title: Case C-532/10 P: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 June 2011 — adp Gauselmann GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Likelihood of confusion — Figurative mark Archer Maclean’s Mercury — Opposition by the proprietor of the national word mark Merkur)

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/14

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 June 2011 — adp Gauselmann GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-532/10 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Likelihood of confusion - Figurative mark Archer Maclean’s Mercury - Opposition by the proprietor of the national word mark Merkur)
   2011/C 311/21
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: adp Gauselmann GmbH (represented by: P. Koch Moreno, abogada)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 September 2010 in Case T-106/09 adp Gauselmann v OHIM by which the General Court dismissed an action for annulment brought by the proprietor of the national word mark ‘Merkur’ for goods in Classes 6, 9, 28, 35, 37, 41 and 42 against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 12 January 2009 in Case R 1266/2007-1 dismissing the appeal against the Opposition Division’s decision, which rejected the opposition brought by the appellant against the registration of the figurative mark ‘Archer Maclean’s Mercury’ in respect of goods in Classes 9, 16 and 28 — Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Likelihood of confusion — Criteria for assessment

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               adp Gauselmann GmbH shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 38, 5.2.2011.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance (single Judge) of 9 December 1999 in Case T-53/99: Nicolaos Progoulis v Commission of the European Communities (Staff case — Staff report — Description of duties)

text:
5.2.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 34/21
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
             Assignment of Judges to Chambers                           cation for annulment of the decision of 1 October 1997 of
                                                                        the selection board for general competition COM/A/1047
                         (2000/C 34/39)                                 rejecting the applicant’s candidature for that competition —
                                                                        the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of:
                                                                        A. Potocki, President, C.W. Bellamy and A.W.H. Meij, Judges;
At its plenary meeting on 13 January 2000 the Court of First            J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a
Instance decided, pursuant to Article 2(4) of the Council               judgment on 9 December 1999, the operative part of which is
Decision of 24 October 1988 and Article 10 of the Rules of              as follows:
Procedure of the Court of First Instance, in respect of the period
ending on 30 September 2000, to assign Judge Forwood to
the First Chamber, to the First Chamber, Extended Compo-                1. The decision of 1 October 1997 of the selection board for general
sition, and to the Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition.                      competition COM/A/1047 rejecting the applicant’s candidature
                                                                             for that competition is annulled.
Consequently, the composition of the Chambers as decided on
6 July 1999 (OJ C 226 of 7 August 1999, p. 28) is modified              2. The Commission shall bear its own costs and pay all the
as follows:                                                                  applicant’s costs.
First Chamber
                                                                        (1) OJ C 41 of 7.2.1998.
Mr Vesterdorf (President of the Chamber), Mr Vilaras and
Mr Forwood, Judges;
First Chamber, Extended Composition
Mr Vesterdorf (President of the Chamber), Mr Potocki, Mr Meij,
Mr Vilaras and Mr Forwood, Judges;
                                                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition
                                                                                (single Judge)
Mr Garcı́a-Valdecasas (President of the Chamber), Ms Lindh,
Mr Cooke, Mr Vilaras and Mr Forwood, Judges.
                                                                                of 9 December 1999
                                                                        in Case T-53/99: Nicolaos Progoulis v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   (Staff case — Staff report — Description of duties)
                      of 9 December 1999                                                           (2000/C 34/41)
in Case T-299/97: Vicente Alonso Morales v Commission
              of the European Communities (1)                                               (Language of the case: English)
(Officials — Action for annulment — Conditions of admis-
sion to a competition — University studies certified by a               In Case T-53/99: Nicolaos Progoulis, an official of the Com-
        diploma — Technical science studies in Spain)                   mission of the European Communities, represented by Vassi-
                                                                        lios Akritidis, of the Athens Bar, and Jonathan Branton,
                                                                        Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                         (2000/C 34/40)                                 Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8-10, Rue Mathias Hardt, against
                                                                        Commission of the European Communities (Agent: Julian
                                                                        Currall) — application for the annulment of the decision of
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                       the appointing authority of 17 November 1998 rejecting the
                                                                        applicant’s complaint of 9 June 1998 in which the applicant
In Case T-299/97: Vicente Alonso Morales, represented by                sought the amendment of his staff report for the period 1 July
Ramón Marés Salvador, of the Madrid Bar, of 136-1o Doctor              1995 to 30 June 1997, an order requiring the Commission to
Esquerdo, Madrid, v Commission of the European Communi-                 rectify the assessments of the applicant and to amend the
ties (Agents: Julian Currall and José Rivas Andrés) — appli-            description of duties given at paragraph 3(b) of the report as
 ---pagebreak--- C 34/22                  EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           5.2.2000
indicated by the applicant, and an award of compensation for              2. The actions are dismissed as inadmissible.
non-material damage which he alleges he has sustained and
which he assesses provisionally at BEF 100 000 — the Court                3. It is unnecessary to rule on the application for legal aid made in
of First Instance (single Judge), J. Azizi, sitting as a single               Case T-148/98.
Judge; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, gave a judgment on
9 December 1999, in which it:                                             4. It is unnecessary to rule on the applications for leave to intervene
                                                                              made by PowerGen UK plc, National Power plc and British Coal
1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible as far as the second part of          Corporation.
     the second plea is concerned;
                                                                          5. The applicants shall bear their own costs and, jointly and
2. Dismisses the remainder of the action for annulment as                     severally, pay those incurred by the Commission.
     unfounded;
3. Dismisses the action for compensation as unfounded;                    (1) OJ No C 358 of 21.11.1998 and No C 174 of 19.6.1999.
4. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
(1) OJ 1999 C 174.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 12 November 1999
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               in Case T-93/99: Beatrice Bonaiti Brighina v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities (1)
                      of 29 September 1999
                                                                          (Officials — Transfers of part of remuneration in the
in Joined Cases T-148/98 and T-162/98: J.G. Evans and                     currency of a Member State other than that of the seat of the
Others and South Wales Small Mines Association v                          institution — Home-purchase savings plan — Requirement
        Commission of the European Communities (1)                        of an undertaking by the financial institution to inform the
                                                                          institution of the existence of a request to liquidate the funds
    (Action for annulment — Lateness — Inadmissibility)                                — Application manifestly unfounded)
                           (2000/C 34/42)                                                            (2000/C 34/43)
                    (Language of the case: English)                                           (Language of the case: Italian)
In Joined Cases T-148/98 and T-162/98: J.G. Evans, Gerry                  In Case T-93/99: Beatrice Bonaiti Brighina, an official at the
Plant and Mary Kathleen Plant, Dennis Jones, William Meyrick,             Joint Research Centre, Ispra, represented by Mirco Rizzoglio,
Glen Jones and Daphne Jones, David V. Austin, Mostyn Jones,               of the Milan Bar, and Franco Colussi, of the Luxembourg Bar,
Fforch-y-Garron Coal Company Ltd, John Phillips, Desmond                  with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Ivor Evans, David Raymond Evans, D.B. Diplock, R.T. Kings-                Mr Colussi, 36 Rue de Wiltz, v Commission of the European
ton, J.R. McCann, and De Powell, established in the United                Communities (Agent: Gianluigi Valsesia) — application for
Kingdom, represented by Barbara Hewson, of the Bar of                     annulment of the Commission’s decision rejecting the request
England and Wales, and Thomas Graham, Solicitor, with an                  to transfer part of the applicant’s salary to a home-purchase
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Messrs                 savings account in the absence of an undertaking by the bank
Loesch and Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe and South Wales Small                    to communicate any release of the money so as to allow the
Mines Association, based in Fochriw, Near Bargoed, United                 institution to monitor the actual use of the funds — the Court
Kingdom, represented by Thomas Sharpe QC and Mark                         of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts,
Brealey, Barrister, of the Bar of England and Wales, and Sarah            President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
Llewellyn Jones, Solicitor, with an address for service in                made an order on 12 November 1999, the operative part of
Luxembourg at the office of Victor Gillen, 13 Rue Aldringen,              which is as follows:
against Commission of the European Communities (Agent
Kirsi Leivo) — application for annulment of Commission                    1. The application is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation
Decision No 15656 of 30 July 1998 rejecting a complaint of                    in law.
price discrimination — the Court of First Instance (Second
Chamber), composed of: A. Potocki, President, C.W. Bellamy                2. The parties shall bear their own costs.
and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
29 September 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:             (1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
1. Cases T-148/98 and T-162/98 are joined for the purposes of
     the order.


title: Case C-670/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 15 December 2015 — Jan Šalplachta

text:
               7.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 15 December 2015 — Jan Šalplachta
   (Case C-670/15)
   (2016/C 090/09)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesarbeitsgericht

      Party to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Jan Šalplachta

      Question referred

   Does the right of a natural person to effective access to justice in a cross-border dispute within the meaning of Articles 1 and 2 of Council Directive 2003/8/EC of 27 January 2003 to improve access to justice in cross-border disputes by establishing minimum common rules relating to legal aid for such disputes (1) require that legal aid granted by the Federal Republic of Germany must extend to the costs incurred by the applicant for the translation of the declaration and supporting documents annexed to the legal aid application, where the applicant, at the same time as bringing the action, applies for legal aid to the court hearing the case, which is also the competent receiving authority within the meaning of Article 13(1)(b) of the directive, and he has himself arranged for the translation to be made?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 26, p. 41, corrigendum OJ 2003 L 32, p. 1.


title: Case T-377/07: Action brought on 24 September 2007 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/43

         Action brought on 24 September 2007 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
   (Case T-377/07)
   (2007/C 297/87)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission's decision of the Direction General for Informatics to reject the bid of the applicant — filed in response to the open Call for Tender ENTR/05/86 — Content Interoperability for European eGovernment Services (OJ S 128, 8.7.2006) communicated to the applicant by letter dated 13 July 2007 and to award the contracts to the successful contractor;

               —

               order the Commission (DIGIT) to pay the applicant's legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if the current application is rejected;

               —

               order the Commission (DIGIT) to pay the applicant's damages suffered on account of the tendering procedure in question for an amount of EUR 3,5 million for lot 2.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant submitted a bid in response to the defendant's call for an open tender for the contract ‘content interoperability technologies for European eGovernment services’ (OJ 2006/S 128-136080). The applicant contests the decision to reject its bid and to award the contract to another bidder.
   The pleas in law and main arguments relied on by the applicant are identical to those relied on in Case T-300/07 Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
       (1).

      (1)  JO 2007 C 235, p. 22.


title: Case T-416/08: Action brought on 29 September 2008 — EAÜ v Commission

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/40

         Action brought on 29 September 2008 — EAÜ v Commission
   (Case T-416/08)
   (2008/C 313/73)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Eesti Autorite Ühing (EAÜ) (Tallinn, Estonia) (represented by: M. Favart, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Article 3 of the Commission decision of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC); and

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By means of this application the applicant seeks partial annulment pursuant to Article 230 EC of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC) relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA. Precisely, the applicant contests the Commission findings in Article 3 of the contested decision stating that territorial delineations of the reciprocal representation mandates granted by one authors' society to another constitute a concerted practice in violation of Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA.
   The pleas in law and main arguments raised by the applicant are identical to those raised by the applicant in Case T-415/08 IMRO v Commission.


title: Case C-246/11 P: Appeal brought on 23 May 2011 by the Portuguese Republic against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Eighth Chamber) on 3 March 2011 in Case T-387/07 Portugal v Commission

text:
               23.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 219/11

         Appeal brought on 23 May 2011 by the Portuguese Republic against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Eighth Chamber) on 3 March 2011 in Case T-387/07 Portugal v Commission
   (Case C-246/11 P)
   2011/C 219/14
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Appellant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, S. Rodrigues and A. Gattini, agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The Portuguese Republic claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Case T-387/07 and, as a consequence:

               —

               refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union to adjudicate on the application for annulment of Article 1 of Decision C(2007) 3772 of 31 July 2007, (1) pursuant to Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in accordance with the form of order sought at first instance;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and the proceedings at first instance;

         or, in the alternative, in accordance with Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, the Court of Justice is asked to set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-387/07 and give final judgment in the case, granting the form of order sought by the Portuguese Republic at first instance and, thereby

               —

               annul Article 1 of Decision C(2007) 3772, pursuant to Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in accordance with the form of order sought at first instance; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and the proceedings at first instance.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Decision C(2007) 3772 is of direct concern to the Portuguese Republic. The reasons given for the decision infringe the principles of legality, proportionality, legitimate expectations and legal certainty, since the SGAIA [global grant for local development] decision was implemented in accordance with the legal framework applicable to it, as is apparent from the agreement concluded between the European Commission (EC) and the Caixa Geral de Depósitos (CGD).
   Accordingly, the Portuguese Republic brings the present appeal on grounds of infringement of European Union law for the following reasons:

               1.

               failure to state grounds or incorrect grounds;

               2.

               the expenditure was implemented in a regular manner; infringement of Article 21(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 (2) and the agreement.

      (1)  Commission Decision C(20027) 3772 of 31 July 2007 reducing the financial assistance granted by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) towards the global grant for local development in Portugal pursuant to Commission Decision C(95) 1769 of 28 July 1995.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988, laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (OJ 1988 L 374, p. 1).


title: Cases T-233/11 and T-262/11: Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2015 — Greece and Ellinikos Chrysos v Commission (State aid — Mining sector — Aid granted by the Greek authorities to the mining company Ellinikos Chrysos — Contract for the transfer of a mining operation at a price below the real market value and exemption from taxes on that transaction — Decision declaring the aid measures unlawful and ordering recovery of the aid — Concept of advantage — Private investor test)

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/47

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2015 — Greece and Ellinikos Chrysos v Commission
   (Cases T-233/11 and T-262/11) (1)

   ((State aid - Mining sector - Aid granted by the Greek authorities to the mining company Ellinikos Chrysos - Contract for the transfer of a mining operation at a price below the real market value and exemption from taxes on that transaction - Decision declaring the aid measures unlawful and ordering recovery of the aid - Concept of advantage - Private investor test))
   (2016/C 038/60)
   Languages of the case: Greek and English

      Parties

      Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: P. Mylonopoulos, V. Asimakopoulos, G. Kanellopoulos and A. Iosifidou, acting as Agents) (Case T-233/11); and Ellinikos Chrysos AE Metalleion kai Viomichanias Chrysou (Kifissia, Greece) (represented initially by K. Adamantopoulos, E. Petritsi, E. Trova and P. Skouris, and subsequently by K. Adamantopoulos, E. Trova, P. Skouris and E. Roussou, lawyers) (Case T-262/11)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Commission Decision 2011/452/EU of 23 February 2011 on the State aid C 48/08 (ex NN 61/08) implemented by Greece in favour of Ellinikos Chrysos AE (OJ 2011 L 193, p. 27).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Joins Cases T-233/11 and T-262/11 for the purposes of the judgment;

               2.

               Dismisses the actions;

               3.

               In Case T-233/11, orders the Hellenic Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

               4.

               In Case T-262/11, orders Ellinikos Chrysos AE Metalleion kai Viomichanias Chrysou to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 204, 9.7.2011.


title: Case F-126/07: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 4 November 2008 — Van Beers v Commission (Staff cases — Officials — Promotion — Attestation procedure — Procedure for 2006 — Exclusion from the list of officials pre-selected — Article 45a of the Staff Regulations)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/73

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 4 November 2008 — Van Beers v Commission
   (Case F-126/07) (1)

   (Staff cases - Officials - Promotion - Attestation procedure - Procedure for 2006 - Exclusion from the list of officials pre-selected - Article 45a of the Staff Regulations)
   (2009/C 44/127)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Isabelle Van Beers (Woluwé-St-Étienne, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Berscheid, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the Commission decision of 22 February 2007 rejecting the applicant's application under the attestation procedure for 2006.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 22 of 26.1.2008, p. 57.


No C 354/36             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 23 . 11 . 96
   Partial removal from the register of Case T-221/95 ( )            Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
                          ( 96/C 354/69 )                            from the register of Case T-37/96 : Luftfartsfunktionsererne
                                                                     v. Commission of the European Communities .
              (Language of the case: English)
                                                                     f 1 ) OJ No C 145 , 18 . 5 . 1996 .
By order of 7 October 1996 the President of the Fourth
Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Compagnie Luxembourgeoise de
Telediffusion SA, NV Verenigd Bezit VNU, RTL4 SA and
Veronica Omroep Organisatie from the list of applicants in
Case T-221 /95 : Endemol Entertainment Holding BV and
Others v. Commission of the European Communities .                           Removal from the register of Case T-52/96 ( )
                                                                                ( 96/C 354/71 )
(') OJ No C 64 , 2 . 3 . 1996 .
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
       Removal from the register of Case T-37/96 ( )                 By order of 14 October 1996 the President of the Second
                                                                     Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of the Court of First
                          ( 96/C 354/70 )
                                                                     Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                     from the register of Case T-52/96 : Sogecable SA v.
               (Language of the case: Danish)
                                                                     Commission of the European Communities .
By order of 24 September 1996 the President of the Fourth
Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of the Court of First               (') OJ No C 180 , 22 . 6 . 1996 .


title: Case T-552/14: Action brought on 22 July 2014 — Wm. Wrigley Jr. v OHIM (Extra)

text:
               6.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 351/15

         Action brought on 22 July 2014 — Wm. Wrigley Jr. v OHIM (Extra)
   (Case T-552/14)
   2014/C 351/18
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company (Wilmington, United States) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, S. Brandstätter and C. Schmitt, lawyers)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 May 2014 given in Case R 199/2014-5.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘Extra’ for goods in Classes 3, 21 and 30 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 7 37  582

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the CTM application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) CTMR.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 March 1999 in Case C-87/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hadelsgericht Wien): Consorzio per la Tutela del Formaggio Gorgonzola v. Käserei Champignon Hofmeister GmbH & Co. KG, Eduard Bracharz GmbH (Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty - Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs)

text:
1.5.1999                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 121/7
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        ORDER OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                (Fourth Chamber)
                          of 4 March 1999
                                                                                of 11 February 1999
in Case C-87/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Handelsgericht Wien): Consorzio per la Tutela del
Formaggio Gorgonzola v. Käserei Champignon Hofmeis-                        in Case C-75/98 P: Mario Costacurta v. Commission of the
      ter GmbH & Co. KG, Eduard Bracharz GmbH (1)                                             European Communities (1)
(Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty — Regulation (EEC)
No 2081/92 on the protection of geographical indications                   (Officials — Decision reassigning an official — Article 7 of
and designations of origin for agricultural products and                   the Staff Regulations — Annex X to the Staff Regulations
                              foodstuffs)                                       — Manifestly inadmissible and unfounded appeal)
                           (1999/C 121/12)                                                           (1999/C 121/13)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
In Case C-87/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                                  in the European Court Reports)
the EC Treaty by the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria), for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Consorzio per la Tutela del Formaggio Gorgon-                In Case C-75/98 P: Mario Costacurta, an official of the
zola and Käserei Champignon Hofmeister GmbH & Co. KG,                      Office for Official Publications of the European Communities,
Eduard Bracharz GmbH on the interpretation of Articles 30                  residing in Luxembourg, represented by Albert Rodesch, of the
and 36 of the EC Treaty — the Court (Fifth Chamber),                       Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
composed of: J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), President of the               at the latter’s Chambers, 7-11 Route d’Esch — appeal against
Chamber, P. Jann, C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward and L.                       the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
Sevón, Judges; Advocate-General: F.G. Jacobs; L. Hewlett,                 Communities (Third Chamber) of 22 January 1998 in Case
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 4                T-98/96 Costacurta v. Commission [1998] ECR-SC II-49,
March 1999, in which it held that:                                         seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party to
                                                                           the proceedings being the Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities (Agent: Gianluigi Valsesia, assisted by Denis
In the present state of Community law, the principle of the free           Waelbroeck and Olivier Speltdoorn) — the Court (Fourth
movement of goods does not preclude Member States from taking the          Chamber ), composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn, President of the
measures incumbent upon them in order to ensure the protection of          Chamber, H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur) and K. M. Ioannou,
designations of origin registered under Council Regulation (EEC)           Judges; P. Léger, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical               made an order on 11 February 1999, the operative part of
indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and       which is as follows:
foodstuffs. Use of a name such as ‘Cambozola’ may therefore be
deemed, for the purposes of Article 13(1) (b) of that Regulation, to
evoke the protected designation of origin ‘Gorgonzola’, irrespective of
the fact that the packaging indicates the product’s true origin. It is
for the national court to decide whether, on the facts, the conditions
laid down in Article 14(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 allow            1. The appeal is dismissed.
use of an earlier trade mark to continue notwithstanding the
registration of the protected designation of origin ‘Gorgonzola’,
having regard in particular to the law in force at the time of             2. The appellant is to pay the costs.
registration could have been made in good faith, on the basis that use
of a name such as ‘Cambozola’ does not, per se, constitute an attempt
to deceive the consumer.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 166, 30.5.1998.
(1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.


title: Case F-109/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2012 — Lebedef v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Appraisal procedure for 2009 — Half -time secondment for the purposes of union representation — Staff report covering the tasks carried out in the service to which he was assigned — Designation under the Staff Regulations — Designation for union purposes — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               9.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/32

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2012 — Lebedef v Commission
   (Case F-109/11) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Appraisal procedure for 2009 - Half -time secondment for the purposes of union representation - Staff report covering the tasks carried out in the service to which he was assigned - Designation under the Staff Regulations - Designation for union purposes - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
   2013/C 38/63
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Giorgio Lebedef (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C Berardis-Kayser and G. Berscheid, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the applicant’s staff report for the period from 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2009.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

               2.

               Mr Lebedef must bear her own costs and is ordered pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 7.1.2012, p. 26.


title: Case T-625/16: Action brought on 2 September 2016 — Przedsiębiorstwo Energetyki Cieplnej v ECHA

text:
               31.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/51

         Action brought on 2 September 2016 — Przedsiębiorstwo Energetyki Cieplnej v ECHA
   (Case T-625/16)
   (2016/C 402/61)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Przedsiębiorstwo Energetyki Cieplnej sp. z o. o. (Grajewo, Poland) (represented by: T. Dobrzyński, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Chemicals Agency

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul ECHA Decision No SME (2016) 2851 of 23 June 2016, which found that the applicant did not meet the conditions for a reduction in the fees for medium-sized undertakings and by which an administrative charge was imposed on it;

               —

               annul ECHA Invoice No 10058238 of 23 June 2016 relating to the difference between the fee paid by the applicant and the fee for a large undertaking due pursuant to ECHA Decision No SME (2016) 2851;

               —

               annul ECHA Invoice No 10058239 of 23 June 2016, which set the level of the administrative charge pursuant to ECHA Decision No SME (2016) 2851;

               —

               annul Decision No 14/2015 of the ECHA Management Board of 4 June 2015 (MB/43/2014) ME (2016) 2851;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action the applicant puts forward five pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law: infringement of the principle of conferral of powers

                           —

                           The amount of the administrative charge provided for in Decision MB/43/2014 of the ECHA Management Board, which forms the basis for the adoption of the contested decision and the invoices, is, measured against the functions that the administrative charge is required to fulfil, disproportionately high and is thereby tantamount to a penalty. This is at variance with the principle, laid down in Article 5 EU, of conferral of powers, in conjunction with recital 11 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 340/2008.

               2.

               Second plea in law: infringement of the principle of legal certainty and of the right to proper administration

                           —

                           The applicant based its declaration concerning the size of the undertaking on information derived from, inter alia, the ECHA and on national information. The size of the undertaking had to be determined in accordance with the Law on the freedom of economic activity of 2 July 2004. Under that legislation undertakings are not defined according to their shareholding structure. The ECHA failed to provide sufficient information on the registration rules and charged the fees without it being possible for the error to be corrected.

               3.

               Third plea in law: infringement of the principle of proportionality

                           —

                           According to the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 and of Commission Regulation (EC) No 340/2008, the administrative charges have to be adapted to the actual control costs of ECHA. The practice of ECHA by which undertakings which have incorrectly indicated their size have imposed on them the costs for the controls of all undertakings has to be regarded as impermissible.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: infringement of the principle of equality

                           —

                           By imposing administrative charges and setting the level of those charges on the basis of the size of the undertaking, ECHA has infringed the principle of equality. That principle is infringed if an undertaking which is classifiable as large solely because a public body holds part of its share capital incurs the same administrative charge as an undertaking which is classifiable as large on the basis of its annual turnover and the number of its staff.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law: invalidity of the invoices issued on the basis of the contested decision

                           —

                           On the basis of the declaration of annulment of ECHA Decision No SME (2016) 2851, the invoices forming the basis of ECHA’s payment requests must be declared invalid. The fees charged are also not owed because, at the time when ECHA Decision No SME (2016) 2851 was adopted and the invoices were issued, the applicant was not under any obligation to register in the REACH system.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT (First Chamber) of 6 March 1997 in Case C-150/96 P: Roberto Galtieri v. European Parliament (Appeal manifestly unfounded)

text:
10 . 5 . 97             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 142/7
of State ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                composed of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, President of the
pending before that court between Bic Benelux SA and                  Chamber (Judge-Rapporteur), L. Sevón, D. A. O. Edward,
Belgian State — on the interpretation of Article 1 ( 1 ) and          J. -P. Puissochet and P. Jann, Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate
( 5 ) of Council Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983                General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on
laying down a procedure for the provision of information              20 March 1997, in which it:
in the field of technical standards and regulations ( OJ No
L 109, 26 . 4 . 1983 , p. 8 ), as amended by Council
Directive 88/182/EEC of 22 March 1988 ( OJ No L 81 ,                  1 . declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed
26 . 3 . 1988 , p. 75 ) — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ),                      time-limit, the laws, regulations and administrative
composed of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, President of the                    provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
Chamber, L. Sevón, C. Gulmann ( Rapporteur), D. A. O.                       93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical
Edward and P. Jann, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,                         devices, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal                            obligations under Article 22 thereof;
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
20 March 1997, in which it has ruled:                                 2 . orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
An obligation to affix specific distinctive signs to products         (') OJ No C 318 , 26 . 10 . 1996 .
which are subject to a tax levied on them on account of
the environmental damage which they are deemed to
cause, such as that laid down in Articles 1 1 and 18 of the
Ministerial Order of 24 December 1993 concerning the
treatment of products subject to environmental tax,
constitutes a technical specification within the meaning of
Council Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying                                     ORDER OF THE COURT
down a procedure for the provision of information in the                                       (First Chamber)
field of technical standards and regulations, as amended
                                                                                of 6 March 1997
by Council Directive 88/182/EEC of 22 March 1988, and
the national enactment introducing it is a technical                  in Case C- 15 0/96 P: Roberto Galtieri v. European
regulation within the meaning of the same Directive.                                             Parliament (M
(>) OJ No C 64, 2 . 3 . 1996 .
                                                                                (Appeal manifestly unfounded)
                                                                                ( 97/C 142/ 15 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                         ( Fifth Chamber)                                        published in the European Court Reports)
                        of 20 March 1997
                                                                      In Case C-150/96 P: Roberto Galtieri, temporary agent of
in Case       C-294/96: Commission of the European                    the European Parliament, residing in Brussels, represented
            Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium (')                     by Pietro Cuomo, of the Naples Bar, with an address for
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Stef
Failure to transpose Directive 93/42/EEC — Medical                    Oostvogels, PO Box 221 , 13 Rue Aldringen, — appeal
                               devices)                               against the judgment of the Court of First Instance ( First
                                                                      Chamber ) of 27 February 1996 in Case T-235/94 Galtieri
                           ( 97/C 142/14 )                            v. Parliament [ 1996] ECR-SC 11-129 , seeking to have that
                                                                      judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings
                (Language of the case: French)                        being European Parliament ( Agent: Manfred Peter) — the
                                                                      Court ( First Chamber), composed of L. Sevón, President
                                                                      of the Chamber ( Rapporteur), D. A. O. Edward and P.
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        Jann, Judges, G. Cosmas, Advocate-General; R. Grass,
          published in the European Court Reports)                    Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 March 1997, in
                                                                      which it:
In Case C-294/96 : Commission of the European
Communities ( Agents: Hendrik van Lier and Jean-Francois
Pasquier) v. Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: Jan Devadder)                 1 . dismisses the appeal;
— application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt,
within the prescribed time-limit, the laws, regulations and           2 . orders the appellant to bear the costs.
administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning
                                                                      (') OJ No C 197, 6 . 7. 1996 .
medical devices ( OJ No L 169, 12 . 7. 1993 , p. 1 ), the
Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
under the EC Treaty — the Court ( Fifth Chamber),


title: Case T-30/13: Order of the General Court of 18 May 2015 — GRE v OHIM — Villiger Söhne (LIBERTE american blend)

text:
               13.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/25

         Order of the General Court of 18 May 2015 — GRE v OHIM — Villiger Söhne (LIBERTE american blend)
   (Case T-30/13) (1)

   (2015/C 228/33)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 79, 16.3.2013.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesgericht Wien by order of that court of 5 May 1997 in the case of Angestelltenbetriebsrat der Wiener Gebietskrankenkasse against Wiener Gebietskrankenkasse (Case C-309/97)

text:
C 331 / 10              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        1 . 11 . 97
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of G. Harles, 8                   3 . Where a collective agreement provides that pay for
10 Rue Mathias Hardt, and the French Republic (Agents:                       the same work or for work of equal value is
C. de Salins and R Martinet) — the Court ( First Chamber)                    to vary according to the employee's professional
composed of: L. Sevon, President of the Chamber, D. A. O.                    qualifications, are the groups to be compared for the
Edward and M. Wathelet ( Rapporteur), Judges; G.                             purpose of determining whether a measure gives rise
Tesauro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made                     to discrimination to be defined by reference to
an order on 16 September 1997, the operative part of
which is at follows :
                                                                             ( a ) the persons actually employed in the undertaking,
1 . The appeal is dismissed;
                                                                             ( b ) the employees covered by the collective agreement,
                                                                                or
2 . The appellant is ordered to pay the costs.
                                                                             (c ) the persons qualified to pursue that occupation ?
(') OJ C 133,4 . 5 . 1996 .
                                                                         4 . In such a case ( Questions 2 and 3 ) is the relevant
                                                                             proportion of men to women that in the
                                                                             disadvantaged group only, or that in both groups ?
Reference        for     a      preliminary    ruling     by     the
Oberlandesgericht Wien by order of that court of 5 May                   5 . Where the activities which both groups have actually
1997 in the case of Angestelltenbetriebsrat der Wiener                       been called on to perform represent only a fraction of
 Gebietskrankenkasse against Wiener Gebietskrankenkasse                      the duties covered by the relevant professional
                           ( Case C-309/97                                   qualification, is the relevant group
                             ( 97/C 331 /17)
                                                                             ( a ) all persons whose qualifications cover such duties
                                                                                ( all medical specialists and all psychologists ) in the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice                                    relevant context ( the establishment, the collective
of the European Communities by order of the                                        agreement — see Question 3 ),
Oberlandesgericht ( Higher Regional Court), Vienna, of
5 May 1997, received at the Court Registry on
4 September 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                    ( b ) all those specifically qualified for this type of work
Angestelltenbetriebsrat der Wiener Gebietskrankenkasse v.                          ( doctors specialized in psychiatry . . .), or
Wiener Gebietskrankenkasse on the following questions:
                                                                             (c ) only those who in practice perform these duties ?
1 . Do the terms 'equal work' or 'the same job' apply for
     the purposes of Article 119 of the EC Treaty or
     Directive 75/117/EEC ( J ) where the same duties are                6 . Where employees are assigned to the same duties, is a
     performed over a considerable length of time                            difference in their professional training to be regarded
     ( several salary periods ) by employees with different                  as a factor capable of justifying discriminatory rates of
     professional qualifications ?                                           pay ? Are more extensive professional qualifications to
                                                                             be regarded, independently of the duties actually
                                                                             performed, as an objective factor justifying
2. Is it material, in determining whether discrimination                     discriminatory rates of pay ?
     for the purposes of Article 119 of the EC Treaty or
     Directive 75/119/EEC exists, that:
                                                                             ( a ) Is the decisive factor therefore whether the higher
     ( a ) pay is determined exclusively by the parties to the                     paid group of employees in the undertaking
           employment contract, who may decide whether                             concerned can also be considered for other duties,
                                                                                or
           to have the terms of collective agreements
           incorporated therein,
                                                                             ( b ) is actual proof of performance of other duties
     ( b ) general    rules      (collective agreements )    fix   a               essential ?
           mandatory minimum level of pay for every
           employee in a particular field or
                                                                             Is account to be taken of the fact that the relevant
     (c ) pay is governed unconditionally and definitively by                rules of the collective agreement provide for protection
           collective agreements ?                                           against arbitrary dismissal ?
 ---pagebreak--- 1 . 11 . 97              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 331 /11
7. Does it follow from Article 222 of the EC Treaty, or                    the European Communities in Case T-63/96 between
     from the application by analogy of Article 174                        Augusto Fichtner and the Commission of the European
     thereof, that any right to pay in accordance with                     Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
     another collective agreement ( between the same                       the European Communities on 8 September 1997 by
     parties ) which may be inferred from Article 119 of the               Augusto Fichtner, represented by Vincenzo Salvatore,
     EC Treaty or from Directive 75/117/EEC exists only                    Avvocato in Pavia (Italy ).
     from the date of a finding to that effect by the Court
     of Justice ? •
                                                                           The appellant claims that the Court should           set aside the
                                                                           order of the Court of First Instance ( Fourth        Chamber) of
(') OJ L 45 , 19 . 2 . 1975 , p . 19 .
                                                                           9 July 1997 in Case T-63/96 H, notified to          the applicant
                                                                           on 11 July 1997, dismissing his application,        and refer the
                                                                           case back to the Court of First Instance .
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko
Protodikio Piraeus ( 8th Chamber), by a decision of 30 June
                                                                           Proceedings before the Court of First Instance were
1997, in the case of Royal Bank of Scotland PLC v.
                                Greek State                                brought in good time and in accordance with the proper
                                                                           procedure, by means of an application lodged on 10 May
                            Case C-3 11/97 )                               1996, against the decision adopted on 5 February 1996,
                                                                           which was notified to the applicant through official
                             ( 97/C 331/18 )
                                                                           channels on 20 February 1996 .
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     That is indisputably the measure concluding the
European Communities by a decision of 30 June 1997 of                      complaints      procedure.           The   character     of the
the Diikitiko Protodikio (Administrative Court of First                    communication from the Director-General of the Rights
Instance ) Piraeus ( 8th Chamber), which was received at the               and Obligations Directorate of DG IX is quite clear and it
Court Registry on 8 September 1997, for a preliminary                      cannot be regarded merely as an express reply, still less as
ruling in the case of Royal Bank of Scotland PLC v. Greek                  a confirmatory act.
State on the following question:
                                                                           In the alternative, the applicant asks the Court, in the
Is Article 109 ( 1 ) ( a ) of the Greek Income Tax Code                    event that his pleas in law are rejected, to acknowledge
contained in Law 2238/1994 ( FEK ( Greek Official                          that his error was excusable. As was pointed out in the
Gazette) 151 A), which imposes a different tax charge                      grounds of the order under appeal, the Court of First
unfavourable to foreign companies by applying a 40 % tax                   Instance has consistently held that failure to comply with
rate on their taxable income, as against domestic                          the time-limits set by Article 91 ( 3 ) of the Staff
companies to which a tax rate of 35% is applied,                           Regulations does not prevent an application from being
permissible under Community law and, in particular, is it                  admissible where the applicant has committed a justifiable
in compliance with Articles 7 and 52 of the Treaty; in                     error.
other words, is the Greek State entitled to impose the said
differential tax treatment which is unfavourable to foreign
companies ?                                                                 H OJ C 233 , 10 . 8 . 1996, p . 9 . ■
Appeal brought on 8 September 1997 by Augusto                               Action brought on 10 September 1997 by the Commission
Fichtner, an official of the Commission of the European                     of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
 Communities, residing at Besozzo, Varese (Italy), against                                          ( Case C-3 13/97)
the order made on 9 July 1997 by the Fourth Chamber of
 the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                                              ( 97/C 331 /20)
 in Case T-63/96 between Augusto Fichtner and the
           Commission of the European Communities
                          ( Case C-3 12/97 P)                               An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
                                                                            the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                              ( 97/C 331 / 19 )                             10 September 1997 by the Commission of the European
                                                                            Communities, represented by Laura Pignataro, of its Legal
                                                                            Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
 An appeal against the order made on 9 July 1997 by the                     Luxembourg at the offices of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
 Fourth     Chamber of the             Court of First Instance     of       Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.


title: Removal from the register of Case C-159/95

text:
No C 158/ 12          EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     1 . 6 . 96
        Removal from the register of Case C-83/95 ( )                      Removal from the register of Case C- 1 5 9/95 ( )
                         ( 96/C 158/28 )                                                       ( 96/C 158/29 )
By order of 26 February 1996 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communites ordered the removal              By order of 9 February 1 996 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-83/95 : Commission of the               Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
European Communities v. Hellenic Republic .                         from the register of Case C-159/95 : Commission of the
                                                                    European Communities v. Hellenic Republic .
(') OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .
                                                                    C ) OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
                                                   COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            2 , orders the Economic and Social Committee to pay all
                                                                         the costs .
                       of 18 April 1996
in Case T-13/95 : Nicolaos Kyrpitsis v. Economic and Social
         Committee of the European Communities ( 1 )                C ) OJ No C 74, 25 . 3 . 1995 .
(Officials — Notice of vacancy — Transfer — Interests of
the service — Rejection of application — Statement of
                             reasons)
                         ( 96/C 158/30 )
                                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 23 April 1996
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                    in Case T-l 13/95 : Giuseppe Mancini v. Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities O
                                                                      (Officials — Admissibility — Time limit for complaints)
In Case T-13/95 : Nicolaos Kyrpitsis, an official of the                                      ( 96/C 158/31 )
Economic and Social Committee of the European
Communities, residing at Châtelineau ( Belgium ),
represented by Jean-Noël Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an                         (Language of the case: Italian)
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 1 rue Glesener, v . Economic and             In Case T-l 13/95 : Giuseppe Mancini, an official of the
Social Committee of the European Communities ( Agents :             Commission of the European Communities, residing at
Bermejo Garde and Denis Waelbroeck ) — application for             Varese ( Italy ), represented by Giuseppe Marchesini,
annulment of the decisions rejecting the applications by the        advocate with a right of audience before the Italian Court of
applicant for the grade D 3/D 2 post of skilled employee            Cassation, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
( messenger ) in the Personnel , Administration and Finance         Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8-10 Rue Matthias Hardt, v.
Directorate of the Economic and Social Committee,                   Commission of the European Communites ( Agent:
advertised in vacancy notices Nos 2/94, 3/94 and 4/94 — the         Gianluigi Valsesia ) — application for annulment of the
Court of First Instance ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of:             decision relieving the applicant of his duties — the Court of
R. Schintgen, President, and R. Garcia-Valdecasas and               First Instance ( Third Chamber ), composed of: C. P. Briët,
J. Azizi, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the      President, and B. Vesterdorf and A. Potocki, Judges;
Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 April 1996 , in which         B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
it :                                                               given a judgment on 23 April 1 996 , in which it:
                                                                    1 , dismisses the action as inadmissible;
1 , annuls the decisions of the Secretary-General of the
     Economic and Social Committee of30 March 1 994 and            2 , orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay
     25 October 1995 rejecting the applications by the                  two thirds of the applicant's costs.
     applicant for the grade D 3/D 2 post ofskilled employee
     (messenger) in the Personnel, Administration and
                                                                    (') OJ No C 229 , 2 . 9 . 1995 .
     Finance Directorate of the Economic and Social
     Committee, advertised in vacancy notices Nos 2/94,
     3 /94 and 4/94 :


title: Case T-712/16: Action brought on 5 October 2016 — Deutsche Lufthansa v Commission

text:
               12.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/28

         Action brought on 5 October 2016 — Deutsche Lufthansa v Commission
   (Case T-712/16)
   (2016/C 462/36)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: S. Völcker, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul, in whole or in part, Commission Decision C(2016) 4964 final of 25 July 2016 in Case No M.3770 — Lufthansa/Swiss — Commission decision on Lufthansa’s request for a partial waiver of the commitments concerning the Zurich-Stockholm and Zurich-Warsaw routes;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the decision must be annulled because it is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment and as a result breaches the principles of proportionality and protection of legitimate expectations by refusing to review and/or waive certain commitments imposed by Commission Decision of 4 July 2005 in Case No COMP/M.3770 — Lufthansa/Swiss.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the decision must be annulled because the Commission has breached the principle of good administration in failing to assess carefully and impartially all the elements of the case.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the decision must be annulled because the Commission has misused its powers in circumventing the administrative procedure under Regulation 1/2003.


title: Case C-571/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Finanzgericht (Germany) lodged on 6 November 2015 — Wallenborn Transports SA v Hauptzollamt Gießen

text:
               7.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Finanzgericht (Germany) lodged on 6 November 2015 — Wallenborn Transports SA v Hauptzollamt Gießen
   (Case C-571/15)
   (2016/C 090/05)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Hessisches Finanzgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Wallenborn Transports SA

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Gießen

      Questions referred

   Question 1:
   Is the VAT rule of a Member State which states that free zones of control type I (free ports) do not form part of the territory of the country one of the situations referred to in Article 156 as specified in the first subparagraph of Article 61 and in the first subparagraph of Article 71(1) of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax? (1)

   If this question is answered in the affirmative:
   Question 2:
   Where goods are subject to customs duties, does the chargeable event also occur and VAT also become chargeable in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 71(1) of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax when the chargeable event in respect of those duties occurs and those duties become chargeable, if the chargeable event in respect of those duties and the chargeability of those duties occurs within a free zone of control type I and the VAT legislation of the Member State to which the free zone belongs provides that free zones of control type I (free ports) do not form part of the territory of the country?
   If Question 2 is answered in the negative:
   Question 3:
   Where goods transported under the external transit procedure without that procedure ending in a free zone of control type I are removed from customs supervision in the free zone so that a customs debt is incurred in respect of the goods under Article 203(1) of the Customs Code, (2) does the chargeable event occur and VAT become chargeable in respect of goods at the same time in accordance with another chargeable event, namely under Article 204(1)(a) of the Customs Code, because, prior to the act by means of which the goods were removed from customs supervision, the goods were not presented to customs at one of the customs offices competent in respect of the free zone situated within the territory of the country and the transit procedure was not ended there?

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).


title: Case C-417/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — ÖBB Personenverkehr AG v Gotthard Starjakob (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2000/78/EC — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Article 2(1) and (2)(a) — Article 6(1) — Discrimination based on age — National legislation under which inclusion of periods of service completed before the age of 18 for the purpose of determining remuneration is subject to an extension of the periods for advancement — Justification — Whether appropriate for the purpose of achieving the objective pursued — Possibility of challenging the extension of the periods for advancement)

text:
               30.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/5

      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — ÖBB Personenverkehr AG v Gotthard Starjakob
      (Case C-417/13) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Article 2(1) and (2)(a) - Article 6(1) - Discrimination based on age - National legislation under which inclusion of periods of service completed before the age of 18 for the purpose of determining remuneration is subject to an extension of the periods for advancement - Justification - Whether appropriate for the purpose of achieving the objective pursued - Possibility of challenging the extension of the periods for advancement))
      (2015/C 107/06)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Oberster Gerichtshof

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: ÖBB Personenverkehr AG

         Defendant: Gotthard Starjakob

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  EU law, in particular, Articles 2 and 6(1) 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, to end discrimination based on age, takes account of periods of service prior to the age of 18, but which, simultaneously, includes a rule, applicable in reality only to employees who are subject to that discrimination, which extends by one year the period required for advancement in each of the three first salary steps and which, in so doing, definitively maintains a difference in treatment based on age;

                  2.

                  EU law, in particular Article 16 of Directive 2000/78, must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation which seeks to end discrimination based on age does not necessarily have to allow an employee whose periods of service completed before the age of 18 have not been taken into account in calculating his advancement to obtain financial compensation which corresponds to payment of the difference between the remuneration which he would have received in the absence of such discrimination and that which he actually received. Nevertheless, in a case such as that at issue in the main proceedings, as long as a system to abolish discrimination on grounds of age in a way that conforms with the provisions of Directive 2000/78 has not been adopted, re-establishing equal treatment entails granting employees whose experience was, if only in part, acquired before the age of 18 the same benefits as those enjoyed by employees who have obtained, after reaching that age, experience of the same type and comparable duration, as regards the recognition of periods of service completed before the age of 18 but also advancement in the pay scale;

                  3.

                  EU law, in particular Article 16 of Directive 2000/78, must be interpreted as not preventing the national legislature from providing, in order to take into account periods of service completed before the age of 18, for an obligation of cooperation under which the employee must give his employer the evidence relating to those periods. Nevertheless, there is no abuse of law in (i) an employee’s refusal to cooperate for the purpose of the application of national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which entails discrimination based on age contrary to Directive 2000/78, and (ii) his action seeking to obtain payment intended to re-establish equal treatment with employees who have obtained, after reaching that age, experience of the same type and a duration comparable to his;

                  4.

                  The principle of effectiveness must be interpreted as meaning that, in a case such as that at issue in the main proceedings, it does not preclude a national limitation period for claims which are founded in EU law from starting to run before the date of delivery of a judgment of the Court which has clarified the legal position on the matter.

         (1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.


               28.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 163/12

         Action brought on 14 January 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway
   (Case E-7/14)
   (2014/C 163/11)
   An action against Norway was brought before the EFTA Court on 14 January 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis and Gjermund Mathisen, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Rue Belliard 35, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               Declare that by maintaining in force national rules which provide that a full amount of registration tax is due for foreign-registered leased motor vehicles temporarily imported by Norwegian residents to Norway, without the person having any right to an exemption or refund where the vehicle is neither intended to be used essentially in Norway on a permanent basis or in fact used in that manner, Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from Article 36 of the EEA Agreement.

               2.

               Order the Kingdom of Norway to bear the costs of these proceedings.

      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               Norwegian legislation provides that foreign-registered leased cars which are temporarily imported by Norwegian residents are in principle subject to the full registration tax from the moment they are used in Norway. The EFTA Surveillance Authority is of the view that this is contrary to the principle of free movement of services. It maintains that Norway has so far failed to adopt the necessary legislative measures to ensure compliance with Article 36 EEA.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits, inter alia, that Article 36 EEA precludes the application of any national legislation which, without objective justification, impedes a provider of services from exercising that freedom.


title: Case F-109/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 22 May 2012 — AU v European Commission (Civil Service — Contractual agents — Pensions — Severance grant)

text:
               30.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/28

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 22 May 2012 — AU v European Commission
   (Case F-109/10) (1)

   (Civil Service - Contractual agents - Pensions - Severance grant)
   2012/C 194/46
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: AU (represented by: R. Oehmen, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Martin and B. Eggers, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of the decision of the Commission refusing to pay the applicant a severance grant

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders AU to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2011, p. 43.


title: Case C-268/00: Action brought on 3 July 2000 by Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
9.9.2000                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 259/7
How are the words ‘managed and administered on an essen-                 of the European Communities, represented by G. Valero
tially voluntary basis by persons who have no direct or indirect         Jordana and C. Van Der Hauwaert, of its Legal Service, acting
interest, either themselves or through intermediaries, in the            as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
results of the activities concerned’ in the second indent to             office of C. Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner
Article 13 A (2) (a) of Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of              Centre, Kirchberg.
17 May 1977 to be interpreted, having regard to the facts of
the present case? In particular:
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
(a)   what are the criteria for determining by whom a body is
      managed and administered for the purposes of the                   (1) declare that, by failing to comply, within the time-
      provision; do these words refer                                          limits laid down in Council Directive 76/160/EEC of
                                                                               8 December 1975 (1) concerning the quality of bathing
      (i)   only to the members of the senior controlling organs               water, with the obligations imposed by Articles 4(1) and
            of the body, or                                                    6(1) of the directive, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has
                                                                               failed to fulfil its obligations under Community law;
      (ii) to any individuals involved in any managerial or
            administrative function whatsoever? If so, what are          (2) order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
            the criteria for determining whether a person is
            involved in a relevant managerial or administrative
            function?
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
(b) what are the criteria for determining whether manage-
      ment and administration of a body is conducted on an
      essentially voluntary basis; do these words refer                  Well over 14 years after the expiry of a ten-year time-
                                                                         limit following the publication of Directive 76/160/EEC, the
      (i)   to the extent to which the management and adminis-           obligation to achieve certain results with regard to the
            tration of the body is conducted by remunerated              minimum quality of bathing water has still not been complied
            and unremunerated persons respectively, and if so,           with in the Kingdom of the Netherlands in respect of 8 % of
            how is the test to be applied; or                            the fresh water bathing areas and 1,3 % of coastal waters
                                                                         (1999 bathing season).
      (ii) to the individual financial basis upon which each
            of the persons conducting the management and
            administration of the body performs that role (for           During that season, no samples whatever had yet been taken
            example, none of those persons must receive more             in four of the 528 fresh water bathing areas (0,7 %).
            than nominal remuneration); or
      (iii) to some other test or criterion, and if so, what is          (1) OJ 1976 L 31, p. 1.
            that test or criterion?
(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
    harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
    turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
    basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1).
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-
                                                                         hof by order of that court of 25 May 2000 in the case of
                                                                                Wolfgang Seeling against Finanzamt Starnberg
Action brought on 3 July 2000 by Commission of the                                                  (Case C-269/00)
European Communities against the Kingdom of the
                            Netherlands
                                                                                (2000/C 259/12)
                          (Case C-268/00)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                          (2000/C 259/11)                                European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
                                                                         (Federal Finance Court) of 25 May 2000, received at the Court
                                                                         Registry on 3 July 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought             Wolfgang Seeling against Finanzamt (Tax Office) Starnberg on
before the Court of Justice on 3 July 2000 by the Commission             the following question:


title: Case F-33/10: Action brought on 19 May 2010 — Lebedef v Commission

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/53

         Action brought on 19 May 2010 — Lebedef v Commission
   (Case F-33/10)
   ()
   2010/C 209/83
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Giorgio Lebedef (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application to annul the applicant’s career development report in respect of the period from 1.1.2005 to 31.12.2005, as it was drawn up following its annulment by the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-36/07

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the applicant’s career development report (CDR) in respect of the period from 1.1.2005 to 31.12.2005, as it was drawn up following its annulment by the Civil Service Tribunal by the judgment of 7 May 2008 in Case F-36/07 Lebedef v Commission;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Partial removal from the register of Joined Cases T-306/01 and T-315/01

text:
7.2.2004              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                       C 35/19
Removal from the register of Cases T-7/95 and T-22/95 (1)                        Removal from the register of Case T-349/02 (1)
                         (2004/C 35/31)                                                            (2004/C 35/34)
                  (Language of the Case: German)                                             (Language of the Case: Italian)
By order of 9 October 2003 the President of the First Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                By order of 10 November 2003 the President of the Second
ordered the removal from the register of Case T-7/95: Josef               Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Lang v Council of the European Union and Commission of                    Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
the European Communities; and of Case T-22/95: Therese                    T-349/02: Società Sephora v Office for Harmonisation in the
Schweiger v Council of the European Union and Commission                  Internal Market (Trade Marks and Design) (OHIM).
of the European Communities.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 19 of 25.01.2003.
(1) OJ C 74 of 23.3.1995.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-65/03 (1)
Partial removal from the register of Joined Cases T-306/
                      01 and T-315/01 (1)
                                                                                (2004/C 35/35)
                         (2004/C 35/32)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: French)
           (Languages of the Cases: Swedish and English)
                                                                          By order of 11 November 2003 the President of the Fourth
By order of 9 October 2003 the President of the Second                    Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance             Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the                  T-65/03: Fondation Alsace v Commission of the European
register of the names of the appellants Abdirisak Aden and                Communities.
Abdi Abdulaziz Ali from the names of the appellants in the
Joined Cases T-306/01 and T-315/01: Abdirisak Aden and
Others v Commission of the European Communities.                          (1) OJ C 101 of 26.04.2003.
(1) OJ C 44 of 16.02.2002 and OJ C 56 of 02.03.2002.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-121/03 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case T-141/02 (1)                                              (2004/C 35/36)
                         (2004/C 35/33)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: English)
                  (Language of the Case: English)
                                                                          By order of 21 October 2003 the President of the Second
By order of 20 October 2003 the President of the First                    Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                    of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case                 register of Case T-121/03: Greenpeace Limited and Nexgen
T-141/02: Vetoquinol AG v Office for Harmonisation in the                 Group Limited (trading as ECOTRICITY) v Commission of the
Internal Market.                                                          European Communities.
(1) OJ C 169 of 13.07.2002.                                               (1) OJ C 184 of 02.08.2003.


title: Case C-50/07: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 July 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2004/24/EC — Pharmaceutical specialities — Traditional herbal medicinal products — Community code — Medicinal products for human use — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/10

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 July 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-50/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2004/24/EC - Pharmaceutical specialities - Traditional herbal medicinal products - Community code - Medicinal products for human use - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)
   (2007/C 211/18)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Stromsky and S. Pardo Quintillán, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: F. Díez Moreno, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt within the period prescribed the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending, as regards traditional herbal medicinal products, Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 85)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending, as regards traditional herbal medicinal products, Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 24.3.2007.


title: Case C-233/11 P: Appeal brought on 16 May 2011 by Siemens Transmission & Distribution SA and Nuova Magrini Galileo SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 3 March 2011 in Joined Cases T-122/07 to T-124/07 Siemens AG Österreich and Others v Commission

text:
               9.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 204/18

         Appeal brought on 16 May 2011 by Siemens Transmission & Distribution SA and Nuova Magrini Galileo SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 3 March 2011 in Joined Cases T-122/07 to T-124/07 Siemens AG Österreich and Others v Commission
   (Case C-233/11 P)
   2011/C 204/33
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellants: Siemens Transmission & Distribution SA and Nuova Magrini Galileo SpA (represented by: H. Wollmann and F. Urlesberger, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Siemens AG Österreich, VA Tech Transmission & Distribution GmbH & Co. KEG, Siemens Transmission & Distribution Ltd, European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should

               —

               set aside Paragraph 2 of the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 3 March 2011 in Joined Cases T-122/07 to T-124/07 in so far as Article 2(j) and (k) of Commission Decision C(2006) 6762 final of 24 January 2007 in case COMP/F/38.899 — Gas insulated switchgear are annulled;

               —

               set aside the first indent of Paragraph 3 of the judgment under appeal and uphold Article 2(j) and (k) of Commission Decision C(2006) 6762 final and, in respect of Article 2(k) of that decision, declare that each of the joint debtors in relation to the other parties who are jointly liable must pay one third of the fine of EUR 4 500 000;

               —

               alternatively set aside the first indent of Paragraph 3 of the judgment under appeal and refer the case back to the General Court;

               —

               in any event set aside Paragraph 7 of the judgment under appeal and order the respondent to pay the costs of proceedings in Case T-124/07 and the costs of the present appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The General Court, going beyond what was sought by the applicants, also annulled the fine which was imposed on Schneider Electric SA alone and improperly increased the joint and several liability of the appellants. The judgment under appeal is therefore in breach of fundamental legal principles. The General Court is in breach of the principle of the right to bring proceedings and the principle which is implicit in Article 263 TFEU that no person can institute proceedings on behalf of another person.
   Further, the General Court, going beyond what was sought by the applicants, intervened in relation to the validity of the Commission’s Decision against Schneider Electric SA. That improper interference with the validity is contrary to the principle of legal certainty.
   The appellants were given no opportunity to state their opinion on the material findings of the General Court. That constitutes a defect in the procedure before the General Court, since thereby the appellants’ right to a hearing within the meaning of Article 6 EHCR has was infringed.


title: Case T-102/08 P: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 October 2009 — Sundholm v Commission (Appeal — Staff case — Officials — Reports — Career development report drawn up in compliance with a judgment of the Tribunal — Appraisal year 2001/2002 — Justified absences — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/43

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 October 2009 — Sundholm v Commission
   (Case T-102/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Staff case - Officials - Reports - Career development report drawn up in compliance with a judgment of the Tribunal - Appraisal year 2001/2002 - Justified absences - Obligation to state reasons)
   2009/C 282/82
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Asa Sundholm (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Berscheid, Agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2007 in Case F-27/07 Sundholm v Commission, not published in the ECR, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2007 in Case F-27/07 Sundholm v Commission, not published in the ECR;

               2.

               Annuls the decision of 2 June 2006 by which the reporting officer on appeal established Ms Asa Sundholm's career development report for the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002;

               3.

               For the rest, dismisses the action brought at first instance;

               4.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs of the procedure before the Civil Service Tribunal and of the present instance.

      (1)  OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.