title: Judgment of the Court of 10 July 2003 in Case C-165/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Betriebsrat der Vertretung der Europäischen Kommission in Österreich v European Communities, Commission of the European Communities (Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities — Conditions of Employment of Other Servants — Local staff — Representation of the Commission in Austria — Applicability of national legislation concerning the representation of workers and defence of their interests)

text:
C 200/6                 EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                                23.8.2003
1.    Article 22(1)(c) and (i) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/           M.       Wathelet,       R.      Schintgen        (Rapporteur)       and
      71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security                C. W. A. Timmermans (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann,
      schemes to employed persons and their families moving within            D. A. O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken,
      the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regula-                N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges;
      tion (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 must be interpreted                L. A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal
      as also applying to a pensioner and members of his family who           Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
      reside in a Member State other than the one which is liable for         10 July 2003, in which it has ruled:
      payment of that pension, and who benefit on that basis,
      following their registration with the institution of the place of
      residence, from the system laid down by Article 28 of that              Article 9 of and Annex II to the Staff Regulations of Official of the
      regulation, where those socially insured persons wish to go to          European Communities and Article 79 of the Conditions of Employ-
      the Member State liable for payment of the pension in order to          ment of Other Servants of the European Communities must be
      receive medical treatment there.                                        interpreted as precluding the application to the local staff employed in
                                                                              the representation of the Commission of the European Communities in
                                                                              Vienna (Austria) of the Austrian legislation on labour relations in
2.    The institution competent to issue the prior authorisation              establishments in Part II of the Bundesgesetz betreffend die Arbeitsver-
      mentioned in the said Article 22(1)(c) and (i) where the                fassung (Arbeitsverfassungsgesetz) (Federal law on labour relations) of
      application for authorisation concerns socially insured persons         13 December 1973.
      in such a position is the institution of the place of residence of
      the persons concerned.
                                                                              (1) OJ C 200 of 14.7.2001.
(1) OJ C 200 of 14.7.2001.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (First Chamber)
                           of 10 July 2003
                                                                                of 19 June 2003
in Case C-165/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Oberster Gerichtshof): Betriebsrat der Vertretung der                     in Case C-467/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
Europäischen Kommission in Österreich v European                              the Corte d'appello di Genova): Ministero delle Finanze v
Communities, Commission of the European Commu-                                                           Eribrand SpA (1)
                                nities (1)
                                                                              (Export refunds — Articles 47 and 48 of Regulation (EEC)
(Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities                               No 3665/87 — Extension of time-limits)
— Conditions of Employment of Other Servants — Local
staff — Representation of the Commission in Austria —
Applicability of national legislation concerning the represen-                                           (2003/C 200/11)
        tation of workers and defence of their interests)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                           (2003/C 200/10)
                                                                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
                    (Language of the case: German)                                                  the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
                      the European Court Reports)                             In Case C-467/01: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
                                                                              from the Corte d'appello di Genova (Italy) for a preliminary
                                                                              ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
                                                                              Ministero delle Finanze and Eribrand SpA, formerly Eurico
In Case C-165/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234                    Italia SpA — on the interpretation of Articles 47 and 48 of
EC by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary                    Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                   1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application
Betriebsrat der Vertretung der Europäischen Kommission in                     of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ
Österreich and European Communities, Commission of the                        1987 L 351, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC)
European Communities, on the interpretation of Article 9 of                   No 1829/94 of 26 July 1994 (OJ 1994 L 191, p. 5) — the
and Annex II to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the                     Court (First Chamber), composed of M. Wathelet, President of
European Communities and Article 79 of the Conditions of                      the Chamber, P. Jann and A. Rosas (Rapporteur), Judges;
Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities,                     C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a
the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,                  judgment on 19 June 2003, in which it held that:


title: Case T-198/12: Judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2014  — Germany v Commission (Approximation of laws — Directive 2009/48/EC — Safety of toys — Limit values for nitrosamines, nitrosatable substances, lead, barium, arsenic, antimony and mercury in toys — Commission decision not to approve fully the maintenance of national provisions derogating therefrom — Time-limited approval — Proof of a higher level of protection for human health offered by the national provisions)

text:
               30.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2014 — Germany v Commission
   (Case T-198/12) (1)

   ((Approximation of laws - Directive 2009/48/EC - Safety of toys - Limit values for nitrosamines, nitrosatable substances, lead, barium, arsenic, antimony and mercury in toys - Commission decision not to approve fully the maintenance of national provisions derogating therefrom - Time-limited approval - Proof of a higher level of protection for human health offered by the national provisions))
   2014/C 202/24
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and A. Wiedmann, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Patakia and G. Wilms, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision 2012/160/EU of 1 March 2012 concerning the national provisions notified by the German Federal Government maintaining the limit values for lead, barium, arsenic, antimony, mercury and nitrosamines and nitrosatable substances in toys beyond the entry into application of Directive 2009/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the safety of toys (OJ 2012 L 80, p. 19).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the lawfulness of Commission Decision 2012/160/EU of 1 March 2012 concerning the national provisions notified by the German Federal Government maintaining the limit values for lead, barium, arsenic, antimony, mercury and nitrosamines and nitrosatable substances in toys beyond the entry into application of Directive 2009/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the safety of toys, in so far as it concerns barium;

               2.

               Annuls the second paragraph of Article 1 of Decision 2012/160 in so far as it approved the national provisions setting the limit values for lead only until 21 July 2013;

               3.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               4.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay one half of the costs incurred by the Federal Republic of Germany.

      (1)  OJ C 200, 7.7.2012.


title: Case C-219/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Proceedings brought by K Oy (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 98(2) — Annex III, point 6 — Reduced rate of VAT applicable only to books printed on paper — Books published on physical supports other than paper subject to the standard rate of VAT — Fiscal neutrality)

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/13

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Proceedings brought by K Oy
   (Case C-219/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 98(2) - Annex III, point 6 - Reduced rate of VAT applicable only to books printed on paper - Books published on physical supports other than paper subject to the standard rate of VAT - Fiscal neutrality))
   2014/C 409/17
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein hallinto-oikeus

      Party to the main proceedings

   K Oy

      Operative part of the judgment

   The first subparagraph of Article 98(2) of and point 6 of Annex III to Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2009/47/EC of 5 May 2009, must be interpreted as not precluding, provided that the principle of fiscal neutrality inherent in the common system of value added tax is complied with, which is for the referring court to ascertain, national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which books published in paper form are subject to a reduced rate of value added tax and books published on other physical supports such as CDs, CD-ROMs or USB keys are subject to the standard rate of value added tax.

      (1)  OJ C 178, 22.6.2013.


title: Appeal brought on 21 April 1998 by Spyridoula Alexopoulou against the Order made on 13 February 1998 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-195/96 between Spyridoula Alexopoulou and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-155/98 P)

text:
15.8.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 258/13
Appeal brought on 17 April 1998 by SocieÂteÂ GueÂrin               Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du
Automobiles EURL against the order delivered on                    Fort Rheinsheim.
13 February 1998 by the Third Chamber of the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities in Case
T-276/97 between SocieÂteÂ GueÂrin Automobiles EURL and            The appellant claims that the Court should:
        the Commission of the European Communities
                      (Case C-154/98 P)                            set aside the order made on 13 February 1998 by the First
                                                                   Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                        (98/C 258/23)                              Communities in Case T-195/96 Alexopoulou v
                                                                   Commission of the European Communities (1), by which it
                                                                   dismissed the action brought by the appellant;
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 13 February
1998 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance           make the following declarations and rulings, as the Court
of the European Communities in Case T-276/97 between               of First Instance should have done:
SocieÂteÂ GueÂrin Automobiles EURL and the Commission of
the European Communities was brought before the Court
of Justice of the European Communities on 17 April 1998            Ð annul the Decision of the appointing authority
by SocieÂteÂ GueÂrin Automobiles EURL, represented by                  rejecting the applicant's request, classifying her in
Jean-Claude Fourgous, of the Paris and Brussels Bar, with              Grade A7, step 5, and implicitly refusing to appoint
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                her to grade A6;
Pierrot Schiltz, 4 Rue BeÂatrix de Bourbon.
                                                                   Ð annul the decision of the appointing authority of
                                                                       28 August 1996 rejecting the appellant's request of
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       3 April 1996;
Ð set aside the Order of the Court of First Instance of            Ð order the appointing authority to pay to the appellant
    the European Communities of 13 February 1998;                      the sum of BFR 250 000 by way of provisional
                                                                       compensation for the damage suffered by her as a
                                                                       result of the loss of her chances of promotion to grade
Ð orders the Commission to pay the costs.                              A5; order the appointing authority to calculate the
                                                                       salary which the appellant would have received if she
                                                                       had been promoted to grade A5 with effect from
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    1 December 1995; and order it to pay the amount
                                                                       thus calculated, together with default interest from
                                                                       1 December 1995, subject to deduction therefrom of
                                                                       the sum of BFR 250 000 claimed above;
The pleas in law and main arguments are identical with
those in Case C-153/98 P.
                                                                   Ð orders the appointing authority to pay all the costs,
                                                                       including those relating to the proceedings at first
                                                                       instance.
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Appeal brought on 21 April 1998 by Spyridoula
Alexopoulou against the Order made on 13 February                  Ð Failure to provide a statement of reasons and
1998 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance               infringement of Article 111 of the Rules of Procedure
of the European Communities in Case T-195/96 between                   of the Court of First Instance: it is not possible to
Spyridoula Alexopoulou and the Commission of the                       deduce from the scheme of the contested order the
                    European Communities                               reasons for which the Court of First Instance held that
                                                                       the action was manifestly' unfounded, or to tell
                      (Case C-155/98 P)
                                                                       whether the Court of First Instance intended to dismiss
                        (98/C 258/24)                                  it as unfounded or as inadmissible. The order does not
                                                                       state that the views of the Advocate General were
                                                                       heard. Lastly, it deals jointly with the issues of
                                                                       classification and promotion, without stating any
An appeal against the Order made on 13 February 1998                   reasons for so doing.
by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-195/96 between
Spyridoula Alexopoulou and the Commission of the                   Ð Failure to take full account of Article 31 of the Staff
European Communities was brought before the Court of                   Regulations of Officials: by adding a two fold
Justice of the European Communities on 21 April 1998 by                criterion governing exceptions to Article 31, the
Spyridoula Alexopoulou, represented by Olivier Slusny, of              contested order purported to lay down, as a matter of
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                       law, conditions which that article does not contain.
 ---pagebreak--- C 258/14              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        15.8.98
Ð By omitting to make any finding as regards the                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     question whether consultation took place between the
     Directorate-General empowered to adopt a decision
     concerning classification and the Directorate-General           Ð Infringement of Article 13(1) of Council Regulation
     having power to assess the requirements of the service               (EEC) No 1430/79 on the repayment or remission of
     and whether, if such consultation took place, it was                 import or export duties (2), alternatively of Article
     conducted in a proper fashion, that is to say, by                    239(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92
     omitting to verify whether or not the appointing                     establishing the Community Customs Code (the
     authority based its decision on incorrect or incomplete              CCC') (3): the Netherlands Government considers that,
     material facts, the Court of First Instance failed to                by applying to the present case the concept of special
     exercise its powers of judicial review in relation to acts           circumstances' within the meaning of Article 13(1) of
     of the appointing authority.                                         Regulation No 1430/79, the Commission has
                                                                          committed a manifest error of assessment. First, the
                                                                          Commission failed to take into account the fact that
Ð The proceedings before the Court of First Instance                      the external Community transit system does not
     were irregular: by informing the appellant that it                   function perfectly and is susceptible to fraud. Second,
     would not take into account the observations made                    the Commission omitted to take into consideration the
     with regard to the judgment in Case T-12/97                          fact that the process of discharging customs
     Barnett (2), which it had itself requested, the Court of             documentation is so time-consuming that, before it
     First Instance misled the appellant as to her legitimate             becomes apparent that fraud is involved, the customs
     expectations. By failing to take cognizance of the                   debt may have risen to a substantial level as a result of
     appellant's observations containing new pleas based                  successive transit operations. In consequence of the
     on matters of fact and law which had emerged in the                  system provided for by the CCC, it frequently happens
     course of the proceedings (consisting of the new case-               in cases of documentary fraud that it does not become
     law established by the Court of First Instance in its                apparent to the declarant that fraud is involved until
     judgment in Barnett), the Court of First Instance                    after 14 months have passed.
     wrongfully omitted to apply Article 48(1) and the first
     and second subparagraphs of Article 48(2) of the
     Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance,              Ð Breach of the requirement to provide a statement of
     whereas the appellant's case was precisely the type of               reasons: the contested decision is accompanied by, at
     dispute for which the legislature intended to provide                best, only a summary statement of reasons. The
     by adopting that provision. Similarly, the contested                 Commission has failed to state the extent to which, as
     order failed to apply the third subparagraph of                      a result of the defects in the operation of the external
     Article 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of              Community transit system and the impracticability of
     First Instance.                                                      checking within a reasonable time that customs
                                                                          formalities have been properly completed, or of
                                                                          adopting measures to limit the loss, liability for the
(1) OJ C 137 of 2.5.1998, p. 14.
(2) Judgment of 5.11.1997, OJ C 387 of 20.12.1997, p. 17.                 whole or part of the customs debt cannot be imposed
                                                                          on the customs agent.
                                                                     (1) Decision of the Commission establishing that remission of
                                                                         import duties pursuant to Article 13(1) of Council Regulation
                                                                         (EEC) No 1430/79 of 2 July 1979 is not justified in a specific
                                                                         case.
Action brought on 24 April 1998 by the Kingdom of the                (2) OJ L 175 of 12.7.1979, p. 1.
                                                                     (3) OJ L 302 of 19.10.1992, p. 1.
Netherlands against the Commission of the European
                         Communities
                       (Case C-157/98)
                        (98/C 258/25)
                                                                     Appeal brought on 24 April 1998 by the Commission of
An action against the Commission of the European                     the European Communities against the judgment delivered
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of               on 19 February 1998 by the First Chamber of the Court
the European Communities on 24 April 1998 by the                     of First Instance of the European Communities in Case
Kingdom of the Netherlands, represented by Marc Fierstra             T-42/96 between Eyckeler & Malt AG, supported by the
and Corinna Wissels, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,             United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
The Hague, acting as Agents.                                              and the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case C-163/98 P)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (98/C 258/26)
annul the decision of the Commission (1), communicated
to the Netherlands Government by notice of 19 February               An appeal against the judgment delivered on 19 February
1998, and order the Commission to pay the costs.                     1998 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance


title: Case C-185/09: Action brought on 26 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/32

         Action brought on 26 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-185/09)
   2009/C 180/54
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: U. Jonsson and L. Balta, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify the Commission thereof, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15(1) of that directive, and

               —

               order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period prescribed for implementing the Directive expired on 15 September 2007.

      (1)  OJ L 105, p. 54.


title: Case T-107/13 P: Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2015 — Trentea v FRA (Appeal — Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Recruitment — Rejection of the appellant’s application and appointment of another candidate — Plea in law raised for the first time at the hearing — Distortion of the clear sense of the evidence — Duty to state reasons — Order as to costs disputed)

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2015 — Trentea v FRA
   (Case T-107/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Recruitment - Rejection of the appellant’s application and appointment of another candidate - Plea in law raised for the first time at the hearing - Distortion of the clear sense of the evidence - Duty to state reasons - Order as to costs disputed))
   (2015/C 065/42)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Cornelia Trentea (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) (represented by: M. Kjærum, acting as Agent, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 11 December 2012 in Trentea v FRA (F-112/10, ECR-SC, EU:F:2012:179) and seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2)

               Declares that Ms Cornelia Trentea is to bear her own costs and orders her to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights in the present proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 4.5.2013.


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 156, 12.6.2004

text:
               26.6.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 168/14

         (2004/C 168/25)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the
         Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 156, 12.6.2004

   Past publications

      OJ C 146, 29.5.2004

      OJ C 106, 30.4.2004

      OJ C 94, 17.4.2004

      OJ C 85, 3.4.2004

      OJ C 71, 20.3.2004

      OJ C 59, 6.3.2004

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex:http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex

               CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case T-243/08: Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2010 — Ravensburger v OHIM — Educa Borras (EDUCA Memory game) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative mark EDUCA Memory game — Earlier national and international word marks MEMORY — Relative ground for refusal — Lack of similarity between the signs — Articles 8(1)(b) and (5), 74 and 75 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Articles 8(1)(b) and (5), 76 and 77 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/35

         Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2010 — Ravensburger v OHIM — Educa Borras (EDUCA Memory game)
   (Case T-243/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark EDUCA Memory game - Earlier national and international word marks MEMORY - Relative ground for refusal - Lack of similarity between the signs - Articles 8(1)(b) and (5), 74 and 75 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Articles 8(1)(b) and (5), 76 and 77 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2010/C 179/60
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ravensburger AG (Ravensburg, Germany) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Educa Borras, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: I. Valdelomar Serrano, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 April 2008 (Case R 597/2007-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between Ravensburger AG and Educa Borras, SA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Ravensburger AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 15.8.2008.


title: Case T-772/14: Action brought on 21 November 2014 — Musso v Parliament

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/45

      Action brought on 21 November 2014 — Musso v Parliament
      (Case T-772/14)
      (2015/C 016/69)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: François Musso (Ajaccio, France) (represented by: A. Gross, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Parliament

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  admit the present action and declare it to be well founded;

                  —

                  annul the decision of 22 September 2014;

                              —

                              primarily on the basis of an infringement of the principle of reasonable time affecting the exercise of the rights of the defence, where appropriate;

                              —

                              alternatively, on the basis of a procedural irregularity arising from a lack of precision, in that the amount receivable is not certain;

                  —

                  in the alternative, order the joinder of the present case with Musso v European Parliament (register No 633447, case No T-589/14) of 8 August 2014;

                  —

                  in the further alternative, annul the decision of 22 September 2014, resulting from the decision of 26 June 2014, which itself is liable to be annulled in the action of 8 August 2014 (Musso v European Parliament, register No 633447, Case No T-589/14);

                              —

                              on the basis of a formal irregularity, in that the decision of 26 June 2014 has not been signed by the President;

                              —

                              alternatively, on the basis of an infringement of the rights of the defence, in that the decision of 17 July 1996, which serves as a basis for the decision of 26 June 2014, was not published;

                              —

                              alternatively, on the basis that the decision of 26 June 2014 contains an inadequate statement of reasons;

                              —

                              alternatively, on the basis of an infringement of the principle of reasonable time affecting the exercise of the rights of the defence;

                              —

                              alternatively, on the basis of an infringement of the principle of a vested right;

                  —

                  reserve to the applicant all other rights, remedies, pleas and actions;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of reasonable time affecting the exercise of the rights of the defence, in that the decision of 22 September, that is to say, the contested debit note, was issued 12 years after the Parliament established its book debt in respect of the applicant.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging a formal irregularity in the contested debit note in that the Parliament’s book debt is neither certain nor correct for the purposes of Article 81 of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 (1) and is, moreover, unverifiable.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging a formal irregularity in the decision of 26 June 2014, as a result of which the contested debit note was issued, in that, that decision was not signed by the President of the Parliament in accordance with the Parliament's Rules of Procedure.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s rights of the defence, in that the decision of 17 July 1996, which served as a basis for the decision of 26 June 2014, was not published, in breach of Article 28 of the Parliament's Rules of Procedure.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of audi alteram partem.

                  6.

                  Sixth plea in law, alleging that the decision of 26 June 2014 contains an inadequate statement of reasons.

                  7.

                  Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of reasonable time, in that the Parliament waited eight years before beginning the recovery procedure against the applicant.

                  8.

                  Eighth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of the vested right, in that the decision of 26 June 2014, as a result of which the contested debit note was issued, prejudices the pension entitlements which the applicant acquired on 3 August 1994.

         (1)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2012 L 362, p. 1).


title: Case C-70/06: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Judgment of the Court establishing the failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Non-compliance — Financial penalty)

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/6

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-70/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Judgment of the Court establishing the failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Non-compliance - Financial penalty)
   (2008/C 64/07)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: X. Lewis, A. Caeiros and P. Andrade, Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Fernandes, P. Fragoso Martins and J. A. de Oliveira, Agents)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 228 EC — Failure to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of 14 October 2004 in Case C-275/03 — Imperfect transposition into domestic law of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33) — Request that a penalty should be fixed
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Declares that, by failing to repeal Decree-Law No 48 051 of 21 November 1967, making the award of damages to persons injured by a breach of Community law relating to public contracts, or the national laws implementing it, conditional on proof of fault or fraud, the Portuguese Republic has failed to adopt the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 14 October 2004 in Case C-275/03 Commission v Portugal and has thereby failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 228(1) EC;

               2)

               Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay to the Commission of the European Communities, into the account ‘European Community own resources’, a penalty payment of EUR 19 392 for every day of delay in implementing the measures necessary to comply with the judgment in Case C-275/03 Commission v Portugal, from the day on which the Court of Justice delivers judgment in the present case until the day on which the judgment in Case C-275/03 Commission v Portugal is complied with;

               3)

               Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.


title: Case T-396/10: Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Zucchetti Rubinetteria v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Coordination of price increases and exchange of sensitive business information — Concept of infringement — Single infringement — Relevant market — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Gravity — Multipliers)

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Zucchetti Rubinetteria v Commission
   (Case T-396/10) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Coordination of price increases and exchange of sensitive business information - Concept of infringement - Single infringement - Relevant market - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Gravity - Multipliers)
   2013/C 325/47
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Zucchetti Rubinetteria SpA (Gozzano, Italy) (represented by: M. Condinanzi, P. Ziotti and N. Vasile, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, A. Antoniadis and L. Malferrari, acting as Agents, assisted initially by F. Ruggeri Laderchi and A. De Matteis, and subsequently by F. Ruggeri Laderchi, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 4185 final of 23 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.092 — Bathroom Fittings and Fixtures), in so far as it concerns the applicant, and, in the alternative, for cancellation or reduction of the fine imposed on it.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Zucchetti Rubinetteria SpA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 20 June 2005 in Case T-361/02 Deutsche Bahn AG v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Competitor's complaint — Action for failure to act — Position taken — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/40

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 20 June 2005
   in Case T-361/02 Deutsche Bahn AG v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (State aid - Competitor's complaint - Action for failure to act - Position taken - Manifest inadmissibility)
   (2005/C 217/88)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case T-361/02: Deutsche Bahn AG, established in Berlin (Germany), represented by M. Schütte, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: V. Kreuschitz and V. Di Bucci, with an address for service in Luxembourg), supported by the Council of the European Union (Agents: A.-M. Colaert and F. Florindo Gijón) — action for failure to act, seeking a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to adopt a decision on the applicant's complaint of 5 July 2002 — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, J.D. Cook, R. García-Valdecasas, I. Labucka and V. Trstenjak, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 20 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               The applicant, in addition to bearing its own costs, shall pay those incurred by the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 44 of 22.2.2003


title: Case T-138/02: Action brought on 26 April 2002 by Nanjing Metalink International Co. Ltd. against the Council of the European Union

text:
13.7.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 169/39
on Irish Sugar plc. The applicant would point out in this               —     in the alternative, partially annul Decision C (2001) 4447
regard that, as a result of the judgment of the Court of First                final of the Commission of the European Communities
instance of 7 October 1999 in Case T-228/97 Irish Sugar -v-                   of 15 January 2002 to the extent that the claim for
Commission (1), the fine imposed on Irish Sugar by Com-                       repayment established by the Commission in Article 1
mission Decision 97/624/EC of 14 May 1997, relating to a                      exceeds EUR 2 808 319,95;
proceeding pursuant to Article 86 of the EC Treaty, was
reduced by 916 674 Euros. The defendant refused to pay                  —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
interest on this amount.
According to the Commission, the implied Decision not to                Pleas in law and main arguments
pay interest, i.e. the payment of the principal sum without
interest on 4 January 2000, has become definitive, the
applicant not having contested it within the two month time             In Article 1 of the contested decision, the Commission found
limit, as provided by Article 230 of the EC Treaty.                     that the aid amounting to EUR 3 650 860 granted by Germany
                                                                        to Pollmeier GmbH, Malchow, was incompatible with the
                                                                        common market. The applicant is challenging that decision
The applicant submits in this regard that this reasoning is             and claims that the declaration of partial incompatibility with
materially wrong. Firstly, the initial request was not for actual       the common market of the aid granted to it infringes
payment but for confirmation that interest would be paid; for           Community law. All the grounds on which the decision is
advice as to the amount thereof and for assistance in this              founded are based on errors of law or on a manifestly incorrect
matter. Secondly, there is no rule in EC Law according to               assessment of the facts.
which silence must be taken to mean a refusal, unless provision
is specifically made for this. Thirdly, not only is payment of
the refund of 916 674 Euros not a refusal of the initial request        The applicant claims that it satisfied the SME criteria defined
for confirmation regarding interest, it is also, within the             in the Commission’s Recommendation of 3 April 1996
meaning of Article 230 EC, not an actionable act. It follows            concerning the definition of small and medium-sized enter-
that the Commission’s contention that the applicant should              prises (1) at the time when the aid was granted. Moreover, the
have challenged it at the time is legally erroneous.                    applicant did not circumvent those criteria.
                                                                        Furthermore, the applicant submits that a review of the
(1) [1999] ECR II-2969.
                                                                        economic integration in individual cases which is not based
                                                                        on the SME criteria is illegal because it is precisely those criteria
                                                                        which must be used to determine whether or not there is
                                                                        economic integration. In any event, there is no economic
                                                                        integration.
                                                                        Alternatively, the applicant submits that the claim for repay-
Action brought on 29 April 2002 by Pollmeier Malchow                    ment is too high and that its calculation is unclear.
GmbH & Co. KG against the Commission of the European
                          Communities
                                                                        (1) OJ 1996 L 107, p. 4.
                         (Case T-137/02)
                        (2002/C 169/69)
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        Action brought on 26 April 2002 by Nanjing Metalink
                                                                        International Co. Ltd. against the Council of the European
                                                                                Union
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                       (Case T-138/02)
European Communities on 29 April 2002 by Pollmeier
Malchow GmbH & Co., Malchow (Germany), represented by
S. Völcker and J. Heithecker, lawyers.                                                           (2002/C 169/70)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul in its entirety Decision C (2001) 4447 final of the
      Commission of the European Communities of 15 January              An action against the Council of the European Union was
      2002;                                                             brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
 ---pagebreak--- C 169/40                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       13.7.2002
Communities on 26 April 2002 by Nanjing Metalink Inter-                 Action brought on 29 April 2002 by the public limited
national Co. Ltd., represented by Mr Paul Waer of Vermulst              company Idiotiko Institouto Epangelmatikis Katartisis
Waer & Verhaeghe, Brussels (Belgium).                                   N. Avgerinopoulou — Anagnorismenes Technikes
                                                                        Idiotikes Epangelmatikes Scholes, the Panellinia Enosi
                                                                        Idiotikon Institouton Epangelmatikis Katartisis and the
                                                                        Panellinia Enosi Idiotikis Technikis Epangelmatikis Ekpai-
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             defsis kai Katartisis against the Commission of the Euro-
                                                                                pean Communities
—     annul Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) no 215/2002
      of 28 January 2002 in so far as it imposes an anti-                                        (Case T-139/02)
      dumping duty on Nanjing Metalink International Co.
      Ltd.;
                                                                                (2002/C 169/71)
—     order the Council to pay the costs of the application.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 29 April 2002 by Idiotiko Institou-
The applicant is a company in the People’s Republic of China            to Epangelmatikis Katartisis N. Avgerinopoulou — Anagnoris-
producing ferro molybdenum. In the contested Decision (1),              menes Technikes Idiotikes Epangelmatikes Scholes, a public
the Council imposed definitive anti-dumping duties on imports           limited company whose seat is in Athens, the Panellinia Enosi
of ferro molybdenum originating from China.                             Idiotikon Institouton Epangelmatikis Katartisis, whose seat
                                                                        is in Athens, and the Panellinia Enosi Idiotikis Technikis
                                                                        Epangelmatikis Ekpaidefsis kai Katartisis, whose seat is in
The applicant states that it was granted Market Economy                 Athens, represented by Th. Antoniou and Kh. Tsiliotis, of the
Treatment in the Regulation imposing a provisional duty (2),            Athens Bar.
which resulted in a reduced anti-dumping duty for the
applicant. This treatment was revoked in the contested
Decision. The applicant claims that by revoking the Market              The applicants claim that the Court should:
Economy Treatment which was granted on the basis of the
same investigation, the Council breached Article 2(7) (c) of            —     allow the application;
Council Regulation (EC) no 384/96 (3). According to the
applicant, the Council did not follow the procedures                    —     annul the contested decision of 27 February 2002
prescribed in Regulation 384/96 for the revocation of                         adopted by the Directorate-General for Employment and
Market Economy Treatment. Instead, the initial determination                  Social Affairs of the Commission with the objective of
made should have remained in force until a new investigation                  invalidating the unlawful refusal of the Commission —
was conducted.                                                                for the reasons set out in the grounds of the application —
                                                                              to remove the unlawful distinction between private and
                                                                              public vocational training bodies so far as concerns the
Secondly, the applicant submits that by revoking the grant of                 financing exclusively of the latter by the third Community
Market Economy Treatment, the Council exceeded its powers                     support framework and, in particular, by the operational
under Council Regulation (EC) no 384/96. According to the                     programme ‘Education and Initial Vocational Training II’.
applicant, the Council does not have the power to revoke a
grant of Market Economy Treatment without instituting a
fresh investigation.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 215/2002 of 28 January 2002
    imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of ferro         —     Infringement of provisions of Council Regulation
    molybdenum originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ              No 1260/1999.
    L 35, 6.2.2002, p. 1).
(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1612/2001 of 3 August 2001            —     Infringement of provisions of primary law.
    imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of ferro
    molybdenum originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ
    L 214, 8.8.2001, p. 3).                                             —     Infringement of the principle of equality laid down by
(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on                  Article 12 (ex Article 6) of the EC Treaty.
    protection against dumped imports from countries not members
    of the European Community (OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1).                —     Infringement of the principle of subsididarity.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 16 July 1998 in Case C-235/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Appel, Douai): AGS Assedic Pas-de-Calais v. François Dumon and Maître Froment, liquidator and representative of Établissements Pierre Gilson (Social policy - Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer - Directive 80/987/EEC - Article 4 - Direct effect - Whether national provisions fixing the ceiling for the guarantee of payment may be relied on against individuals where the Commission has not been informed)

text:
C 299/6               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      26.9.98
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       (Sixth Chamber)                                                       (Fifth Chamber)
                        of 16 July 1998                                                       of 16 July 1998
in Case C-235/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from            in Case C-136/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Cour d'Appel, Douai): AGS Assedic Pas-de-Calais v.               the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Paris): The Scotch
FrancËois Dumon and Maître Froment, liquidator and                   Whisky Association v. Compagnie FinancieÁre EuropeÂenne
      representative of EÂtablissements Pierre Gilson (1)            de Prises de Participation (Cofepp), Prisunic SA and
                                                                     Centrale d'Achats et de Services Alimentaires SARL
(Social policy Ð Protection of employees in the event of                                         (Casal) (1)
the insolvency of their employer Ð Directive 80/987/EEC
Ð Article 4 Ð Direct effect Ð Whether national                       (Definition, description and presentation of spirit drinks
provisions fixing the ceiling for the guarantee of payment           Ð Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89 Ð Conditions for the
may be relied on against individuals where the                       use of the generic term whisky' Ð Drinks consisting
            Commission has not been informed)                                         entirely of whisky and water)
                         (98/C 299/09)                                                         (98/C 299/10)
                (Language of the case: French)                                       (Language of the case: French)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)                             published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-235/95: reference to the Court under Article 177           In Case C-136/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty by the Cour d'Appel (Court of Appeal),              of the EC Treaty by the Tribunal de Grande Instance,
Douai (France), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings          Paris, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
pending before that court between AGS Assedic Pas-de-                before that court between The Scotch Whisky Association
Calais and FrancËois Dumon and Maître Froment,                       and Compagnie FinancieÁre EuropeÂenne de Prises de
liquidator and representative of EÂtablissements Pierre              Participation (Cofepp), Prisunic SA and Centrale d'Achats
Gilson, on the interpretation of Council Directive 80/987/           et de Services Alimentaires SARL (Casal), on the
EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the                   interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89 of
laws of the Member States relating to the protection of              29 May 1989 laying down general rules on the definition,
employees in the event of the insolvency of their                    description and presentation of spirit drinks (2) Ð the
employer (2) Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:               Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann,
H. Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini                President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), J. C.
(Rapporteur) and J. L. Murray, Judges; Advocate General;             Moitinho de Almeida, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges;
G. Cosmas, R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on              Advocate General: J. Mischo, Registrar H. A. Rühl,
16 July 1998, the operative part of which is as follows:             Principal Administrator, has given a judgment on 16 July
                                                                     1998, the operative part of which is as follows.
Articles 4(3) and 11 of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of
20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the              Article 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89 of
Member States relating to the protection of employees in             29 May 1989 laying down general rules on the definition,
the event of the insolvency of their employer do not                 description and presentation of spirit drinks prohibits the
preclude the application of provisions setting a ceiling on          inclusion of the generic term whisky' in the sales
the payment guarantee in respect of employees'                       description of a spirit drink containing whisky diluted
outstanding claims, where the Member State has failed to             with water, with an alcoholic strength by volume of less
inform the Commission of the methods used to set that                than 40 %, or the addition of the term whisky' to the
ceiling.                                                             description spirit' or spirit drink' applied to such a drink.
(1) OJ C 229, 2.9.1995.                                              (1) OJ C 180, 22.6.1996.
(2) OJ L 283, 20.10.1980, p. 23.                                     (2) OJ L 160, 12.6.1989, p. 1.


title: Case C-336/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Lyon (France), lodged on 1 July 2011 — Receveur principal des douanes de Roissy Sud, Receveur principal de la recette des douanes de Lyon Aéroport, Direction régionale des douanes et droits indirects de Lyon, Administration des douanes et droits indirects v Société Rohm & Haas Electronic Materials CMP Europe GmbH, Rohm & Haas Europe s. à r.l., Société Rohm & Haas Europe Trading APS-UK Branch

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/32

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Lyon (France), lodged on 1 July 2011 — Receveur principal des douanes de Roissy Sud, Receveur principal de la recette des douanes de Lyon Aéroport, Direction régionale des douanes et droits indirects de Lyon, Administration des douanes et droits indirects v Société Rohm & Haas Electronic Materials CMP Europe GmbH, Rohm & Haas Europe s. à r.l., Société Rohm & Haas Europe Trading APS-UK Branch
   (Case C-336/11)
   2011/C 269/62
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d’appel de Lyon

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Receveur principal des douanes de Roissy Sud, Receveur principal de la recette des douanes de Lyon Aéroport, Direction régionale des douanes et droits indirects de Lyon, Administration des douanes et droits indirects

      Respondents: Société Rohm & Haas Electronic Materials CMP Europe GmbH, Rohm & Haas Europe s. à r.l., Société Rohm & Haas Europe Trading APS-UK Branch

      Question referred

   Should the combined nomenclature [set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, (1) as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1549/2006 of 17 October 2006 (2) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1214/2007 of 20 September 2007 (3)] be interpreted as meaning that polishing pads, intended for a polishing machine for working semiconductor materials — as such coming under tariff heading 8460 — imported separately from the machine, in the form of discs perforated in the centre, made up of a hard polyurethane layer, a layer of polyurethane foam, an adhesive layer and a protective plastic film, which do not contain any metal part or any abrasive substance and are used to polish ‘wafers’, in association with an abrasive liquid, and must be replaced at a frequency determined by their level of wear, come under tariff heading 8466 […], as parts or accessories suitable for use solely or principally with the machines classified under headings 8456 to 8465, or, on the basis of their constituent material, under tariff heading [3919], as self-adhesive flat shapes made of plastic?

      (1)  OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2006 L 301, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ 2007 L 286, p. 1.


title: Case C-14/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam of 28 December 2004 in the case of Anagram International Inc. and Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane Rotterdam

text:
               2.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam of 28 December 2004 in the case of Anagram International Inc. and Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane Rotterdam
   (Case C-14/05)
   (2005/C 82/17)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Amsterdam Regional Court of Appeal) (Netherlands) of 28 December 2004, received at the Court Registry on 19 January 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Anagram International Inc. and Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane Rotterdam on the following questions:

               1.

               Must point 3 of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 442/2000 (1) be interpreted as meaning that it also relates to the goods described under the facts (in section 2 of the reference for a preliminary ruling)?

               2.

               If so, is the Regulation valid in that respect?

               3.

               If the Regulation is invalid or if it does not cover the goods at issue, can the CCT be interpreted as meaning that those goods must be classified as ‘festive articles’ of heading 9505 90 00?

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 442/2000 of 25 February 2000 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2000 L 54, p. 33).


title: Case C-233/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeitsgericht Düsseldorf by order of that court of 5 May 2004 in the case of Ms Gül Demir against Securicor Aviation Limited, Securicor Aviation (Germany) Limited and Kötter Security GmbH & Co. KG.

text:
               7.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 201/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeitsgericht Düsseldorf by order of that court of 5 May 2004 in the case of Ms Gül Demir against Securicor Aviation Limited, Securicor Aviation (Germany) Limited and Kötter Security GmbH & Co. KG.
   (Case C-233/04)
   (2004/C 201/20)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Arbeitsgericht Düsseldorf (Labour Court, Düsseldorf) (Germany) of 5 May 2004, received at the Court Registry on 3 June 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ms Gül Demir against Securicor Aviation Limited, Securicor Aviation (Germany) Limited and Kötter Security GmbH & Co. KG, on the following question:

               1.

               In examining whether there is — irrespective of the question of ownership — a transfer of a business within the meaning of Article 1 of Directive 2001/23/EC (1) in the context of a fresh award of a contract, does the transfer of the assets from the original contractor to the new contractor — having regard to all the facts — presuppose their transfer for independent commercial use by the transferee? By extension, is conferment on the contractor of a right to determine the manner in which the assets are to be used in its own commercial interest the essential criterion for a transfer of assets? On that basis, is it necessary to determine the operational significance of the contracting authority's assets for the service provided by the contractor?

               2.

               If the Court answers Question 1 in the affirmative:

                           (a)

                           Is it precluded to classify assets as being for independent commercial use if they are made available to the contractor by the contracting authority solely for their use and responsibility for maintaining those assets, including the associated costs, is borne by the contracting authority?

                           (b)

                           Is there independent commercial use by the contractor when, for the purpose of conducting airport security checks, it uses the walk-through metal detectors, hand-held metal detectors and X-ray equipment supplied by the contracting authority?

      (1)  OJ L 82, 22.3.2001, p. 16.


title: Case T-420/13: Action brought on 14 August 2013 — Brouillard v Court of Justice

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/34

         Action brought on 14 August 2013 — Brouillard v Court of Justice
   (Case T-420/13)
   2013/C 325/57
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Alain Laurent Brouillard (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-M. Gouazé, lawyer)

      Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant requests the General Court to:

               —

               annul the decision of 5 June 2013 of the Court of Justice of the European Union — Directorate-General for Translation — concerning contract 2013/S 047-075037, eliminating Mr Brouillard from the lot for translation into French;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By this action, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision to invite the candidate selected to tender in the context of a negotiated tender procedure relating to the conclusion of framework contracts for the translation of legal texts from certain official languages of the European Union into French (OJ 2013/S 47-075037) to submit a tender in which it is confirmed that the applicant will not be engaged in providing the services concerned on the ground that the applicant does not fulfil the full legal education requirement.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law:

               1.

               The first plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the authority which adopted the contested act.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Directives 2000/78/EC (1) and 2005/36/EC, (2) and the case-law of the Court of Justice.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment concerning the applicant's academic and professional qualifications.

      (1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).

      (2)  Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22).


title: Case C-270/11: Action brought on 31 May 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden

text:
               30.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/17

         Action brought on 31 May 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-270/11)
   2011/C 226/33
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Tufvesson and F. Coudert, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that Sweden failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU in that it has not adopted the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-185/09;

               —

               Order Sweden to pay the Commission, to the account ‘European Union own resources’, a daily penalty of EUR 40 947,20 for each day that the necessary measures are not taken to comply with the judgment of the Court in Case C-185/09, from the day on which the judgment in the present case is delivered until the day on which the judgment in Case C-185/09 is complied with inclusive;

               —

               Order Sweden to pay the Commission, to the same account, a fixed daily amount of EUR 9 597 for each day that the necessary measures are not taken to comply with the judgment of the Court in Case C-185/09, from the day on which the judgment in Case C-185/09 was delivered until the day on which judgment is delivered in the present case or until the day on which the measures necessary to comply with that judgment in Case C-185/09 are taken, if that is earlier; and

               —

               Order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the judgment of the Court of 4 February 2010 (Case C-185/09 Commission v Kingdom of Sweden), the Court held:

      ‘By failing, within the period prescribed, to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.’

   The Kingdom of Sweden has still not adopted any measures to comply with the judgment of the Court in Case C-185/09. The Commission has therefore brought proceedings in accordance with Article 260(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and claims that the Kingdom of Sweden should pay financial penalties.


title: Case C-336/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landessozialgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Germany) lodged on 18 July 2008 — Christel Reinke v AOK Berlin

text:
               11.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landessozialgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Germany) lodged on 18 July 2008 — Christel Reinke v AOK Berlin
   (Case C-336/08)
   (2008/C 260/10)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Landessozialgericht Berlin-Brandenburg
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Christel Reinke

      Defendant: AOK Berlin
   Questions referred

               1.

               Does the entitlement to reimbursement under Article 34(4) and (5) of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 (1) cover the costs of emergency treatment incurred by a pensioner entitled to benefits under Article 31 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 in a private clinic in the place of stay if the competent hospital has refused to provide the treatment by way of benefit in kind on the ground of overcrowding?

               2.

               May reimbursement be limited to the reimbursement rates provided for in Article 34(4) of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 where the competent institution pays hospitals for benefits in kind, not on the basis of abstract and general rates, but on the basis of individual contracts, and where national law does not limit the benefit in kind to treatment in certain hospitals?

               3.

               Is a national provision according to which reimbursement of the cost of treatment in a private hospital in another Member State is excluded, even in the case of emergency treatment, compatible with Articles 49 EC and 50 EC and 18 EC?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1972 (I), p. 159).


title: Case C-509/13 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 September 2014  — Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones, SL v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Application for registration of a figurative mark with the word element ‘Metro’ in blue and yellow — Opposition by the proprietor of the coloured Community figurative mark containing the word ‘GRUPOMETROPOLIS’  — Rejection of the opposition)

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/25

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 September 2014 — Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones, SL v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG
   (Case C-509/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Application for registration of a figurative mark with the word element ‘Metro’ in blue and yellow - Opposition by the proprietor of the coloured Community figurative mark containing the word ‘GRUPOMETROPOLIS’ - Rejection of the opposition))
   2014/C 409/36
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones, SL (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, abogado)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Poch, acting as Agent), MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: J.-C. Plate, Rechtsanwalt)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones SL is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 336, of 16.11.2013.


title: Case T-464/04: Action brought on 3 December 2004 by Impala against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/46

         Action brought on 3 December 2004 by Impala against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-464/04)
   (2005/C 6/91)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 3 December 2004 by Impala, Brussels (Belgium), represented by S. Crosby and J.Golding, Solicitors.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the Commission's decision of 19 July 2004 in case no. COMP/M.3333 — Sony/BMG in its entirety;

               —

               In the alternative, annul the contested decision insofar as it relates to either or all of the following:

                           —

                           collective dominance on the market for licences for online music;

                           —

                           single dominance in the markets for distribution of online music;

                           —

                           coordination of the parties' respective music publishing businesses;

               —

               Order the Commission to bear the costs incurred by the applicant in connection with this action.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant is an international association with the purpose of promoting the general interests of its members, which are independent music companies. It requests the annulment of the Commission's decision approving the merger between the global recorded music businesses of Bertelsmann AG and Sony Corporation of America.
   In support of its application it submits that in authorising the merger the Commission violated Article 253 EC, Article 81 paragraph 1 EC, Regulation 4064/89 (1) as well as the rules of law governing their application and committed manifest errors of assessment:

               —

               by finding that a collective dominant position did not exist in the market for recorded music prior to the merger;

               —

               by finding that the merger did not strengthen an existing collective dominant position in that market;

               —

               by finding that the merger would not create a collective dominant position in the market for recorded music, in the market for licences for online music or in the market for the distribution of online music;

               —

               by finding that the merger would not lead to the coordination of the parties' respective music publishing businesses.

      (1)  OJ L 395, p. 1


title: Case T-560/14: Action brought on 28 July 2014 — ABZ Aardbeien Uit Zaad Holding a.o. v Parliament and Council

text:
               3.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 388/19

         Action brought on 28 July 2014 — ABZ Aardbeien Uit Zaad Holding a.o. v Parliament and Council
   (Case T-560/14)
   2014/C 388/23
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: ABZ Aardbeien Uit Zaad Holding BV (Hoorn NH, Netherlands); Agriom BV (Aalsmeer, Netherlands); Agrisemen BV (Ellewoutsdijk, Netherlands); Anthura BV (Bleiswijk, Netherlands); Barenbrug Holding BV (Oosterhout, Netherlands); De Bolster BV (Epe, Netherlands); Evanthia BV (Hoek van Holland, Netherlands); Gebr. Vletter & Den Haan VOF (Rijnsburg, Netherlands); Hilverda Kooij BV (Aalsmeer, Netherlands); Holland-Select BV (Andijk, Netherlands); Könst Breeding BV (Nieuwveen, Netherlands); Koninklijke Van Zanten BV (Hillegom, Netherlands); Kweek- en Researchbedrijf Agirco BV (Emmeloord, Netherlands); Kwekerij de Wester-Bouwing BV (Rossum, Netherlands); Limgroup BV (Horst aan de Maas, Netherlands); and Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij Het Idee BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: P. de Jong, P. Vlaemminck and B. Van Vooren, lawyers)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union and European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               declare the action in annulment admissible;

               —

               annul Regulation (EU) No 511/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on compliance measures for users from the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilisation in the Union (OJ L 150, p. 59); and

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-559/14 Ackermann Saatzucht a.o. v Parliament and Council.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 February 2000 in Case T-165/97: Carlos Gómez de la Cruz Talegón v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Request for reclassification in grade — Objection of inadmissibility — Material new fact — Admissibility)

text:
C 122/34              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        29.4.2000
2. The parties are to bear their own costs.                                   ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 24 February 2000
(1) OJ C 181 of 14.6.1997.
                                                                        in Case T-37/98: Foreign Trade Association (FTA) and
                                                                                Others v Council of the European Union (1)
                                                                        (Action for annulment — Application signed by a lawyer
                                                                        not authorised to practise before a court of a Member State
                                                                        or of a State which is a party to the European Economic Area
                                                                                Agreement — Inadmissibility)
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (2000/C 122/50)
                      of 9 February 2000
in Case T-165/97: Carlos Gómez de la Cruz Talegón v                                       (Language of the case: English)
       Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                        In Case T-37/98: Foreign Trade Association (FTA), established
(Officials — Request for reclassification in grade — Objec-             in Brussels, Hypermarché Auchan S.A., established in Croix
tion of inadmissibility — Material new fact — Admissibility)            (France), Karstadt Aktiengesellschaft, established in Essen (Ger-
                                                                        many), Kaufhof Warenhaus AG, established in Cologne (Ger-
                                                                        many), Société Anonyme CIVAD, trading as La Blanche Porte,
                        (2000/C 122/49)                                 established in Tourcoing (France), OttoVersand GmbH & Co.,
                                                                        established in Hamburg (Germany), Quelle-Schickedanz AG
                                                                        & Co., established in Fürth (Germany), Textilimportörerna,
                                                                        established in Stockholm (Sweden) (Agent: U. Schliessner,
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                       Rechtsanwalt, Düsseldorf, with an address for service in
                                                                        Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt and Medernach, 8-10
                                                                        Rue Mathias Hardt) v Council of the European Union (Agents:
In Case T-165/97: Carlos Gómez de la Cruz Talegón, an official        S. Marquardt, H.-J. Rabe and G.M. Berrisch) supported by
of the Commission of the European Communities, represented              Commission of the European Communities (Agents: V. Kreu-
by Vı́ctor Gómez de la Cruz Talegón, of the Malaga Bar (Spain),       schitz and N. Khan) — application for the annulment of
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of            Council Regulation (EC) No 2398/97 of 28 November 1997
Consuelo Pérez Anaya, 24 Rue Marguerite de Brabant, v                   imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: Julian                   cotton-type bed linen originating in Egypt, India and Pakistan
Currall) — application for annulment of the Commission’s                (OJ 1997 L 332, p. 1) — the Court of First Instance (Second
decision of 30 July 1996 rejecting the applicant’s request for a        Chamber), composed of: J. Pirrung, President, J. Azizi, A. Po-
review of his initial classification and of the Commission’s            tocki, M. Jaeger and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
decision of 3 February 1997 rejecting the applicant’s com-              has given an order on 24 February 2000, in which it:
plaint against that decision — the Court of First Instance
(First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, and
M. Vilaras and N. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made             1. Dismisses the application as inadmissible;
an order on 9 February 2000, the operative part of which is as
follows:
                                                                        2. Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and, jointly and
                                                                            severally, to pay the costs incurred by the Council;
1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible;
                                                                        3. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.
2. The parties are to bear their own costs.
(1) OJ C 228 of 26.7.1997.                                              (1) OJ C 113 of 11.4.1998.


title: Case T-299/15: Action brought on 8 June 2015 — Nova v Commission

text:
               3.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 254/20

         Action brought on 8 June 2015 — Nova v Commission
   (Case T-299/15)
   (2015/C 254/23)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Nova Onlus Consorzio nazionale di cooperative sociali — Soc. coop. (Trani, Italy) (represented by: M. Astolfi and M. Petrucci, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

                           —

                           Find and declare that the contractual obligations set out in Grant Agreement No HOME/2011/PPRS/AG/2176 Abac No. 30-CE-0495809/00-94 were complied with in full, and consequently:

                                       —

                                       Declare that the applicant is entitled to retain the sum of EUR 80  242,78, which was received by way of the ‘pre-financing payment’ and is currently the subject of the debit note for recovery of the above-mentioned sum issued by the European Commission — Directorate General Migration and Home Affairs — Directorate E: Migration and Security Funds — Unit E2: Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund — HOME E2/FL/2015, No 1520007 of 1 April 2015 concerning HOME/2011/PPRS/AG/2176 TORRE — Transnational Observatory for Refugee’s Resettlement in Europe — No 3241503771.

                                       —

                                       Order the defendant to pay the outstanding balance of EUR 52  146,36, as ‘final payment’, in addition to the late-payment interest, to be calculated up to the date of payment in full, in accordance with Article II.16.3 of the Grant Agreement, as well as the legal costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings.

                  In the alternative:

                           —

                           Annul the decision of the European Commission — Directorate General Migration and Home Affairs — Directorate E: Migration and Security Founds — Unit E2”: Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund — HOME E2/FL/2015, No 1520007 of 1 April 2015 concerning ‘HOME/2011/PPRS/AG/2176 TORRE — Transnational Observatory for Refugee’s Resettlement in Europe — debit note No 3241503771’ regarding recovery of the sum of EUR 80  242,78, and any other earlier, preparatory and/or subsequent act.

                           —

                           Order the defendant to pay the outstanding amount of EUR 52  146,36 for the implementation of Grant Agreement No HOME/2011/PPRS/AG/2176 Abac No. 30-CE-0495809/00-94 as ‘final payment’, in addition to late payment interest, to be calculated up to the date of payment in full, in accordance with Article II.16.3 of the Grant Agreement, as well as the legal costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging failure to comply with the obligation to pay the balance owing and breach of the obligations set out in Article II.15.4 of the Grant Agreement.

                           —

                           In that regard, the applicant alleges infringement of the audi alteram partem rule in relation to the Commission’s conduct, and of the principles of transparency, impartiality and neutrality of the independent assessor.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging failure to comply with the obligations to objectively assess the result in relation to Annex I (LogFrame) to the Grant Agreement, and in relation to the restrictions on reducing the balance owing laid down in Article II.17.5 of the Grant Agreement and the restrictions on penalties referred to in Article II.12 of that agreement.

                           —

                           In that regard, the applicant claims as follows: the Commission played a part in the failure to achieve the results; the Commission was unjustly enriched; the principle of good administration was infringed with regard to the assessment of the project’s objectives and in the light of the part played by the Commission; the principle of compliance with essential procedural requirements was also infringed.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging extensive failure to meet contractual obligations.

                           —

                           In that regard, the applicant claims as follows: the principles of proportionality, sincere cooperation, and the right to a fair hearing were infringed as regards the Commission’s conduct during the inspection and debit procedure; Article 42(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union was also infringed.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging failure to comply with the obligations set out in Article II.14

                           —

                           In that regard, the applicant claims that the principle of legitimate expectations was infringed with regard to the eligibility of the expenditure concerning human resources and research activities.


title: Case T-336/12: Action brought on 1 August 2012 — Klizli v Council

text:
               22.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/37

         Action brought on 1 August 2012 — Klizli v Council
   (Case T-336/12)
   2012/C 287/67
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Yousef Klizli (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: Z. Garkova-Lyutskanova, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council implementing Decision 2012/256/CFSP of 14 May 2012 implementing Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ L 126, p. 9), insofar as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               Annul Council implementing Regulation (EU) No 410/2012 of 14 May 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (JO L 126, p. 3), insofar as it concerns the applicant; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the applicant was wrongfully enlisted as a person who provides financial support to the regime.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the contested Council’s acts were issued in the absence of any legal basis and infringe the duty to state reasons, the right to a fair hearing, the right to an effective judicial protection and the right to property; further they are in breach of the principle of proportionality and violate the applicant’s good name.


title: Case F-114/13: Action brought on 29 November 2013 — ZZ and ZZ v Commission

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/53

         Action brought on 29 November 2013 — ZZ and ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-114/13)
   2014/C 52/102
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ and ZZ (represented by: A. Salerno and B. Cortese, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the Appointing Authority refusing to recognise the legal validity of the decision of the local Staff Committee in Luxembourg revoking the authority granted to a representative to represent it within the Commission’s Central Staff Committee.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority refusing to recognise the legal validity of the decision of the local Staff Committee in Luxembourg revoking the authority granted to a representative to represent it within the Commission’s Central Staff Committee;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.