title: Case C-86/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative (Luxembourg) lodged on 20 February 2012 — Adzo Domenyo Alopka, Jarel Mondoulou, Eja Mondoulou v Ministre du Travail, de l’Emploi et de l’Immigration

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative (Luxembourg) lodged on 20 February 2012 — Adzo Domenyo Alopka, Jarel Mondoulou, Eja Mondoulou v Ministre du Travail, de l’Emploi et de l’Immigration
   (Case C-86/12)
   2012/C 138/04
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour administrative (Luxembourg)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Adzo Domenyo Alopka, Jarel Mondoulou, Eja Mondoulou

      Defendant: Ministre du Travail, de l’Emploi et de l’Immigration

      Questions referred

   Is Article 20 TFEU — if necessary, read in conjunction with Articles 20, 21, 24, 33 and 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, or with one or more of those provisions read separately or in conjunction — to be interpreted as precluding a Member State from refusing a third-country national, with sole responsibility for his or her infants who are citizens of the European Union, residence in the Member State of residence of the children, where they have been living with that person since birth, without having that nationality, while refusing the third-country national a residence permit, or even a work permit?
   Are such decisions to be regarded as being in the nature of decisions depriving those children, in their country of residence, in which they have lived since birth, of effective enjoyment of the substance of the rights attaching to the status of citizen of the European Union also in the situation where their other direct ascendant, with whom they have never shared family life, is resident in another Member State of the European Union, of which that person is a national?


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 171, 19.7.2003

text:
2.8.2003       EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                        C 184/57
                                                           III
                                                         (Notices)
                                                    (2003/C 184/119)
               Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union
         OJ C 171, 19.7.2003
         Past publications
         OJ C 158, 5.7.2003
         OJ C 146, 21.6.2003
         OJ C 135, 7.6.2003
         OJ C 124, 24.5.2003
         OJ C 112, 10.5.2003
         OJ C 101, 26.4.2003
                                              These texts are available on:
                                         EUR-Lex: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex
                                            CELEX: http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case F-66/07: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 11 December 2008 — Dubus and Leveque v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Promotion — 2006 promotion procedure — Ability to work in a third language)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/71

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 11 December 2008 — Dubus and Leveque v Commission
   (Case F-66/07) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Promotion - 2006 promotion procedure - Ability to work in a third language)
   (2009/C 44/123)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Charles Dubus (Kraainem, Belgium) and Jean Leveque (Wattignies-la-Victoire, France) (represented by: É. Boigelot, initially, and É. Boigelot and L. Defalque, subsequently, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Berscheid, Agents)

      Intervener: Council of the European Union (represented by: I. Šulce and M. Simm, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the decision not to promote the applicants for failure to demonstrate that they were able to work in a third language for the 2006 promotion procedure — Claim for damages.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Commission of the European Communities not to include M. Dubus's name in the list of officials to be promoted to grade C*3 for the 2006 promotion procedure and the decision of the Commission of the European Communities not to include the M. Leveque's name in the list of officials to be promoted to grade B*8 under the procedure for the same year;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the forms of order of sought;

               3.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs and to pay the cost of the applicants;

               4.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 199, 25.8.2007, p. 54.


title: Case T-642/14: Judgment of the General Court of 7 October 2015 — JP Divver Holding Company v OHIM (EQUIPMENT FOR LIFE) (Community trade mark — International registration designating the European Community — Word mark EQUIPMENT FOR LIFE — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/54

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 October 2015 — JP Divver Holding Company v OHIM (EQUIPMENT FOR LIFE)
   (Case T-642/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - International registration designating the European Community - Word mark EQUIPMENT FOR LIFE - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 398/68)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: JP Divver Holding Company Ltd (Newry, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Franke and E. Bertram, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: L. Rampini, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 June 2014 (Case R 64/2014-2) concerning the international registration designating the European Community of the word mark EQUIPMENT FOR LIFE.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders JP Divver Holding Company Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 431, 1.12.2014.


title: Case T-343/13: Action brought on 28 June 2013 — CN v Parliament

text:
               24.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/14

         Action brought on 28 June 2013 — CN v Parliament
   (Case T-343/13)
   2013/C 245/17
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: CN (Brumath, France) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               order the European Union and the European Parliament to pay the applicant EUR 1 000 for the material damage suffered, plus interest calculated at the rate of 6.75 %;

               —

               order the European Union and the European Parliament to pay the applicant EUR 40 000 for the non-material damage suffered, plus interest calculated at the rate of 6.75 %;

               —

               order the European Union and the European Parliament to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, CN, a retired former official of the Council, seeks compensation for the material and non-material damage suffered as a result of the publication of an extract from a petition submitted by the applicant containing items of personal data, including information concerning his state of health and the fact that there is a disabled individual in his family, on the European Parliament’s own website, which may also be accessed by users from outside that institution.
   That information was made widely available, given that it was possible to gain access to the petition extract published by the Parliament by entering the applicant’s name in the Google search engine.
   In spite of requests made by the applicant, the Parliament withdrew the publication of the personal data in question only after the applicant had instructed a lawyer.
   As grounds for his claim that the European Parliament acted unlawfully, the applicant alleges that the following have been infringed:

               1.

               Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

               2.

               Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights;

               3.

               Article 22 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, adopted on 13 December 2006 and ratified by the European Union on 23 December 2010;

               4.

               Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court of 6 March 2001 in Case C-274/99 P: Bernard Connolly v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Officials — Disciplinary proceedings — Articles 11, 12 and 17 of the Staff Regulations — Freedom of expression — Duty of loyalty — Conduct reflecting on an official's position)

text:
16.6.2001                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 173/13
judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings being:              1.    Dismisses the appeal;
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Valses-
ia, and J. Currall, assisted by D. Waelbroeck) — the Court,
composed of G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann,               2.    Orders Mr Connolly to pay the costs.
A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) and V. Skouris
(Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet,
P. Jann, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen and N. Colneric, Judges; D. Ruiz-         (1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999.
Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
given a judgment on 6 March 2001, in which it:
1.     Dismisses the appeal;
2.     Orders Mr Connolly to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 8 March 2001
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          of 6 March 2001                                  in Joined Cases C-397/98 and C-410/98 (reference for a
                                                                           preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of
                                                                           England and Wales, Chancery Division): Metallgesellschaft
in Case C-274/99 P: Bernard Connolly v Commission of                       Ltd and Others (C-397/98), Hoechst AG, Hoechst UK Ltd
                 the European Communities (1)                              (C-410/98) v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, H.M.
                                                                                Attorney General (1)
(Appeal — Officials — Disciplinary proceedings —
Articles 11, 12 and 17 of the Staff Regulations — Freedom
of expression — Duty of loyalty — Conduct reflecting on an                 (Freedom of establishment — Free movement of capital —
                          official’s position)                             Advance payment of corporation tax on profits distributed
                                                                           by a subsidiary to its parent company — Parent company
                                                                           having its seat in another Member State — Breach of
                           (2001/C 173/21)                                 Community law — Action for restitution or action for
                                                                                damages — Interest)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (2001/C 173/22)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
In Case C-274/99 P: Bernard Connolly, a former official of
the Commission of the European Communities, residing in                    In Joined Cases C-397/98 and C-410/98: reference to the
London, United Kingdom, represented by J. Sambon and                       Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234
P.-P. van Gehuchten, avocats, with an address for service in               EC) from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales,
Luxembourg, appeal against the judgment of the Court of First              Chancery Division, (United Kingdom) for a preliminary ruling
Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) of                    in the proceedings pending before that court between Metallge-
19 May 1999 in Joined Cases T-34/96 and T-163/96 Connolly                  sellschaft Ltd and Others (C-397/98), Hoechst AG, Hoechst
v Commission [19991 ECR-SC I-A-87 and II-463, seeking to                   UK Ltd (C-410/98) and Commissioners of Inland Revenue,
have that judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings           H.M. Attorney General — on the interpretation of Articles 6
being: Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                     and 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 12
G. Valsesia and J. Currall, assisted by D. Waelbroeck) —                   EC and 43 EC), Article 58 of the EC Treaty (now Article 48
the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,               EC) and/or Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56 EC)
C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) and                    — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola,
V. Skouris (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward,                        President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur),
J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen and N. Colneric,        D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; N. Fennelly,
Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass,                Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 March 2001, in which it:              has given a judgment on 8 March 2001, in which it has ruled:


title: Case C-144/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale Calabria (Italy) lodged on 22 March 2017 — Lloyd’s of London v Agenzia Regionale per la Protezione dell’Ambiente della Calabria

text:
               3.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/18

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale Calabria (Italy) lodged on 22 March 2017 — Lloyd’s of London v Agenzia Regionale per la Protezione dell’Ambiente della Calabria
   (Case C-144/17)
   (2017/C 213/23)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale Calabria

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Lloyd’s of London

      Defendant: Agenzia Regionale per la Protezione dell’Ambiente della Calabria

      Question referred

   ‘Do the principles laid down by EU competition rules, as set out in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and the principles deriving therefrom, such as the independence and confidentiality of tenders, preclude national legislation, as interpreted by case-law, which allows the simultaneous participation, in the same tendering procedure launched by a contracting authority, of several syndicates, members of Lloyd’s of London, whose tenders are underwritten by a single person, namely the General Representative for the Member State concerned?’


title: Case C-557/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Republic of Poland) lodged on 4 November 2011 — Maria Kozak v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Lublinie

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/33

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Republic of Poland) lodged on 4 November 2011 — Maria Kozak v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Lublinie
      (Case C-557/11)
      (2012/C 25/63)
      Language of the case: Polish

         Referring court

      Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Maria Kozak

         Respondent: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Lublinie (Director of the Tax Chamber, Lublin)

         Question referred

      Where an in-house transport service is supplied by a travel agent within the framework of an all-inclusive price which is charged to a tourist for a tourist service supplied to him that is taxed under Articles 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (1) which lay down a special VAT scheme for travel agents, is that in-house transport service taxable — as a necessary element for the supply of that tourist service — at the standard rate of tax applicable to tourist services, or at the reduced rate of tax applicable to passenger transport services under Article 98 of that directive, in conjunction with point 5 of Annex III thereto?

         (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case F-36/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 September 2010 — Gudrun Schulze v European Commission (Civil service — Officials — Appointment — Candidates placed on a reserve list prior to the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations — Transitional rules governing classification in grade at the time of recruitment — Classification in step — Article 32 of the Staff Regulations — Articles 2, 5 and 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — Discrimination on grounds of age — Equal pay for work of equal value — Principle of good administration — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials)

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/58

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 September 2010 — Gudrun Schulze v European Commission
   (Case F-36/05) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Appointment - Candidates placed on a reserve list prior to the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations - Transitional rules governing classification in grade at the time of recruitment - Classification in step - Article 32 of the Staff Regulations - Articles 2, 5 and 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Discrimination on grounds of age - Equal pay for work of equal value - Principle of good administration - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials)
   2010/C 328/92
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Gudrun Schulze (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: initially, S. Rodrigues and A. Jaume, lawyers, and subsequently by S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and H. Krämer, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Arpio Santacruz and I. Šulce, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   First, annulment of the Commission’s decision classifying the applicant, who was placed on a reserve list prior to the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations, under the less favourable provisions of those regulations (Article 12 of Annex XIII to Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials) and, second, an application for damages

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 193, 6.8.2005, p. 36. (Case originally registered at the Court of First Instance of the European Communities as Case T-207/05 and transferred to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal by order of 15.12.2005.)


title: Case C-238/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 February 2015 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Occasional workers in the entertainment arts — Successive fixed-term employment contracts — Clause 5(1) — Measures to prevent the abusive use of successive fixed-term contracts — Concept of ‘objective grounds’ justifying such contracts)

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/23

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 February 2015 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-238/14) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Occasional workers in the entertainment arts - Successive fixed-term employment contracts - Clause 5(1) - Measures to prevent the abusive use of successive fixed-term contracts - Concept of ‘objective grounds’ justifying such contracts))
   (2015/C 138/31)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Enegren and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: D. Holderer, acting as Agent)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by maintaining in force, with respect to occasional workers in the entertainment arts, derogations from the measures designed to prevent the abusive use of successive fixed-term contracts, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Clause 5 of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work of 18 March 1999, which is set out in the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP;

               2.

               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court of 27 January 2000 in Case C-190/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Linz): Volker Graf v Filzmoser Maschinenbau GmbH (Freedom of movement for workers — Compensation on termination of employment — Refusal where a worker terminates his contract of employment in order to take a job in another Member State)

text:
8.4.2000                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 102/3
    7. Orders the Council and the Commission to bear their own               The rule laid down in Article 16(1)(a) of the Convention of
         costs and jointly and severally to pay 90 % of the applicants’      27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judg-
         costs apart from the costs of the expert’s report commissioned      ments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the
         by the Court. The costs of that report shall be borne jointly       Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of
         and severally, as to 90 %, by the Council and the                   Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
         Commission. Since the remaining 10 % of those costs is to           Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the
         be borne by all of the applicants in the two cases, that            Accession of the Hellenic Republic, and by the Convention of 26
         percentage shall be borne as to 22 % each by the applicants         May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the
         in Case C-104/89 and as to 12 % by Mr Heinemann.                    Portuguese Republic, conferring exclusive jurisdiction in proceedings
                                                                             having as their object tenancies of immovable property is applicable
                                                                             to an action for damages for taking poor care of premises and causing
(1) OJ C 109 of 29.4.1989. OJ C 71 of 21.3.1990.                             damage to accommodation which a private individual had rented for
                                                                             a few weeks’ holiday, even where the action is not brought directly by
                                                                             the owner of the property but by a professional tour operator from
                                                                             whom the person in question had rented the accommodation and
                                                                             who has brought legal proceedings after being subrogated to the
                                                                             rights of the owner of the property.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       The ancillary clauses relating to insurance in the event of cancellation
                                                                             and to guarantee of repayment of the price paid by the client, which
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                    are contained in the general terms and conditions of the contract
                                                                             concluded between that organiser and the tenant, and which do not
                         of 27 January 2000                                  form the subject of the dispute in the main proceedings, do not affect
                                                                             the nature of the tenancy as a tenancy of immovable property within
in Case C-8/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                      the meaning of that provision of the Convention.
the Landgericht Heilbronn): Dansommer A/S v Andreas
                               Götz (1)                                      (1) OJ C 72 of 7.3.1998.
(Brussels Convention — Article 16(1) — Exclusive jurisdic-
tion in proceedings having as their object tenancies of
                  immovable property — Scope)
                           (2000/C 102/03)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                of 27 January 2000
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                           in Case C-190/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the Oberlandesgericht Linz): Volker Graf v Filzmoser
In Case C-8/98: reference to the Court, pursuant to the                                           Maschinenbau GmbH (1)
Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the Interpretation by the Court of
Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdic-
tion and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commer-                   (Freedom of movement for workers — Compensation on
cial Matters, by the Landgericht Heilbronn (Germany) for a                   termination of employment — Refusal where a worker
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                    terminates his contract of employment in order to take a job
court between Dansommer A/S and Andreas Götz — on the                                             in another Member State)
interpretation of Article 16(1) (a) of the abovementioned
Convention of 27 September 1968 (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36), as                                              (2000/C 102/04)
amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the
Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978                                          (Language of the case: German)
L 304, p. 1 and — amended text — p. 77), by the Convention
of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic
(OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1), and by the Convention of 26 May 1989
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
Republic (OJ 1989 L 285, p. 1) — the Court (Sixth Chamber)
composed of: R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), President of the
Second Chamber, acting as President of the Sixth Chamber,                    In Case C-190/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
P.J.G. Kapteyn and G. Hirsch, Judges; Advocate General: A. La                the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Oberlandesgericht
Pergola; Registrar: H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, has                  (Higher Regional Court) Linz, Austria, for a preliminary ruling
given a judgment on 27 January 2000, in which it has ruled:                  in the proceedings pending before that court between Volker
 ---pagebreak--- C 102/4                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           8.4.2000
Graf and Filzmoser Maschinenbau GmbH — on the interpret-                    President of the Sixth Chamber, G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm,
ation of Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,                 Judges, Advocate General; A. Saggio, Registrar; H. von Hol-
Article 39 EC) — the Court, composed of G.C. Rodrı́guez                     stein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 February
Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, L. Sevón,                   2000, in which it has ruled:
R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), Presidents of Chambers, P.J.G. Kap-
teyn, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann,                     Article 2(1) and (3) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February
H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet, Judges, Advocate General:                     1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for
N. Fennelly; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator,                  men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 January 2000,                 and promotion, and working conditions precludes a refusal to appoint
in which it has ruled:                                                      a pregnant woman to a post for an indefinite period on the ground
                                                                            that a statutory prohibition on employment attaching to the condition
Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC)           of pregnancy prevents her from being employed in that post from the
does not preclude national provisions which deny a worker entitlement       outset and for the duration of the pregnancy.
to compensation on termination of employment if he terminates his
contract of employment himself in order to take up employment in
another Member State, when those provisions grant him entitlement           (1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.
to such compensation if the contract ends without the termination
being at his own initiative or attributable to him.
(1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 3 February 2000
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                            in Case C-293/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                    from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción
                                                                            de Oviedo): Entidad de Gestión de Derechos de los
                        of 3 February 2000                                  Productores Audiovisuales (Egeda) v Hostelerı́a Asturiana
                                                                                SA (Hoasa) (1)
in Case C-207/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling
from Landesarbeitsgericht Mecklenburg-Vorpommern):                          (Copyright — Satellite broadcasting and cable retrans-
Silke-Karin Mahlburg v land Mecklenburg-Vorpom-                                                            mission)
                               mern (1)
                                                                                (2000/C 102/06)
(Equal treatment for men and women — Access to employ-
        ment — Refusal to employ a pregnant woman)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
                          (2000/C 102/05)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                            In Case C-293/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                            the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Juzgado de Primera
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      Instancia e Instrucción de Oviedo, Spain, for a preliminary
                   in the European Court Reports)                           ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
                                                                            Entidad de Gestión de Derechos de los Productores Audiovisu-
In Case C-207/98, reference to the Court under Article 177 of               ales (Egeda) and Hosteleria Asturiana SA (Hoasa) — on the
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Landesarbeitsgericht              interpretation of Article 1 of Council Directive 93/83/EEC of
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Germany) for a preliminary ruling                   27 September 1993 on the coordination of certain rules
in the proceedings pending before that court between Silke-Ka-              concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable
rin Mahlburg and land Mecklenburg-Vorpommern — on the                       to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission (OJ 1993
interpretation of Article 2(1) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC              L 248, p. 15) the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of                P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), acting for the President of the
equal treatment for men and women as regards access to                      Sixth Chamber, G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; A. La
employment, vocational training and promotion, and working                  Pergola, Advocate General ; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar,
conditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),               has given a judgment on 3 February 2000, in which it has
composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), acting for the                    ruled:


               25.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/28

         Removal from the Register of Case T-264/99 (1)

   (2004/C 239/61)

      (Language of the case: Dutch)

   By order of 4 May 2004, the President of the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-264/99, Demarol B.V., supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 34, 5.2.2000.


title: Case T-310/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 December 2006 — Ferrero Deutschland v OHIM — Cornu (FERRO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark FERRO — Earlier national word mark FERRERO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Similarity of goods)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/35

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 December 2006 — Ferrero Deutschland v OHIM — Cornu (FERRO)
   (Case T-310/04) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark FERRO - Earlier national word mark FERRERO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Similarity of goods)
   (2006/C 331/77)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Ferrero Deutschland GmbH (Stadtallendorf, Germany), allowed to replace Ferrero OHG mbH (represented by: M. Schaeffer, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Rassat, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the Court of First Instance: Cornu SA Fontain (Fontain, France) (represented by: D. Waelbroeck, lawyer)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 March 2004 (Case R 540/2002-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Ferrero OHG and Cornu SA Fontain.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay its own costs, the whole of the costs relating to the procedural issue concerning its substitution for Ferrero OHG mbH, and half of the costs incurred by the intervener;

               3.

               Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay its own costs and half of those incurred by the intervener.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.


title: Case T-114/09: Order of the General Court of 22 March 2012 — Viasat Broadcasting UK v European Commission (State aid — Repayment of the aid — No further interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               26.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/27

         Order of the General Court of 22 March 2012 — Viasat Broadcasting UK v European Commission
   (Case T-114/09) (1)

   (State aid - Repayment of the aid - No further interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate)
   2012/C 151/42
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd (West Drayton, Middlesex, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Kalsmose Hjelmborg and M. Honoré, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: N. Khan and B. Martenczuken, and subsequently by B. Stromsky and L. Flynn, agents)
   supported by
   Kingdom of Denmark, (represented initially by: J. Bering Liisberg, subsequently by C. Vang, acting as Agents, assisted by P. Biering and K. Lundgaard Hansen, lawyers); and by TV2 Danmark A/S, (Odense C, Denmark (represented by O. Koktvedgaard, lawyer)

      Re:

   APPLICATION for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 4224 final of 4 August 2008 in Case N 287/2008, concerning rescue aid granted to TV2 Danmark A/S

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on this action.

               2.

               Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd, the European Commission, the Kingdom of Denmark and TV2 Danmark A/S shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 141, 20.6.2009.


title: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of  18 October 2005  in Case C-405/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te 's-Gravenhage in Class International BV v Colgate-Palmolive Company, Unilever NV, SmithKline Beecham plc, Beecham Group plc (Trade marks — Directive 89/104/EEC — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Rights conferred by the trade mark — Use of the mark in the course of trade — Importation of original goods into the Community — Goods placed under the external transit procedure or the customs warehousing procedure — Opposition of the trade mark proprietor — Offering for sale or selling goods placed under the external transit procedure or the customs warehousing procedure — Opposition of the trade mark proprietor — Onus of proof)

text:
               10.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/3

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Grand Chamber)
   of 18 October 2005
   in Case C-405/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te 's-Gravenhage in Class International BV v Colgate-Palmolive Company, Unilever NV, SmithKline Beecham plc, Beecham Group plc (1)

   (Trade marks - Directive 89/104/EEC - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Rights conferred by the trade mark - Use of the mark in the course of trade - Importation of original goods into the Community - Goods placed under the external transit procedure or the customs warehousing procedure - Opposition of the trade mark proprietor - Offering for sale or selling goods placed under the external transit procedure or the customs warehousing procedure - Opposition of the trade mark proprietor - Onus of proof)
   (2005/C 315/06)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-405/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Gerechtshof te 's-Gravenhage (Netherlands), made by decision of 28 August 2003, received at the Court on 29 September 2003, in the proceedings pending before that court between Class International BV and Colgate-Palmolive Company, Unilever NV, SmithKline Beecham plc, Beecham Group plc — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas and J. Malenovský, Presidents of Chambers, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, A. Borg Barthet, M. Ilešič, and J. Klučka, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 18 October 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               Article 5(1) and (3)(c) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks and Article 9(1) and (2)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that a trade mark proprietor cannot oppose the mere entry into the Community, under the external transit procedure or the customs warehousing procedure, of original goods bearing that mark which had not already been put on the market in the Community previously by that proprietor or with his consent. The trade mark proprietor cannot make the placing of the goods at issue under the external transit procedure or the customs warehousing procedure conditional on the existence, at the time of the introduction of those goods into the Community, of a final destination already specified in a third country, possibly pursuant to a sale agreement.

               2.

               ‘Offering’ and ‘putting on the market’ the goods, within the meaning of Article 5(3)(b) of Directive 89/104 and Article 9(2)(b) of Regulation No 40/94, may include, respectively, the offering and sale of original goods bearing a trade mark and having the customs status of non-Community goods, when the offering is done and/or the sale is effected while the goods are placed under the external transit procedure or the customs warehousing procedure. The trade mark proprietor may oppose the offering or the sale of such goods when it necessarily entails the putting of those goods on the market in the Community.

               3.

               In a situation such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, it is for the trade mark proprietor to prove the facts which would give grounds for exercising the right of prohibition provided for in Article 5(3)(b) and (c) of Directive 89/104 and Article 9(2)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 40/94, by proving either release for free circulation of the non-Community goods bearing his mark or an offering or sale of the goods which necessarily entails their being put on the market in the Community.

      (1)  OJ C 304 of 13.12.2003.


title: Case C-2/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgericht Mainz by order of 10 December 2001 in the case of Emil Färber GmbH & Co. KG against Landkreis Alzey-Worms

text:
16.3.2002             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 68/5
The Commission concludes that the spirit and purpose of                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
Directive 92/83 do not allow the Member States to adopt                 Amministrativo Regionale per la Puglia by order of
measures which result in discrimination against similar prod-           10 October 2001 in the case of Anna Fascicolo and Others
ucts imported from other Member States and that, in any                 against Regione Puglia and of Grazia Berardi and Others
event, Article 23(2) of Directive 92/83 cannot under any                 against Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale BA/4 and Others
circumstances justify an infringement of Article 90 EC.
That provision of the directive, which does not require, but                              (Cases C-10/02 and C-11/02)
allows, a reduced rate to be applied to the product in question,
charges the Member State with the responsibility for examining
whether, on the basis of the particular circumstances of the
market, the difference in taxation gives rise to protection of a                                 (2002/C 68/11)
domestic product and discrimination against imported prod-
ucts, in which case it must refrain from applying the reduced
rate.
A system of taxation can be considered compatible with the              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
first paragraph of Article 90 EC only if it is arranged in such a       European Communities by order of the Tribunale Amministra-
way that it in any event precludes a higher charge being                tivo Regionale per la Puglia (Regional Administrative Court,
imposed on imported products than on domestic products.                 Puglia) of 10 October 2001, received at the Court Registry on
                                                                        15 January 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Anna
                                                                        Fascicolo and Others against Regione Puglia and of Grazia
(1) OJ L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 21.
                                                                        Berardi and Others against Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale
                                                                        BA/4 and Otheres on the questions
                                                                        1.   whether, under Article 7(2) of Directive 86/457/EEC (1)
                                                                             and Article 36(2) of Directive 93/16/EEC (2), for the
                                                                             purpose of the exercise of general medical practice a right
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungs-                       to practise acquired on or before 31 December 1994 is
gericht Mainz by order of 10 December 2001 in the case                       to be regarded as equivalent to the certificate of specific
of Emil Färber GmbH & Co. KG against Landkreis                               training in general medical practice;
                         Alzey-Worms
                                                                        2.   whether, pursuant to the abovementioned Community
                         (Case C-2/02)                                       provisions, with effect from 1 January 1995 the award of
                                                                             a certificate of specific training in general medical practice
                        (2002/C 68/10)                                       allows Member States to grant to doctors who also have
                                                                             a right to practise acquired on or before 31 December
                                                                             1994 more favourable terms in the form of access to a
                                                                             wider range of reserved posts than that granted to the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       holders of either one qualification or the other;
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht
Mainz (Administrative Court, Mainz) of 10 December 2001,
received at the Court Registry on 7 January 2002, for a                 3.   if the previous question is answered in the affirmative,
preliminary ruling in the case of Emil Färber GmbH & Co. KG
against Landkreis Alzey-Worms on the following question:
                                                                             whether, finally, in view of the rules applicable to acquired
Is paragraph 2(a) of Chapter I of Annex A to Directive                       rights, the abovementioned condition allows the Member
85/73/EEC (1), in the version set out in Directive 96/43/EC (2),             States to grant the abovementioned doctors further
to be interpreted as meaning that the standard fee governed by               special treatment by in all cases granting them additional
that paragraph covering controls and inspections connected                   points for obtaining the certificate of specific training in
with cutting operations is payable only in respect of meat that              general medical practice.
is actually cut at a cutting plant, or is it to be interpreted as
meaning that such fee is payable in respect of all meat entering
the cutting plant, whether it is cut or not?
                                                                        (1) OJ L 267, 19.9.1986, p. 26.
                                                                        (2) OJ L 165, 7.7.1993, p. 1.
(1) OJ L 32, p. 14.
(2) OJ L 162, p. 1.


title: Action bought on 13 March 1995 by Carmen Gómez de Enterría y Sanchez against the European Parliament (Case T-82/95)

text:
No C 137/30             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    3 . 6 . 95
      different construction entails a breach of the principles         The applicant claims that the Court should :
      of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate
      expectations.
                                                                        — annul the decision of the President of the European
                                                                            Parliament of 19 December 1994 retiring her, pursuant
      The applicant also maintains that there can be no                     to Article 50 of the Staff Regulations, from her post as
      doubts whatever concerning the manner in which,                       Director General of Translation and General Services,
      despite all the legal , economic and social circumstances
      existing at the time and despite its inexperience and the
      almost total lack of instructions and guidelines , the            — annul any previous implied decision retiring the
      training operation fulfilled all the objectives laid down.            applicant pursuant to Article 50 of the Staff
      The applicant finds it unacceptable that in these                     Regulations,
      circumstances it can be penalized for failure, as alleged
      in the contested decision, to deal with certain
                                                                        — annul the implied and/or express decision of the
      procedural matters, which, incidentally, it was not                   appointing authority rejecting the applicant's complaint
      required to do .                                                      submitted on 21 February 1995 ,
      The applicant considers , finally, that in view of the
      period of time that has already elapsed — the contested           — reinstate the applicant in her post or in a similar post
      decision was taken about eight years after the                        corresponding to her grade and duties, with payment of
      procedure was initiated — and above all in view of the                any arrears of salary due on the actual date of the
      manifest impossibility of reconstituting all the facts,               retirement until reinstatement, together with interest at
      testimony and documents relating to the action carried                the rate of 8 % per annum,
      out, and given that the period of time that elapsed
      represented considerable damage to the applicant, the             — order the defendant to pay the costs .
      contested decision should be annulled for breach of the
      principles of legal certainty and of the protection of
      legitimate expectations and for the Commission 's                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      failure to comply with the principle of proper
      administration and the duty of care .
                                                                        The applicant contests the decision of the President of the
( b ) The applicant further considers that the contested                European Parliament retiring her, pursuant to Article 50 of
      decision should be annulled , in so far as it relates to the      the Staff Regulations, from her post as Director General of
      'expenditure not approved in the initial request', on the         Translation and General Services .
      grounds of infringement of acquired rights and of the
      inadequacy of the reasons given for the Commission's              She claims first that Articles 7, 25 , 27 and 60 of the Staff
      decision which approved the initial request submitted .           Regulations, and also the general principles of equality and
      The contested decision should also be annulled, in so             distributive justice, have been infringed, in that the
      far as it relates to the expenditure indicated under the          contested decision was not adopted in the interests of the
      headings ' functioning and management of courses —                service, that concept having been replaced by the alleged
      teaching staff', 'preparation of courses ', 'equipment            expediency involved in having to take account of the
      and non-durable goods ' and ' normal depreciation', for           enlargement of the European Union, and in that it is not
      failure to give any reasons for the reductions decided            apparent from the contested measure that the facts in
      upon .                                                            question were seriously and scrupulously examined .
                                                                        Secondly, the applicant submits that the contested decision
                                                                        does not meet the requirements with regard to stating
                                                                        reasons, laid down in the second paragraph of Article 25 of
                                                                        the Staff Regulations , and that it is also vitiated by a
Action bought on 13 March 1995 by Carmen Gomez de                       manifest error of assessment and by misuse of powers .
     Enterria y Sanchez against the European Parliament
                          ( Case T-82/95 )                              She also considers that the defendant institution has
                            ( 95/C 137/69 )                             infringed Article 50 of the Staff Regulations in that it
                                                                        decided not to assign her to another post corresponding to
                 (Language of the case: French)                         her grade and duties . Such a consequence cannot be the
                                                                        automatic result of that provision. Furthermore, with
                                                                        respect to her career, her merits and her age, the
An action against the European Parliament was brought                   administration has failed in its duty to have regard for her
before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                        interests and has failed to respect the expectation she
Communities on 13 March 1995 by Carmen Gomez de                         entertained that the institution would ensure that her career
Enterrfa y Sanchez, residing in Luxembourg ( Grand Duchy                would follow a normal course .
of Luxembourg ), represented by Eric Boigelot, of the
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the    Chambers       of Louis      Schiltz,  2   Rue    du   Fort
Rheinsheim .


title: Case T-476/12: Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2014  — Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 — Documents relating to installations of the applicant situated in Germany and concerned by the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading — Partial refusal of access — Environmental information — Second sentence of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006 — Exception relating to protection of the decision-making process — Documents originating from a Member State — Objection by the Member State — Article 4(3) and (5) of Regulation No 1049/2001)

text:
               2.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 34/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2014 — Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland v Commission
   (Case T-476/12) (1)

   ((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Documents relating to installations of the applicant situated in Germany and concerned by the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - Partial refusal of access - Environmental information - Second sentence of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006 - Exception relating to protection of the decision-making process - Documents originating from a Member State - Objection by the Member State - Article 4(3) and (5) of Regulation No 1049/2001))
   (2015/C 034/37)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland GmbH (Aix-la-Chapelle, Germany) (represented by: S. Altenschmidt and C. Dittrich, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by P. Costa de Oliveira and H. Krämer, subsequently by H. Krämer and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment, first, of the Commission’s implied decision of 4 September 2012 and, in the alternative, of the Commission’s implied decision of 25 September 2012 and, secondly, of the Commission’s decision of 17 January 2013, refusing to grant full access to the list sent by the Federal Republic of Germany to the Commission, in the framework of the procedure set out in Article 15(1) of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 130, p. 1), to the extent that that document contains information relating to certain installations of the applicant, situated in German territory, relating to provisional allocations and activities and capacity levels in relation to carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions between 2005 and 2010, the efficiency of the installations and the annual emission quotas provisionally allocated for the period between 2013 and 2020.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland GmbH shall bear the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 9, 12.1.2013.


title: Case T-85/09: Judgment of the General Court of 30 September 2010 — Kadi v Commission (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban — Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 — Freezing of a person’s funds and economic resources as a result of his inclusion in a list drawn up by a body of the United Nations — Sanctions Committee — Subsequent inclusion in Annex I to Regulation No 881/2002 — Action for annulment — Fundamental rights — Right to be heard, right to effective judicial review and right to respect for property)

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 30 September 2010 — Kadi v Commission
   (Case T-85/09) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban - Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 - Freezing of a person’s funds and economic resources as a result of his inclusion in a list drawn up by a body of the United Nations - Sanctions Committee - Subsequent inclusion in Annex I to Regulation No 881/2002 - Action for annulment - Fundamental rights - Right to be heard, right to effective judicial review and right to respect for property)
   2010/C 317/52
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Yassin Abdullah Kadi (Jeddah, Saudi Arabia) (represented by: D. Anderson QC, M. Lester, Barrister and G. Martin, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: P. Hetsch, P. Aalto and F. Hoffmeister, and, subsequently, by P. Hetsch, F. Hoffmeister and E. Paasivirta, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop, E. Finnegan and R. Szostak, Agents), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and L. Butel, Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Behzadi-Spencer and E. Jenkinson, Agents, assisted by D. Beard, Barrister)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1190/2008 of 28 November 2008 amending for the 101st time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban (OJ 2008 L 322, p. 25), in so far as it concerns the applicant

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Regulation (EC) No 1190/2008 of 28 November 2008 amending for the 101st time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban, in so far as it concerns Mr Yassin Abdullah Kadi;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay those incurred by Mr Kadi;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union, the French Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 90, 18.4.2009.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court, by order of that court of 18 January 1995, in the case of Compagnia di Navigazione Marittima and others against Compagnie Maritime Belge and others (Case C-339/95)

text:
No C 351 /4                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        30 . 12 . 95
( e ) Can there said to be 'legitimate reasons' within the                       carrying the goods on the ocean leg — also to carry the
       meaning of Article 7 ( 2 ) of the Directive where , as a                  goods from the shipper's premises in western Europe to
       result of the way in which the reseller advertises the                    the port of shipment in western Europe ('inland
       goods, the 'mental condition ' of the goods — that is to                  haulage '), and
        say, their allure, prestigious image and aura of luxury
        resulting from the manner in which the trade mark                 — the lines conclude an agreement between themselves
        proprietor has chosen to present and advertise the                       pursuant to which they undertake to adhere to an agreed
        goods using his trade mark rights — is altered or                        tariff and pricing policy for such multi-modal services,
        detracted from ?                                                         and
( f) Do the provisions of Articles 30 and 36 of the EC                    — the agreed tariff and pricing policy covers all the
        Treaty preclude the proprietor of a (picture ) trade mark                elements of the charges made for multi-modal services
        or a holder of copyright relating to the bottles and                     offered by the lines , including not only the ocean leg but
        packaging used for his goods from making it                              also the inland haulage and other ancillary charges
        impossible, by invoking the trade mark right or                          relating to such services ( such as stevedoring, stuffing of
        copyright, for a reseller who is free further to                         containers , demurrage and detention ),
        commercialize those goods to advertise the goods in a
        manner customary to retail traders in the relevant                is that agreement subject to the provisions of Council
        sector ? Is this the case also where the reseller , as a result
        of the manner in which he uses the trade mark in his
                                                                          Regulation ( EEC ) No 4056/86 of 22, December 1986 laying
                                                                          down detailed rules for the application of Articles 85 and 86
        advertising material, damages the luxurious and                   of the Treaty to maritime transport ( 1 ), and in particular
        prestigious image of the trade mark or the publication            Article 3 , alone, or is it also subject to the provisions of
        or reproduction take place in circumstances such that             Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1017/68 of 19 July 1968
        damage may be done to the person entitled to the                  applying rules of competition to transport by rail, road and
        copyright ?                                                       inland waterway ( 2 ) ( in so far as it concerns inland haulage )
                                                                          and/or Council Regulation No 17 : First Regulation
 (') OJ No L 40 , p . 1 .                                                 implementing Articles 85 and 86 ( 3 ) of the Treaty ( in so far
                                                                          as it concerns other ancillary services ) ? In the latter event, to
                                                                          what aspects of the agreement do the different Regulations
                                                                          respectively apply ?
                                                                          Question 2 — ' Common or uniform rates '
 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
Justice, Queen's Bench Division , Commercial Court, by
 order of that court of 18 January 1995 , in the case of                  2.1 .       In determining whether a group of two or more
 Compagnia di Navigazione Marittima and others against                    vesselroperating carriers constitutes a ' liner conference '
              Compagnie Maritime Beige and others                         within the meaning of Article 1 ( 3 ) ( b ) of Council Regulation
                                                                           ( EEC ) No 4056/86 , and in particular whether the carriers
                            ( Case C-339/95 )
                                                                          are parties to an agreement or arrangement, of whatever
                              ( 95/C 351 /08 )                            nature, within the framework of which they operate ( or
                                                                          purport to operate ) under 'common or uniform freight
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    rates ':
 European Communities by an order of the High Court of
 Justice, Queen's Bench Division , Commercial Court, of                    ( a ) does the expression ' freight rates ' refer, in the case of
  1 8 January 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry                      multi-modal services, only to the component to be
 on 30 October 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of                      charged for the ocean leg of the service ( where this can
 Compagnia di Navigazione Marittima and others against                             be separately ascertained ) or does it refer to the total
 Compagnie Maritime Beige and others, on the following                             charge to be made for such a service ?
 questions :
                                                                            ( b ) If the agreed tariff or pricing policy involves a single
                                                                                freight rate for a particular multi-modal service ( i.e.
  Question 1 — Applicable Regulation(s)                                            where the freight rate is not comprised of distinct
                                                                                components for the ocean leg and inland haulage ), how
  1.1      Where :                                                                 is the test of ' common or uniform trade ' to be
                                                                                applied ?
 — a number of shipping lines provide regular international
       liner services for the carriage of goods in containers by            2.2 . What is meant by the words 'common or uniform' in
       sea from various ports in western Europe to ports in the             Article 1 ( 3 ) ( b )? In particular, does the notion of 'common
       Arabian Gulf, and                                                    or uniform' cover the case where rates are not uniform ( in
                                                                            the sense that not all shippers of the same cargo are charged
  — the services offered by the lines include door-to-door                  the same rate ) but are nonetheless agreed in common ( in the
       ('multi-modal ') carriage whereby, pursuant to a single              sense that there exists elaborate procedures for reporting,
       contract of carriage between the shipper and the                     monitoring and securing agreement to special rates
       shipping line, the line undertakes — in addition to                   negotiated for or by shippers or groups of shippers, which
 ---pagebreak--- 30 . 12 . 95             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 351 /5
special rates were accepted by all the participants )? Does a                 type mentioned in Article 4 of Regulation ( EEC )
group of lines which operates a pricing policy which                          No 4056 / 86 :
provides for such departures from the tariff thereby cease to
constitute a ' liner conference ' in the sense of Article 1
                                                                       (a)       Does the block exemption in Article 3 automatically
( 3 ) ( b )?                                                                     cease to apply to the original agreement; and if so, from
                                                                                what moment and to what extent ?
2.4 . Where a group of vessel-operating carriers
constitute a ' liner conference' because they satisfy the              (( b ) Is the answer to the foregoing question different if,
conditions that: ( a ) they operate under an ' agreement or                      under national law, the original agreement is regarded
arrangement'; and ( b ), the agreement or arrangement in                         as a distinct agreement from the supplementary
question provides for 'common or uniform ' rates within the                      agreements and/or severable from them ?)
meaning of Article 1 ( 3 ) ( b ), do these conditions cease to be
satisfied and the group no longer amount to a ' liner
conference ' where the aforesaid group subsequently                    3.2 .        Where :
conclude further agreements or arrangements with other
formerly independent carriers ('associated lines') pursuant            — the member lines of a liner conference operate under an
to which the associated lines may at their option and                         agreement ('the original agreement') which provides for
without consulting or obtaining the agreement of the                          common or uniform rates under a tariff, and
original group of lines charge freight rates which differ by up
to an agreed amount from the tariff set by the original group
of lines .                                                             — that agreement taken by itself would accordingly be
                                                                              eligible for an exemption under Article 3 of Regulation
                                                                               ( EEC ) No 4056/86 , and
 2.5 .       Do the answers to any of the above questions
 differ
                                                                       — the conference lines subsequently enter into agreements
                                                                               between themselves and associates lines ('the associate
— according to the time when the respective agreements                         agreements') pursuant to which agreements the
       first permitted the charging of different rates for the                 associates lines may at their option ( and without
       carriage of the same goods,                                             consultation with or agreement of the orignal lines )
                                                                               charge freight rates which differ by up to an agreed
 — by reason of the fact that the agreement for the common                     amount from the tariff adhered to by the original lines,
       or uniform freight rates has as its stated objective an                 and
       objective such as that set out in clause 1 of the Sunag
       agreement ,
                                                                       — the differences between the rates and conditions fixed by
                                                                               the tariff and the rates and conditions permitted under
 — by reason of the fact that one or more of the parties to the
                                                                               the associate agreements , may constitute differentiation
       agreement were not previously parties to any liner
                                                                               without economic justification of the type mentioned in
       conference agreement on the relevant trades ( i.e. were
                                                                               Article 4 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 4056/86 :
       ' independents').
                                                                        (a)       Does the block exemption in Article 3 automatically
  Question 3 — ' Discrimination ' under Article 4                                 cease to apply to the original agreement; and if so, from
                                                                                what moment and to what extent ?
  3.1 .      Where :
                                                                        (( b ) Is the answer to the foregoing question different if,
                                                                                under national law, the original agreement is regarded
  — the member lines of a liner conference operate under an                       as a distinct agreement from the supplementary
        agreement ('the original agreement') which provides for                   agreements and/or severable from them ?)
        common or uniform rates under a tariff, and
  — that agreement taken by itself would accordingly be                 3.3 .        In determining whether differences of rates can be
        eligible for an exemption under Article 3 of Regulation         economically justified, for the purposes of Article 4, is it
        ( EEC ) No 4056/86 , and                                        relevant to take account of:
  — the        conference    lines   subsequently     enter    into      ( a ) the bargaining power of the shipper or shippers with
        supplementary agreements between themselves ('the                         whom special rates below the tariff are negotiated ;
        supplementary agreements') which provide ( in the case
        of certain goods and certain shippers ) for the carriage of
        goods at rates less than the tariff, and                         ( b ) the fact that the reduced rates are related to a certain
                                                                                volume of goods being shipped ;
  — the differences between the rates and conditions fixed
         by the tariff and the rates and conditions fixed                ( c ) the fact that other shippers not receiving the reduced
         by such supplementary agreements , may constitute                        rates have not sought to bargain for a similar
         differentiation without economic justification of the                    reduction ?
 ---pagebreak--- No C 351 /6                 EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                   30 . 12 . 95
Question 4 — Severance                                                  ( iv ) an agreement whereby the parties fix prices for both
                                                                                the sea and land legs of a door-to-door ( multi-modal )
                                                                                service .
4.1 .         Upon a proper interpretation of Article 85 ( 2 ) of the
EC Treaty does the test of severance entail the separation of
clauses which are capable of falling within Article 85 ( 1 )            Question 6 — Arbitral awards
from those in an agreement which are not so capable ( as was
submitted by the respondents during the arbitration and
before the national court ). Alternatively, does it involve the         6.1 .     Is an award given by arbitrators pursuant to an
separation of clauses which are prohibited by Article 85 ( 1 )          arbitration clause in a private agreement an 'agreement '
from those which are not so prohibited , for example because            within the meaning of Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty ?
the clause is exempted pursuant to a block exemption, such
as Article 3 of Council Regulation ( EEC )' No 4056/86 ( as             6.2 .     If the answer to the above is yes, does an
was contended for by the Claimants in the arbitration and               award/agreement which leads to the enforcement of clauses
before the national court ).                                            of an agreement which prima facie ( and subject to the
                                                                        operation of any applicable block exemption ) breach
                                                                        Article 85 ( 1 ), itself breach Article 85 ( 1 )?
4.2 .         In relation to an agreement which falls in part within
the scope of Article 3 of Council Regulation ( EEC )
                                                                        6.3 .     What is the effect of such an award in EC law ? Is the
No 4056/86 , upon a proper construction of Article 85 ( 3 )
and/or Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 4056/86 , does the                 answer affected by the fact that, other than for the
inclusion in the agreement of a clause or term falling within           enforcement proceedings, the agreement to which the award
Article 85(1 ) which does not fall within any one or more of            relates has expired ?
the categories of restrictions set out in Article 3 of the
aforesaid Regulation mean that the entire agreement falls               6.4 .     In what respects ( if any ) are the Commission 's
within Article 85 ( 1 ) and ( 2 )? Alternatively, does it mean          powers in relation to an arbitration award notified to it
that the non-exempt restrictions may ( if permitted by the              under Article 5 ( 5 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 4056/86
appropriate test of severance ) be severed from the                     relevant to any decision of a national court in relation
agreement to leave a residual agreement which is valid and              to :
enforceable by virtue of Article 3 of Council Regulation
( EEC ) No 4056/86 ? In particular ( but not exhaustively )             ( a ) the determination of any appeal against that award ;
does the inclusion of the following clauses render Article 3                   and/or
of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 4056/86 inapplicable to an
agreement such as is described above in its entirety :                  ( b ) the enforcement of the award.
  ( i ) price fixing on the inland leg of a multi-modal transport       (') OJ No L 378 , 31 . 12 . 1986 , p . 4 .
          service; and/or                                               ( 2 ) OJ No L 175 , 23 . 7 . 1968 , p . 1 .
                                                                        ( 3 ) OJ No 13 , 21 . 2 . 1962 , p . 204/62 .
( ii ) a post termination clause such as that contained in
          Clause 11 of the Sunag agreement.
Question 5 — Legality of Article 3 of Regulation (EEC)
No 4056/86
5.1 .         Is   Article   3   of Council   Regulation       ( EEC )  Reference for preliminary rulings by order of the Pretura
No 4056/86 valid or is it ultra vires Article 85 ( 3 ) and              Circondariale di Avezzano of 16 October 1995 in the
thereby invalid to the extent that, properly construed, it              proceedings pending before that court between Gianni
grants exemption to :                                                                     Bettati and Safety Hi-Tech srl
                                                                                Case C-341 /95 )
    ( i ) agreements or arrangements ( such as Sunag ) between                                       ( 95/C 351 /09 )
           lines who , simultaneously with their operation of the
           aforesaid agreement or arrangement, conclude
           associate membership agreements with outsiders who           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
           were hitherto independent pursuant to which the              European Communities by order of the Pretura
           outsider is permitted to charge differential rates;          Circondariale di Avezzano ( Magistrate 's Court for the
           and/or                                                       District of Avezzano ) of 16 October 1995 , which was
                                                                        recieved at the Court Registry on 30 October 1995 , for a
  ( ii ) agreements pursuant to which the alleged conference            preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
           members collectively charge differential rates to            court between Gianni Bettati and Safety Hi-Tech srl on the
           shippers of the same class of commodity; and/or              following question :
( iii ) agreements pursuant to which the only 'common '
           element of the freight rate is that the parties adopt a      'whether or not, having regard to Articles 3 , 5 , 30, 86 , 92
           common mechanism for devising tariffs to be applied          and 130r of the Treaty of Rome, Article 5 of Council
           to individual shippers; and/or                               Regulation ( EEC ) No 3093/94 of 15 December 1994 ( ] ), in


title: Case C-216/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Betriebsrat der Ruhrlandklinik gGmbH v Ruhrlandklinik gGmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2008/104/EC — Temporary agency work — Scope — Concept of ‘worker’ — Concept of ‘economic activities’ — Nursing staff who do not have a contract of employment assigned to a health care institution by a not-for-profit association)

text:
               16.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 14/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Betriebsrat der Ruhrlandklinik gGmbH v Ruhrlandklinik gGmbH
   (Case C-216/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2008/104/EC - Temporary agency work - Scope - Concept of ‘worker’ - Concept of ‘economic activities’ - Nursing staff who do not have a contract of employment assigned to a health care institution by a not-for-profit association))
   (2017/C 014/09)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesarbeitsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Betriebsrat der Ruhrlandklinik gGmbH

      Respondent: Ruhrlandklinik gGmbH

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 1(1) and (2) of Directive 2008/104/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on temporary agency work must be interpreted as meaning that the scope of that directive covers the assignment by a not-for-profit association, in return for financial compensation, of one of its members to a user undertaking for the purposes of that member carrying out, as his main occupation and under the direction of that user undertaking, work in return for remuneration, where that member is protected on that basis in the Member State concerned, this being a matter for the referring court to determine, even if that member does not have the status of worker under national law on the ground that he has not concluded a contract of employment with that association.

      (1)  OJ C 270, 17.8.2015.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 October 2003 in Case T-295/01: Nordmilch eG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — OLDENBURGER — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Geographical origin — Articles 7(1)(c) and 7(2) — Limitation of the right conferred — Article 12(b) — Statement as to the scope of protection — Article 38(2))

text:
13.12.2003                EN                             Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 304/25
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                      4.    Orders the Office to pay, in addition to its own costs, one third
                                                                                of the costs incurred by the applicant;
                          of 14 October 2003                                     5.    Orders the intervener to pay, in addition to its own costs, two
                                                                                thirds of the costs incurred by the applicant.
in Case T-292/01: Phillips-Van Heusen Corp. v Office for                         (1) OJ C 44 of 16.2.2002.
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                          Designs) (OHIM) (1)
(Community trade mark — Regulations (EC) No 40/94 and
No 2868/95 — Opposition — Likelihood of confusion —
Alteration of a decision of the Board of Appeal — Appli-
cation for registration of Community word mark BASS —
                      Earlier word mark PASH)                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 15 October 2003
                            (2003/C 304/44)
                                                                                in Case T-295/01: Nordmilch eG v Office for Harmonis-
                                                                                ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                     (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (OHIM) (1)
                                                                                (Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94
                                                                                — OLDENBURGER — Absolute ground for refusal —
                                                                                Descriptive character — Geographical origin —
In Case T-292/01, Phillips-Van Heusen Corp., established in                      Articles 7(1)(c) and 7(2) — Limitation of the right conferred
New York (United States of America), represented by F. Jaco-                     — Article 12(b) — Statement as to the scope of protection
bacci, lawyer, v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                                   — Article 38(2))
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: E. Joly and
S. Laitinen), the intervener before the Court being Pash
Textilvertrieb und Einzelhandel GmbH, established in Munich                                                 (2003/C 304/45)
(Germany), represented by W. Städtler, lawyer: Action brought
against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                                            (Language of the case: German.)
Designs) of 12 September 2001 (Case R-740/2000-3) relating
to opposition proceedings between Pash Textilvertrieb und
Einzelhandel GmbH and Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation, the
Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of:                           In Case T-295/01, Nordmilch eG, established in Zeven (Ger-
N.J. Forwood, President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges;                     many), represented by C. Spintig, lawyer, v Office for Harmon-
J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,                 isation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
has given a judgment on 14 October 2003, in which it:                            (OHIM) (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl and G. Schneider): Action
                                                                                brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of
                                                                                the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
1.    Declares that it is unnecessary to rule on the action in so far as         Marks and Designs) of 19 September 2001 (Case R 826/2000-
      it is directed against the rejection in the contested decision of          3), concerning the application for registration of the word
      the application for registration of the trade mark in respect of           OLDENBURGER, the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
      goods other than ‘clothing’;                                               composed of: V. Tiili, President, P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras,
                                                                                Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
                                                                                given a judgment on 15 October 2003, in which it:
2.    Alters the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office
      for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
      Designs) of 12 September 2001 (Case R-740/2000-3), as                      1.    Dismisses the application;
      rectified by the decision of 18 February 2002, so that the
      intervener’s appeal before the Office is dismissed;                        2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
3.    Declares that it is unnecessary to rule on the application to              (1) OJ C 44 of 16.2.2002.
      reject definitively and in its entirety the opposition to registration
      of the trade mark applied for in respect of goods falling within
      Class 25;


title: Case C-439/13 P: Appeal brought on 5 August 2013 by Elitaliana SpA against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 4 June 2013 in Case T-213/12, Elitaliana v Eulex Kosovo

text:
               19.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 304/6

         Appeal brought on 5 August 2013 by Elitaliana SpA against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 4 June 2013 in Case T-213/12, Elitaliana v Eulex Kosovo
   (Case C-439/13 P)
   2013/C 304/11
   Language of the procedure: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Elitaliana SpA (represented by: R. Colagrande, avvocato)

      Other party to the procedure: Eulex Kosovo

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside in its entirety the order [of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 June 2013 in Case T-213/12 Elitaliana v Eulex Kosovo;]

               —

               Consequently, if the state of the proceedings so permits, issue a final decision upholding the application at first instance seeking (a) the annulment of the measures adopted by Eulex — the content and date of which are unknown to the applicant — which resulted in the award of the contract in the tendering procedure ‘EuropeAid/131516/D/SER/XK — Helicopter Support to the EULEX mission in Kosovo (PROC/272/11)’ to Starlite Aviation Operations, notified by Eulex by letter of 29 March 2012, and all preliminary, consequential and connected measures, in particular, if necessary, Note 2012-DAS-0392 of 17 April 2012, by which Eulex refused to grant the applicant access to the tendering documents requested on 2 April 2012; (b) an order directing Eulex to make good the loss suffered by applicant (by ordering specific performance or payment of a commensurate amount in compensation) as set out at paragraphs 37 et seq. of the application made to the General Court; (c) an order directing Eulex to pay the costs;

               —

               In the alternative, as a result of such annulment, if the state of the proceedings so permits, refer the case back to the General Court for judgment.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The General Court erred in law by failing to find that Eulex is a body of the European Union for the purposes of Article 263 TFEU and by equating Eulex to the delegations. Further, the General Court should have recognised the existence of an excusable error on the substance.
   Those errors of law resulted in an infringement of the principle of effective judicial protection which is essential to ensure the full protection of the rights of the defence and, by corollary, the more general principle of equality.