, 8 Rue des Girondins.
2. The applicant shall bear the entire costs.
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
(1) OJ C 142, 10.5.1997.
                                                                   Ð annul the Commission's decision of unknown date
                                                                        awarding the contract to train the Commission's
                                                                        drivers to the Jesco Auto Training School,
Action brought on 19 November 1997 by Elta GmbH
                                                                   Ð annul the rejection implied thereby of the applicant's
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                        tender.
                      (Case T-293/97)
                         (98/C 94/62)
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                   The applicant states that it submitted a tender on
An action against the Commission of the European                   14 October 1996 in response to the call for tenders No 95/
Communities was lodged at the Registry of the Court of             22/IXC1 (OJ C 142, 14.5.1996, p. 31) for the conclusion
Justice on 19 November 1997 by Elta GmbH, whose                    of a framework contract for the provision of training
registered office is at Dreiech (Federal Republic of               services intended for the Commission's drivers, by letter of
Germany); pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 47 of         7 December 1997 it was informed by the Commission that
the EC Statute of the Court of Justice it was transmitted          its tender had not been successful. According to its
to the Registry of the Court of First Instance. The                information, the contract was awarded to Jesco Auto
applicant is represented by Günther Breit, Rechtsanwalt,           Training School, which had already obtained a similar
with an address for service at 33 Mercatorstraûe,                  contract with the Commission as from 1992.
Frankfurt am Main.
                                                                   The applicant maintains that the procedure for awarding
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        the public contract was not in conformity with the
                                                                   applicable rules, in particular Articles 50 to 58 of the
Ð annul Commission Decision of 19 February 1997,                   Commission's financial Regulation of 21 December 1977
    addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany, holding          applicable to the general budget of the European
    the remission of import duties amounting to DEM                Communities, Articles 126 to 129 of the Commission's
    113 875, 49 owed by the applicant to be unjustified            Financial Regulation of 9 December 1993 laying down
                                                                   detailed rules for the implementation of certain provisions
                                                                   of the Financial Regulation and Council Directive 92/50/
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of
                                                                   procedures for the award of public contracts.
The pleas in law and the main arguments are analogous to
those relied on in Cases T-186/97, T-187/97, T-190/97,
T-191/97, T-192/97, T-210/97, T-211/97, T-216/97, T-217/           It claims in this regard that:
97, T-218/97 (1), T-279/97 and T-280/97.
                                                                   Ð the Commission awarded the public contract in the
(1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997, pp. 17 to 25.
                                                                        belief that it was in the framework of a closed
                                                                        procedure whereas the call for tenders, as
                                                                        communicated to the tenderers, was undeniably open
                                                                        and did not entail any pre-selection of tenders,
Action brought on 5 December 1997 by AZ Com SA                     Ð the opinion of the Advisory Committee for Public
   against the Commission of the European Communities                   Contracts did not appear to have been sought,
                                                                        although the value of the contract exceeded the
                      (Case T-302/97)
                                                                        threshold beyond which that opinion must be sought,
                         (98/C 94/63)
                                                                   Ð the matching of tenders had not been carried out
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        lawfully,
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                  Ð it had not been notified of any reasoned decision for
Instance of the European Communities on 5 December                      the award of the public contract, from which it
1997 by AZ Com SA, established in Luxembourg,                           follows that the statement of reasons for the decision
represented by Luc Van Damme, of the Brussels Bar, with                 to award the contract was inadequate,


title: Case T-103/10 P(R)-R: Order of the President of the General Court of 28 April 2010 — Parliament v U (Interim measures — Civil Service — Officials — Decision to dismiss — Order of the President of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union made in proceedings for interim measures — Application to suspend the operation of a measure — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/40

         Order of the President of the General Court of 28 April 2010 — Parliament v U
   (Case T-103/10 P(R)-R)
   (Interim measures - Civil Service - Officials - Decision to dismiss - Order of the President of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union made in proceedings for interim measures - Application to suspend the operation of a measure - No need to adjudicate)
   2010/C 179/71
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: European Parliament (represented by: S. Seyr and K. Zejdová, Agents)

      Respondent: U (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Moyse and A. Salerno, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application to suspend the application of the order of the President of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 18 December 2009 in Case F-92/09 R U v Parliament [2009] ECR I-0000.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer a need to adjudicate on the application for interim measures made by the European Parliament.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case C-487/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by decision of 14 December 2001 in the case of Gemeente Leusden and Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
16.2.2002             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 44/7
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte di Appello                     Article 47(2) of that regulation) to be granted further
di Genova by order of that court of 15 November 2001                           time and may it fix that duration on the basis of the time
in the case of Ministero delle Finanze and Eurico Italia                       actually taken to obtain and forward the prescribed
                               SpA                                             documentation?
                                                                         (1) OJ L 351, 14.12.1987, p. 1.
                         (Case C-467/01)
                          (2002/C 44/12)
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Civile
                                                                         e Penale di Trento (Civil and Criminal Court, Trento) by
                                                                         order of 6 December 2001 in the case of Francesca Caprini
                                                                                v Conservatore C.C.I.A.A.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Corte di Appello di                                     (Case C-485/01)
Genova (Genoa Court of Appeal) by order of 15 November
2001, which was received at the Court Registry on 6 December                                     (2002/C 44/13)
2001, on the following questions:
1.   On the basis of the combined provisions of Articles 47(4)           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     and 48 of Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 (1), must it be               European Communities by order of 6 December 2001 by the
     concluded that (a) the further time which may be granted            Tribunale Civile e Penale di Trento, which was received at the
     to an exporter may not in any circumstances exceed the              Court Registry on 14 December 2001, for a preliminary ruling
     maximum duration of 18 months; or (b) that, conversely,             in the case of Francesca Caprini v Conservatore C.C.I.A.A. on
     the reduction of 15 % applies only where the ordinary               the following questions:
     time-limit and any extension thereof granted to the
     exporter is exceeded by more than six months?                       Does Council Directive 86/653/EEC (1) of 18 December 1986
                                                                         on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating
                                                                         to self-employed commercial agents preclude a rule of national
2.   If the interpretation given in question 1(b) above is               law which makes the enrolment of a commercial agent in the
     correct, are there, on the basis of the two abovementioned          register of undertakings conditional on that agent’s name
     articles, maximum time-limits — in the light of the                 having been entered in an appropriate register?
     various forms, including those indicated in the grounds
     of this order, which they may take from the Community
     law point of view — within which the extensions of time             (1) OJ L 382, 31.12.1986, p. 17.
     may be granted?
3.   If the interpretation given in question 1(b) is correct,
     what are those maximum time-limits and what extensions
     of time are available under the two abovementioned
     articles?                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
                                                                         Nederlanden by decision of 14 December 2001 in the case
                                                                         of Gemeente Leusden and Staatssecretaris van Financiën
4.   If the interpretation given in question 1(b) is correct,
     may a private individual, on the basis of the two                                          (Case C-487/01)
     abovementioned articles, claim a legally protected right
     to the setting of a particular duration (regarded as                                        (2002/C 44/14)
     commensurate with the difficulties of obtaining the
     prescribed documentation) for the extension of time?
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
5.   If the interpretation given in question 1(b) is correct, may        European Communities by decision of 14 December 2001 by
     the national court, on the basis of the two abovemen-               the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the
     tioned articles — if the administrative authority fails to          Netherlands), which was received at the Court Registry on
     grant further time — recognise the exporter’s right (if he          17 December 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
     has acted diligently to obtain the documents and forward            Gemeente Leusden and Staatssecretaris van Financiën on the
     them within the period of 12 months laid down in                    following questions:
 ---pagebreak--- C 44/8                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      16.2.2002
1.    Do Articles 20(2) and 17 of the Sixth Directive (1) or the           The appellant claims that the Court should:
      principles, in European law, of the protection of legitimate
      expectations and legal certainty preclude adjustment —
      in a case involving no fraud or abuse or change of                   (1) set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
      planned use as referred to in paragraphs 50 and 51 of the                  the European Communities of 23 October 2001;
      judgment of the Court of Justice in the Schloßstrasse
      case (2) — of the VAT deducted by a taxable person,
      which he has paid on an item of (immovable) property                 (2) order the respondent to pay to the appellant
      supplied to him with a view to the letting (subject to                     DEM 8 725 320,45 together with interest at 8 % per
      VAT) of that property, for the years of the period of                      annum from the date on which the action was brought;
      adjustment under Article 20(2) which have not yet
      elapsed at the time of the cessation of that right of option
      (in this case, in fact, 1 January 1996) for the sole reason          (3) declare that the respondent is liable to compensate the
      that, as a result of a legislative amendment, the taxable                  appellant for all further damage suffered by it as a result
      person is no longer entitled to waive exemption for that                   of its having had to dismiss its employees and close down
      letting?                                                                   its business with effect from 31 December 1999 on
                                                                                account of the ban on the importation of Kazakh caviar;
2.    If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is
      the legislative amendment inapplicable only in respect of
      the deducted tax mentioned in Question 1, or is it also              (4) order the Commission to pay the costs.
      inapplicable — until the period of adjustment has expired
      — in respect of the taxed status (subject to the provisions
      of Article 13(C) of the Sixth Directive) of the letting
      referred to in Question 1?
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
    harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
                                                                           —     The Court of First Instance wrongly assumed that, for the
    turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
    basis of assessment (OJ 1977, L 145, p. 1).                                  purposes of adopting Decision 1999/244/EC (1), which
(2) Judgment of 8.6.2000 in Case C-396/98.                                       deleted Kazakhstan from the list of third countries, the
                                                                                Commission enjoyed a wide discretion, with the result
                                                                                that only a sufficiently serious breach of the principle of
                                                                                sound administration protecting the appellant could
                                                                                render the Commission liable to pay compensation.
                                                                                The decision in question is based on the authorisation
                                                                                conferred by Article 2(3) of Council Decision 95/408/EC,
                                                                                which lays down, according to the relevant conditions
                                                                                and content, and in conjunction with Article 2(2), specific,
                                                                                restricted criteria to be observed by the Commission.
Appeal brought on 19 December 2001 by Dieckmann &                                The Commission is required to ascertain whether the
Hansen GmbH against the judgment delivered on 23                                 authorities of the third country concerned have given
October 2001 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First                          guarantees at least equivalent to those provided for by
Instance of the European Communities in Case T-155/99                            Council Directive 91/493/EEC or, as the case may be,
between Dieckmann & Hansen GmbH and the Com-                                     whether those guarantees continue to exist.
            mission of the European Communities
                                                                                Findings made in respect of such guarantees must reflect
                         (Case C-492/01 P)                                       concrete circumstances which are specified in Council
                                                                                Directive 91/943 and concern conditions for the pro-
                                                                                duction and placing on the market of the products to be
                           (2002/C 44/15)                                        imported from the third country in question, especially
                                                                                as regards the maintenance of hygiene standards for the
                                                                                protection of consumers. Those conditions are to be
                                                                                specifically determined. Agricultural or economic con-
                                                                                siderations cannot be taken into consideration in such
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 23 October 2001                      determination.
by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-155/99 between Dieckmann
& Hansen GmbH and the Commission of the European                           —     In any event, the Court of First Instance disregarded the
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the                       fact that the Commission manifestly and significantly
European Communities on 19 December 2001 by Dieckmann                            exceeded any discretion which it may have had: although
& Hansen GmbH, represented by H.-J. Rabe, Rechtsanwalt, of                       the veterinary inspectors instructed by the Commission
Messrs Latham & Watkins Schön Nolte, of Warburgstrasse 50,                       stated in their report that their assessment of the ‘general
D-20354 Hamburg.                                                                 situation in Kazakhstan so far as concerns the veterinary


title: Case C-416/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 4 de Oviedo — Spain) — Mario Vital Pérez v Ayuntamiento de Oviedo (References for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 21 — Directive 2000/78/EC — Articles 2(2), 4(1) and 6(1) — Discrimination on grounds of age — National provision — Condition of recruitment of local police officers — Fixing of a maximum age of 30 — Justification)

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/6

      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 4 de Oviedo — Spain) — Mario Vital Pérez v Ayuntamiento de Oviedo
      (Case C-416/13) (1)

      (References for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 21 - Directive 2000/78/EC - Articles 2(2), 4(1) and 6(1) - Discrimination on grounds of age - National provision - Condition of recruitment of local police officers - Fixing of a maximum age of 30 - Justification)
      (2015/C 016/07)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Referring court

      Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 4 de Oviedo

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Mario Vital Pérez

         Defendant: Ayuntamiento de Oviedo

         Operative part of the judgment

      Articles 2(2), 4(1) and 6(1)(c) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which sets the maximum age for recruitment of local police officers at 30 years.

         (1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.


title: Action brought on 26 July 1996 by Italo Telchini against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-116/96)

text:
No c 370/ 14        L en                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       7 . 12 . 96
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                   use of the third option laid down in the third paragraph of
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Carlos Zeyen, 67 Rue                    Article 45 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, that is he
Ermesinde, v. Commission of the European Communities                  elected to have his pension paid in the currency of the
( Agent: Xavier Lewis ) — application for suspension of               country where the institution in question has its seat. Thus
operation of a Commission ' decision' contained in the letter         no change was necessary with respect to the situation prior
of 25 June 1996 to the Permanent Representative of the                to retirement ( same currency, same bank , same account
Republic of Finland to the European Union and                         number to which to credit the monthly payments ).
communicated to the applicant by the Finnish
Elintarvikevirasto, in so far as it concerned the Voilevi and
Voimariini brands — the President of the Court of First
                                                                      However, in June 1995 the applicant received a
Instance made an order on 14 October 1996 , the operative             communication concerning the ' recovery of amounts
part of which is as follows:                                          overpaid in the context of the annual review of
                                                                      remunerations for 1995 '. It should be pointed out that Bfrs
1 . The application for interim measures is dismissed.                163 270 were credited in June 1993 , whereas Bfrs 228 215
                                                                      were credited in December 1994 . On the basis of those
                                                                      facts , the applicant puts forward the following pleas in law:
2.  The costs are reserved.
                                                                      — Infringement of Articles 63 and 64 of the Staff
                                                                           Regulations inasmuch as a weighting which was
                                                                           arbitrarily calculated was unlawfully applied to the
                                                                           remunerations. It is obvious that such a weighting
Action brought on 26 July 1996 by Italo Telchini against                   cannot be established arbitrarily or discretionally as
       the Commission of the European Communities                          regards the criteria to be applied even where the
                        ( Case T- 116/96 )                                 declared intention is to make the purchasing power of
                          ( 96/C 370/32 )
                                                                           all beneficiaries equal . In this instance, however, at least
                                                                           recently, more importance has been attached to the
                                                                           criterion of the relationship between the rates of
                (Language of the case: Italian)                            exchange of the various currencies, in comparison with
                                                                           that of the cost of living, namely factors not envisaged
                                                                           in the provisions of the Staff Regulations .
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 26 July 1996 by
                                                                      — Breach of the principles of the protection of legitimate
Italo Telchini , residing at Bolzano ( Italy ), represented by
Bruno Telchini, of the Bolzano Bar, with an address for
                                                                           expectations and acquired rights in respect of amounts
                                                                           of pension inasmuch as his expectations with regard to
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Becker &
                                                                           pension have been disappointed . The applicant
 Cahen, 3 rue des Foyers .
                                                                           emphasizes that during his period of employment he
                                                                           was always remunerated in Belgian francs and he has
The applicant claims that the Court should :                               therefore acquired rights to a pension in that currency.
                                                                           To deprive him of part of such remuneration on the
                                                                           ground of the cost of living of the place where he resides
— annul the applicant's pension statements as from                         constitutes unjustified discrimination and thus wrongful
    January 1996 and order the Commission to adjust said                   conduct by the Commission .
     remuneration as appropriate henceforth, pursuant to
     Council Regulation ( EC, Euratom, ECSC ) No 2963/95
     of 18 December 1995 f 1 ) adjusting the remuneration
     and pensions of officials and other servants of the              — Erroneous and contradictory application of the
                                                                           principle of legal certainty in the matter of retrospective
     European Communities and the weightings applied
     thereto .                                                             revocation of lawful acts and recovery of the alleged
                                                                           overpayment. The Commission's conduct to the
                                                                           detriment of its retired officials has become even more
 — order the defendant to pay interest at the current rate                 prejudicial and arbitrary by retroactively recovering
     and the costs of the proceedings .                                    overpaid sums in application of Regulation ( EC,
                                                                           Euratom , ECSC ) No 2963/95 . In the past, in cases
                                                                           where the amount of the pension was to be adjusted,
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       the Commission did not recover the negative amount.
                                                                            Now it has instead withheld it, setting the number of
 The applicant, a retired official of Italian nationality,                  monthly payments below that permitted by the Council
                                                                            Regulation .
 contests the way in which the defendant has applied to him
 Regulation ( EC, Euratom, ECSC ) No 2963/95 .
                                                                       (') OJ No L 310 , 22 . 12 . 1995 , p . 1 .
 The applicant observes in this regard that, upon retirement
 in December 1983 , he decided to return to Italy, making


title: Case T-576/12: Action brought on 31 December 2012 — Łaszkiewicz v OHIM — Capital Safety Group EMEA (PROTEKT)

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/27

         Action brought on 31 December 2012 — Łaszkiewicz v OHIM — Capital Safety Group EMEA (PROTEKT)
   (Case T-576/12)
   2013/C 108/71
   Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Grzegorz Łaszkiewicz (Łódź, Poland) (represented by: J. Gwiazdowska, legal adviser)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Capital Safety Group EMEA, SAS (Carros Cedex, France)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside in its entirety the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 October 2012 in Case R 700/2011-4;

               —

               deliver final judgment — if the state of the proceedings so allows — by allowing registration of the Community trade mark applied for (Registration No 8478331);

               —

               if necessary — should the state of the proceedings so allow — refer the case back for reconsideration by the Fourth Board of Appeal, in accordance with the binding criteria laid down by the Court of Justice;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred by the applicant in his action before the Board of Appeal and before the Opposition Division of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market;

               —

               collect the evidence indicated in the content of the application;

               —

               conduct the written procedure, with Polish as the language of the case.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the word element ‘protekt’ for goods in Classes 6, 7, 9, 22 and 25 — Registration No 008478331

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Capital Safety Group EMEA, SAS

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The Community word mark Protecta, registered for goods in Classes 6, 7 and 9

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Breach of Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 and of Rules 50 and 52 of Commission Regulation No 2868/95.


title: Action brought on 25 May 1998 by CIT Belgique SA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-80/98)

text:
C 234/32             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    25.7.98
geographical indication, as a result of a decision which            Executive Director of the EMEA definitively classified the
gives more the impression of a political compromise than            applicant upon recruitment in Grade 7, step 3.
the final legitimate outcome of a procedure for recognition
of a quality product.
                                                                    The applicant claims, inter alia, that the EMEA
                                                                    committed a manifest error of assessment by that
The applicants also argue that on 11 March 1996 the                 classification on the ground that he had not shown to
Director of Directorate-General VI (Agriculture) of the             have twelve years of experience, five of which of practical
Commission advised the Italian State that the proposal put          experience in the field specified in the job description for
forward on 22 January 1994 (that is to say, well beyond             which he had applied. That manifest error of assessment
the deadline set in Article 17(1) of Regulation (EEC)               prejudices the applicant's career prospect and runs counter
No 2081/92) to break down the designation of Tuscan'               to the principle of legitimate expectations.
origin in terms of sub-areas by way of variants' was not
permissible. On that basis, the applicants are at a loss to
understand how the Commission was able, ultimately, to
grant recognition of the protected geographical indication
Tuscan' and the related rules, which entail precisely those
variants' Ð sub-areas Ð which are clearly not permissible
in that, pursuant to Article 17 of Regulation (EEC)                 Action brought on 25 May 1998 by CIT Belgique SA
No 2081/92, they were proposed out of time.                           against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-80/98)
                                                                                (98/C 234/63)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
Action brought on 23 May 1998 by Manuel TomaÂs
Carrasco Benítez against European Agency for the
              Evaluation of Medicinal Products                      An action against the Commission of the European
                       (Case T-79/98)                               Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 25 May 1998
                        (98/C 234/62)                               by CIT Belgique SA, represented by Aurelio Pappalardo,
                                                                    of the Trapani Bar, Claudio Tesauro and Francesco
                (Language of the case: French)                      Tesauro, of the Naples Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                    Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain Lorang, 51 Rue
                                                                    Albert 1er
An action against European Agency for the Evaluation of
Medicinal Products (the EMEA) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on              The applicant claims that the Court should:
23 May 1998 by Manuel TomaÂs Carrasco Benítez,
residing at London, represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis,
VeÂronique Leclerq, Ariane Tornel and FrancËoise                    Ð annul the measure contained in a letter of 23 March
Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service            1998 whereby the Commission closed tender
in Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson S.aÁ.r.l., 30 Rue de                  procedure 97/33/IX.C.1, and all preceding, subsequent
Cessange.                                                               and/or connected acts and in particular the decision to
                                                                        award the contract for Travel agency services to
                                                                        provide tickets and associated services, especially hotel
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             reservations relating to business trips made by officials
                                                                        and agents on missions' (OJ 1998 p. 83);
Ð annul the EMEA's decision classifying the applicant in
    Grade A 7, step 3;
                                                                    Ð order the defendant to make good the harm suffered
                                                                        by CIT as a result of the unlawful award of the
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.                                 contract to BBL Travel for the provision of travel
                                                                        agency services to officials and other agents on
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     mission;
The applicant, a member of the temporary staff in Grade             Ð order the defendant to pay the costs, including the
A 7, passed competition EMEA/A/105. The experience                      costs incurred by the applicant by way of legal fees.
required for classification in Grade A 5 was of 12 years,
at least five years of which were to be of practical
experience.                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Although the Director General of the EMEA had indicated             The contested decision constitutes the last stage of a
in a letter to the applicant that he intended to engage him         tender procedure followed by the defendant for the award
as a member of the temporary staff in Grade A 5, the                of the contract for the provision of travel agency services
 ---pagebreak--- 25.7.98               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 234/33
for officials and other agents on mission. Until April 1997,        Action brought on 25 May 1998 by Patricia Boyes against
those services (ticket issuing, hotel bookings and                        the Commission of the European Communities
associated services) were provided by four travel agencies,                               (Case T-81/98)
including the applicant. In 1997, before the expiry of the
contract, the Commission opened an initial procedure.                                      (98/C 234/64)
After receiving the tenders, the defendant decided to annul
that procedure.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
On 20 March 1998, the Commission informed the
applicant of its intention not to award a new contract in           An action against the Commission of the European
respect of which a prior call for competition was made in           Communities was brought before the Court of First
view of the fact that various tenders' were irregular and          Instance of the European Communities on 25 May 1998
that it therefore intended to award the contract by means           by Patricia Boyes, represented by S. C. I. Ferdinand, J.
of negotiated procedure without prior publication of the            Tracey Kelly, J. Singh Sandhu and Becket Bedford, of
contract notice.                                                    Ferdinand Kelly, Solicitors, 21 Bennetts Hill, Birmingham,
                                                                    B2 5QP, United Kingdom.
In support of its claims, the applicant alleges breach of the
general principle of the protection of legitimate                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
expectations, infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty
and of Articles 11 and 12 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC
of 16 June 1992 (1), and misuse of powers as a result of            Ð annul the decision of the Commission in Case IV/
abuse of procedures.                                                    34.907/F3 Ð NAIL dated 5 March 1998;
The applicant claims in this regard that, so far as concerns        Ð declare that the Commission is required under
contracts, the general principle of the protection of                   Article 176 of the Treaty establishing the European
legitimate expectations requires any contracting body who               Community to take the necessary measures to comply
has made the award of a contract subject to a tender                    with the judgment to be delivered;
procedure to conclude the procedure, unless supervening
circumstances which were unforeseeable when the
contract notice was published cause the contracting                 Ð in application of Article 215 of that Treaty, order the
authority to lose interest in the contract. In the present              Commission to make good the damage caused by the
case, the defendant first of all suspended the tender                   Commission's decision dated 5 March 1995; and
procedure in order to alter the technical specifications in
the contract documents' and subsequently annulled it                Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
because of substantial alterations to the specifications in
the contract notice'. However, despite the fact that the
contracting authority cannot effect any alterations to the          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
contract notice or, even less, to the contract documents
since that would constitute a serious breach of the
principle of non-discrimination, the Commission based               The applicant explains that in June 1991 she became the
itself on such grounds in order to annul the procedure.             tenant of The Britannia Inn in the village of Alcombe,
Moreover, the Commission never informed the applicant               Minehead, Somerset under a lease which had been granted
of the reasons for the annulment of the tender procedure.           to her by Inntrepreneur Estates Limited. The lease
                                                                    contained a beer-tie provision. On 17 July 1992
                                                                    Inntrepreneur notified, inter alia, the applicant's lease to
Secondly, the applicant claims that the derogations                 the Commission and applied for negative clearance, a
provided by Article 11 of the directive to the general              declaration that its standard lease fell within Regulation
system must be interpreted strictly in so far as they               (EEC) No 1984/83 (1) and/or retrospective individual
constitute an exception to the general rule provided for            exemption. On 30 July 1993 the Commission published
therein, and the contracting authority must show that the           an Article 19(3) Notice in relation to Inntrepreneur (Case
requisite requirements for their application have been              IV/34.387) (2) in which it stated that it had reached a
fulfilled, that is that an open or restricted procedure was         favourable conclusion and intended to grant retrospective
abandoned on the ground that the tenders submitted were             individual exemption. The applicant, together with
irregular or unacceptable. In any event, the contracting            numerous other tenants of Inntrepreneur, notified the
authority cannot alter the substantive conditions of the            Commission of their opposition to the proposed grant of
contract. The applicant claims that, nevertheless, in the           retrospective individual exemption. Subsequently, in
present case some of the offers submitted were valid and            October 1993, she submitted, separately, a formal
that, furthermore, the defendant reduced considerably the           complaint to the Commission in respect of Inntrepreneur
duration of the contract in question, from two years to             (Case IV/34.907/F3). Inntrepreneur withdrew its
seven months and to four months respectively for the two            application for exemption in October 1997 and on
successful tenderers.                                               5 March 1998 the Commission formally rejected the
                                                                    applicant's complaint for lack of Community interest on
(1) OJ L 209 of 24.7.1992, p. 1.                                    the ground that her rights under Article 85 of the EC
                                                                    Treaty could be adequately safeguarded by the national
                                                                    courts.


title: Judgment of the Court 15 January 2002 in Case C-196/01: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Environment — Directive 75/442/EEC — Decision 94/3/EC — European Waste Catalogue)

text:
6.4.2002                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 84/29
to fulfil its obligations under that directive, the Court (Second             composed of: N. Colneric, President of the Chamber,
Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric, President of the Chamber,                 R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and V. Skouris, Judges, Advocate
R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and V. Skouris, Judges, Advocate                    General: D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Registrar: R. Grass, has given
General: D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Registrar: R. Grass, has given               a judgment on 17 January 2002, in which it:
a judgment on 17 January 2002, in which it:
                                                                              1.    Declares that by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt within the period prescribed               all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary
      the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to              to comply with Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December
      comply with Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996                     1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving
      on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous                  dangerous substances, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to
      substances, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that           fulfil its obligations under that directive;
      directive;
                                                                              2.    Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
2.    Orders Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                              (1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.
(1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                   15 January 2002
                         (Second Chamber)                                     in Case C-196/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)
                          17 January 2002
                                                                              (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
in Case C-423/00: Commission of the European Communi-                         Environment — Directive 75/442/EEC — Decision 94/3/EC
                  ties v Kingdom of Belgium (1)                                                  — European Waste Catalogue)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                                                     (2002/C 84/48)
Directive 96/82/EC — Failure to implement within the
                          prescribed period)                                                         (Language of the case: French)
                           (2002/C 84/47)                                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                     (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published        In Case C-196/01, Commission of the European Communities
                    in the European Court Reports)                            (Agents: H. Støvlbaek and J. Adda) v Grand Duchy of
                                                                              Luxembourg (Agents: N. Mackel, and, subsequently, J. Faltz):
                                                                              application for a declaration that the Grand Duchy of Luxem-
                                                                              bourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(a) of
In Case C-423/00, Commission of the European Communities                      Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ
(Agent: G. zur Hausen) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent:                           1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended by Council Directive
C. Pochet): application for a declaration that, by failing to                 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32),
adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions                 and Commission Decision 94/3/EC of 20 December 1993
necessary to comply with Council Directive 96/82/EC of                        establishing a list of wastes pursuant to Article 1(a) of Directive
9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards                      75/442 (OJ 1994 L 5, p. 15), the Court (First Chamber),
involving dangerous substances (OJ 1997 L 10, p. 13) and, in                  composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, L. Sevón
any event, by failing to notify the Commission of those                       (Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Judges, Advocate General:
provisions, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its                   P. Léger, Registrar: R. Grass, has given a judgment on
obligations under that directive, the Court (Second Chamber),                 15 January 2002, in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- C 84/30                   EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           6.4.2002
1.    Declares that the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to            1.    The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
      fulfil its obligations under Article 1(a) of Council Directive
      75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by                   2.    The parties shall bear their own costs.
      Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, and
      Commission Decision 94/3/EC of 20 December 1993 estab-
      lishing a list of wastes pursuant to Article 1(a) of Directive       (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
      75/442;
2.    Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 200 of 14.7.2001.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                (First Chamber)
                                                                                of 11 October 2001
                      ORDER OF THE COURT                                   in Case C-30/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                           the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal)): William
                                                                           Hinton & Sons Lda v Fazenda Pública, intervener: Minis-
                           (Sixth Chamber)                                                            tério Público (1)
                        of 27 November 2001                                (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure Post-clearance
                                                                           recovery of import duties — Entry in the accounts of the
in Case C-208/99: Portuguese Republic v Commission of                      import duties to be collected — Expiry of the time-limit for
                  the European Communities (1)                             taking action for recovery — Article 254 of the Act of
                                                                           Accession of Spain and Portugal — Obligation incumbent
                                                                           on the Portuguese Republic to proceed, at its own costs, to
(EAGGF, Guidance Section — Decision of the Commission                                the elimination of certain stocks of product)
withdrawing financial assistance granted under Article 8
of Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88 — Action for partial
annulment against the designation of a Member State as                                                 (2002/C 84/50)
               recipient — Manifestly inadmissible)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                            (2002/C 84/49)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   (Language of the case: Portuguese)                                          in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)                        In Case C-30/00: reference to the Court under Article 234
                                                                           EC from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Supreme
                                                                           Administrative Tribunal) for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                           proceedings pending before that court between William Hin-
In Case C-208/99: Portuguese Republic (Agents: L. Fernandes,               ton & Sons Lda and Fazenda Pública, intervener: Ministério
Â. Cortesão de Seiça Neves and P. Fragão) v Commission of               Público — on the interpretation of Articles 1, 2 and 5 of
the European Communities (Agents: A.M. Alves Vieira and                    Council Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 of 24 July 1979 on the
P. Oliver) — application for partial annulment of C(1999)543,              post-clearance recovery of import duties or export duties
C(1999)544 and C(1999)545 of 4 March 1999 withdrawing                      which have not been required of the person liable for payment
the assistance granted to Belgravia Lda, Floreurop — Productos             on goods entered for a customs procedure involving the
Florestais Lda and Ordinal-Gestão de Investimentos Lda                    obligation to pay such duties (OJ 1979 L 197, p. 1), Article 254
respectively under the Guidance Section of the European                    of the 1985 Act concerning the conditions of accession and
Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) — the                      the adjustments to the Treaties (OJ 1985 L 302, p. 23), Article 8
Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: F. Macken, President,                  of Council Regulation (EEC) N3771/85 of 20 December 1985
N. Colneric, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur) and                 on stocks of agricultural products in Portugal (OJ 1985 L 362,
V. Skouris, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass,                p. 21) and Articles 4 and 8 of Commission Regulation (EEC)
Registrar, gave a judgment on 27 November 2001, the                        No 579/86 of 28 February 1986 laying down detailed rules
operative part of which is as follows:                                     relating to stocks of products in the sugar sector in Spain and


title: Case C-187/08: Order of the President of the Court of 3 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/32

         Order of the President of the Court of 3 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-187/08) (1)

   (2009/C 69/72)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 158, 21.6.2008.


title: Action brought on 23 January 1995 by Akli Chehab against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-10/95)

text:
25.3.95            I EN 1               Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 74/13
    together with interest thereon at 8% from 19 May               Action brought on 23 January 1995 by Akli Chehab against
    1992, and jointly to pay the costs of the proceedings as             the Commission of the European Communities
    well as those of the assessor in the amount of DM
                                                                                (Case T-10/95 )
    7 910,16 ;
                                                                                ( 95/C 74/25 )
2 . join the present action to that already pending in Case
    T-77/93 Hiilseberg and Others v. Council and                                  (Language of the case: French)
    Commission and also stay the proceedings .
                                                                   An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                   Instance of the European Communities on 23 January 1995
                                                                   by Akli Chehab, residing in Paris ( France ), represented by
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in        Jean-Noel Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
Case T-20/94 .                                                     service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
                                                                   Sari, 1 Rue Glesener.
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   — annul the Commission's decision of 22 March 1994 in
                                                                       so far as it restricts to 3 % the additional rate of
Action brought on 23 January 1995 by Wilhelm Pelle                     permanent partial invalidity reflecting the deterioration
against Council of the European Union and Commission of                of the applicant's state of health,
                 the European Communities
                       (Case T-8/95 )                              — order the Commission, to pay the costs.
                        ( 95/C 74/24 )
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments
               (Language of the case: German)                      As a result of two accidents, in January 1978 and January
                                                                   1983 , the applicant, who is a former official of the
                                                                   Commission, is entitled to a partial invalidity rate of 10 %
An action against the Council of the European Union and            and an additional invalidity rate of 5 % . Since his state of
Commission of the European Communities was brought                 health had deteriorated, he submitted a request that his case
before the Court of First Instance of the European                 be re-examined . On completion of the procedure set out in
Communities on 23 January 1995 by Wilhelm Pelle,                   the Staff Regulations, the Commission proposed that he be
Kluse-Ahlen (Federal Republic of Germany), represented by          granted a permanent partial invalidity rate of 8 % ; it asked
Bernd Meisterernst, Mechtild Diising, Dietrich Manstetten,         for the number of his bank account, which could be credited
Frank Schulze and Winfried Haneklaus, Rechtsanwalte,               with a sum corresponding to a permanent partial invalidity
Miinster, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the         rate of 3% , representing the deterioration of his state of
Chambers of Dupong & Associes, 14a Rue des Bains .                 health by comparison with the findings of the last Medical
                                                                   Committee which convened on 20 March 1989 .
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   The applicant claims that that constitutes an infringement of
                                                                   Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and of Article 1 9 et seq. of
1 . order the defendants jointly to pay to the applicant           the Rules on the Insurance of Officials of the European
    SLOM I compensation for the period from 2 March                Communities against the Risk of Accident and of
     1985 to 29 March 1989 in the amount of DM
                                                                   Occupational Disease. He also claims that the contested
     81 159,764, together with interest thereon at 8 % from        decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.
     19 May 1992, and jointly to pay the costs of the
    proceedings;
                                                                   The applicant states in particular that an opinion given by
                                                                   the Medical Committee plainly affirmed a continuing state
2 . Join the present action to that aleady pending in Case         of 8 % permanent invalidity. That opinion was elucidated in
    T-77/93 Hiilseberg and Others v. Council and                   the additional opinion given by the Medical Committee on
    Commission and also stay the proceedings .                     26 November 1993 where it was made clear that the
                                                                   discrepancy between the rate of permanent invalidity
                                                                   decided by an expert appointed in accordance with the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                    medical procedure and that decided by the Medical
                                                                   Committee itself is explained by the fact that the Committee
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in        considered that the applicant had a pre-existing
Case T-20/94 .                                                     condition.
                                                                   The applicant claims that the decision in dispute is vitiated
                                                                   by a manifest error of assessment in so far as it restricts to
 ---pagebreak---  No C 74/14            EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    25 . 3 . 95
 3% the additional rate of permanent partial invalidity             deserving candidates and to include officials from lower
which he suffers following the deterioration of his state of        down the list gof officials proposed unless it was established
health .                                                            that their merits were at least equal to his. He notes that the
                                                                    list of officials proposed is drawn up specifically in order of
                                                                    merit, which implies that the promotion committee
                                                                    unlawfully gave preference to the criterion of seniority over
                                                                    that of merit. It follows, he argues, that there has been a
                                                                    breach of the Staff Regulations and of the proper procedure
                                                                    for promotion.
Action brought on 24 January 1995 by Jose Hodar against
       the Commission of the European Communities                   Lastly, the applicant points out that there are no objective
                        (Case T-12/95 )                             factors to demonstrate why the promotion committee did
                          ( 95/C 74/26                              not include his name on the list in question when the four
                                                                    officials below him on the list of names proposed were
                                                                    included; the same applies to the inclusion on the list of
                 (Language of the case: French)                     officials who were not on the list of officials proposed.
                                                                    Accordingly, he considers that the decision infringed the
An action against the Commission of the European                    obligation to state the grounds on which it was based, as laid
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   down in Article 25 of the Staff Regulations.
Instance of the European Communities on 24 January 1995
by Jose Hodar, resident in Redange (France), represented by
Jean-Noel Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Sari Fiduciaire
Myson, 1 Rue Glesener.
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance               Action brought on 24 January 1995 by Nicolaos Kyrpitsis
should :                                                                     against the Economic and Social Committee
                                                                                ( Case T-13/95 )
— annul the Commission's decision not to place the                                            ( 95/C 74/27)
     applicant on the list of officials considered most
     deserving of promotion to Grade D1 for the year
     1994,                                                                           (Language of the case: French)
— so far as is necessary, annul all subsequent decisions
     adopted in relation to promotion to Grade D1 for the           An action against the Economic and Social Committee was
     year 1994, and more particularly the decision not to           brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
     promote the applicant to that grade,                           Communities on 24 January 1995 by Nicolaos Kyrpitsis,
                                                                   resident in Gendebien, Belgium, represented by Jean-Noel
                                                                    Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
— order the defendant to pay the costs .
                                                                    Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson, 1 Rue Glesener.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance
                                                                    should :
The applicant claims that he was placed on the list of
officials eligible for promotion to Grade D1 proposed by
DG IX for the promotion year 1994. He was not, however,            — annul the decisions to reject his candidature for vacant
included on the list of the most deserving officials drawn up            posts 2/94, 3/94 and 4/94,
by the promotion committee, whereas the committee did
include on that list some officials placed below him on the        — order the defendant to pay the costs.
list of officials proposed by DG IX as well as some officials
who had not even been proposed.
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments
Firstly, the applicant claims that the inclusion in the list of
most deserving candidates of officials who had not been            In support of his action, the applicant alleges breach of
proposed and who had a 'normal' career profile ( statistical       Article 29 of the Staff Regulations and the vacancy notice
representation of the group of officials eligible for              and also a manifest error of assessment and breach of
promotion, based on the objective factors of age and               Article 45 of the Regulations.
seniority) is contrary to the Commission's decision of
24 November 1976 concerning promotions, which provides             The applicant claims that the appointing authority has
that only 'slow' career officials can be so included.              acknowledged that it transferred an official to one of the
                                                                   vacant posts without consideration of the comparative
The applicant also claims that it was not open to the              merits of all the officials who applied for transfer to that
promotion committee to exclude him from the list of most           post. He concludes accordingly that the decision rejecting


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 April 1999 in Case C-423/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Valencia (Spain): Travel Vac SL v Manuel José Antelm Sanchis (Directive 85/577/EEC - Scope - Time-share contracts - Right of renunciation)

text:
17.7.1999                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 204/5
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      5. Directive 85/577 precludes the inclusion in a contract of a clause
                                                                                imposing payment by the consumer of a lump sum for damage
                                                                                caused to the trader for the sole reason that the consumer has
                          (Third Chamber)                                         exercised his right of renunciation.
                          of 22 April 1999
                                                                             (1) OJ C 41 of 7.2.1998.
in Case C-423/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Valencia (Spain):
       Travel Vac SL v Manuel José Antelm Sanchis (1)
(Directive 85/577/EEC — Scope — Time-share contracts —
                       Right of renunciation)                                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (1999/C 204/08)                                                               (First Chamber)
                                                                                of 22 April 1999
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                             in Case C-109/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                             from the Tribunal Administratif de Dijon): CRT France
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       International SA v Directeur Régional des Impôts de
                    in the European Court Reports)                                                         Bourgogne (1)
In Case C-423/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                (Tax on the supply of CB sets — Charge having equivalent
the EC Treaty from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de                       effect — Internal taxation — Applicability of the prohibition
Valencia (Spain) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                           thereof to trace with non-member countries)
pending before that court between Travel Vac SL and Manuel
José Antelm Sanchis — on the interpretation of Council                                                   (1999/C 204/09)
Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 to protect the
consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from
business premises (OJ 1985 L 372, p. 31) — the Court (Third                                        (Language of the case: French)
Chamber), composed of J.-P. Puissochet, President of the
Chamber, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida and C. Gulmann (Rappor-
teur), Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
has given a judgment on 22 April 1999, in which it has ruled:                                     in the European Court Reports)
1. Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 to protect
    the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from                In Case C-109/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
    business premises applies to a contract relating to the acquisition      the EC Treaty by the Tribunal Administratif de Dijon (France)
    of a right to use immoveable property on a time-share basis and          for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
    to the provision of services whose value is higher than that of the      court between CRT France International SA and Directeur
    right to use the immoveable property.                                    Régional des Impôts de Bourgogne — on the interpretation of
                                                                             Articles 9, 12 and 95 of the EC Treaty — the Court
                                                                             (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of Chamber,
2. A contract concluded in a situation in which a tracer has invited         D.A.O. Edward and L. Sevón (Rapporteur), Judges; G. Cosmas,
    a consumer to go in person to a specified place at a certain             Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Assistant Registrar, has
    distance from the place where the consumer lives and which is            given a judgment on 22 April 1999 in which it has ruled:
    different from the premises where the tracer usually carries on his
    business and is not clearly identified as premises for sales to the
    public, in order to present to him the products and services he is       Articles 9 and 12 of the EC Treaty preclude a tax borne by
    offering, must be considered to have been concluded during an            manufacturers, importers and persons making supplies in France of
    excursion organised by the tracer away from his business premises        transmitting-receiving sets operating on two-way channels and
    within the meaning of Directive 85/577.                                  imported from Member States, such as the tax governed by Article
                                                                             302 bis (X) of the Code Général des Impôts, and Articles 9, 12 and
3. The consumer can exercise his right of renunciation under Article         113 of the EC Treaty preclude a tax borne by manufacturers,
    5(1) of Directive 85/577 where the contract has been concluded           importers and persons making supplies in France of transmitting-
    in circumstances such as those described in Article 1 of that            receiving sets operating on two-way channels and imported from
    directive, without there being any need to prove that the consumer       non-member countries, such as the tax governed by Article 302 bis
    was influenced or manipulated by the trader.                             (X) of the Code Général des Impôts.
4. Directive 85/577 does not preclude a Member State from                    (1) OJ C 166 of 30.5.1988.
    adopting rules providing that the notice of renunciation provided
    for by Article 5(1) of the directive is not subject to any condition
    as to form.


title: Case T-38/11: Action brought on 21 January 2011 — Cathay Pacific Airways v Commission

text:
               5.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/32

         Action brought on 21 January 2011 — Cathay Pacific Airways v Commission
   (Case T-38/11)
   2011/C 72/50
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd (represented by: D. Vaughan, QC, R. Kreisberger, Barrister, B. Bär-Bouyssière, lawyer, and M. Rees, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Article 2 of the Commission’s decision insofar as it relates to the applicant;

               —

               annul Article 3 of the Commission’s decision insofar as it relates to the applicant;

               —

               annul Article 5 of the Commission’s decision insofar as it imposes a fine on Cathay Pacific of EUR 57 120 000 or, in the alternative, reduce the amount of that fine;

               —

               and order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs of making this application.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 in Case COMP/39.258 — Airfreight in so far as the Commission found the applicant liable for an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and 53 EEA by coordinating various elements of price to be charged for airfreight services in respect of (i) fuel surcharges, (ii) security surcharges, and (iii) the non-payment of commissions on surcharges, on routes (i) between airports within the EEA and airports outside the EEA and (ii) between airports in countries that are Contracting Parties of the EEA Agreement but not Member States and third countries. Alternatively, the applicant seeks an annulment or a substantial reduction of its fine.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on eight pleas in law:

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law and made a manifest error of assessment in finding that the applicant was party to a single and continuous global infringement. The vast majority of events reported in the decision against the applicant:

                           —

                           do not amount to an infringement as they relate to the exchange of publicly available information, or;

                           —

                           are part of a mandated collective regulatory approval process, or;

                           —

                           took place outside the period of infringement, or, fall outside of the Commission’s jurisdiction.

         Moreover, the Commission has failed to establish that the applicant’s activities reported in the decision establish that it adhered to any common plan in pursuit of a common objective.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law and made a manifest error of assessment in finding that the applicant was not required to participate in the collective application process in seeking the approval of surcharges by the Civil Aviation Department (CAD) of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). As is made clear by the Hong Kong CAD in its letter to the President of the European Commission dated 3 September 2009, carriers were required to agree on the details of the collective applications, including the amount of the surcharge for which approval was sought and were bound to charge the surcharges fixed by the CAD.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in finding that the state compulsion defence does not apply to the applicant’s conduct in Hong Kong (and India, Sri Lanka. Japan, the Philippines and Singapore) and the finding that the applicant’s conduct amounted to an infringement of Article 101 TFEU is manifestly vitiated.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s finding of infringement amounts to a manifest error of law because it comprises a direct interference in the domestic administration of Hong Kong, thereby:

                           —

                           offending the public international law principle of non-interference or comity between nations and;

                           —

                           it gives rise to a direct conflict of jurisdictions which infringes the principle of legal certainty.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in its treatment of the regulatory regime in Hong Kong in comparison with the relevant equivalent regulatory regime in Dubai. It should have excluded Cathay Pacific and Hong Kong on a similar basis as it excluded Dubai from the scope of the infringement.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in finding that the applicant’s activities in Hong Kong, and the other regulated non-EU jurisdictions, could have had the object of preventing, restricting or distorting competition in the EU/EEA. The Commission also did not allege that the infringement had anti-competitive effects.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, in relation to inbound flights from Hong Kong and other third country jurisdictions to the EEA, alleging that the Commission had no jurisdiction to find an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and to impose fines. As there was no effect on competition within the EU or inter-Member State trade.

               8.

               Eighth plea in law, alleging that even if the alleged infringement with regard to the applicant is not annulled, the fine should nonetheless be annulled, or, reduced. The value of sales taken by the Commission was grossly excessive and the Commission failed to take into consideration the applicant’s individual level of involvement. The applicant invites the General Court to exercise its unlimited jurisdiction under Article 261 TFEU to impose a symbolic fine or to reduce the fine substantially.


title: Case C-355/09: Action brought on 3 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

text:
               24.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/16

         Action brought on 3 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
   (Case C-355/09)
   2009/C 256/30
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Oliver, A.-A. Gilly, Agents)

      Defendant: Ireland

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt national measures necessary to implement Articles 10 and 12 of Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 (1), by failing to communicate those measures pursuant to Article 16 of that Regulation and by failing to adopt the national measures necessary to implement Articles 26(3) and 31 of Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 (2), Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 on drug precursors and Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 laying down the rules for the monitoring of trade between the Community and third countries in drug precursors;

               —

               order Ireland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Member States are required to adopt the measures necessary to comply with the provisions of Regulations, within the time limits laid down in those Regulations, and to notify those measures forthwith to the Commission. The Government of Ireland has failed to adopt and communicate the measures required to implement Articles 10, 12 and 16 of Regulation (EC) no 273/2004 on drug precursors. The Government of Ireland has also failed to adopt measures in accordance with articles 26(3) and 31 of regulation (EC) no 111/2005 laying down the rules for the monitoring of trade between the Community and third countries in drug precursors.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on drug precursors
   OJ L 47, p. 1

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 of 22 December 2004 laying down rules for the monitoring of trade between the Community and third countries in drug precursors
   OJ L 22, p. 1


title: Case C-468/11: Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 24 July 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               19.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 304/8

         Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 24 July 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-468/11) (1)

   2013/C 304/14
   Language of the case: Spanish
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 340, 19.11.2011.


title: Case T-416/11: Action brought on 29 July 2011 — Biotronik SE v OHIM — Cardios Sistemas (CARDIO MANAGER)

text:
               8.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 298/21

         Action brought on 29 July 2011 — Biotronik SE v OHIM — Cardios Sistemas (CARDIO MANAGER)
   (Case T-416/11)
   2011/C 298/39
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Biotronik SE & Co. KG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: A. Reich and S. Pietzcker, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cardios Sistemas Comercial e Industrial Ltda (Sao Paulo, Brazil)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27.5.2011 in Case R 1156/2010-2;

               —

               allow the opposition to the Community trade mark application No 5378071 in respect of all goods in Class 9 and in Class 10;

               —

               alternatively, refer the opposition back to the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market for further consideration in accordance with the judgment of the General Court;

               —

               order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Cardios Sistemas Comercial e Industrial Ltda.

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘CARDIO MANAGER’ for goods in Classes 9 and 10 — Registration No 5 378 071.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘Cardiomessenger’ for goods in Classes 9 and 10.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: First, infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Rule 22(3) and (4) of Regulation No 2868/95, because proof of the place, time and also the extent and nature of the use of the mark ‘Cardiomessenger’ was provided and, secondly, infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 41 of Regulation No 207/2009, because there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.