title: Case F-37/16: Action brought on 29 July 2016 — ZZ v EIB

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/54

         Action brought on 29 July 2016 — ZZ v EIB
   (Case F-37/16)
   (2016/C 335/71)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: B. Maréchal, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Investment Bank (EIB)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the decision, rendered in the framework of the Dignity at work investigation procedure regarding sexual harassment allegations, rejecting the complaint filed by the applicant as well as the compensation of the moral prejudice and of the medical costs incurred by the applicant.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Cancel the decision dated 16 October 2015 rendered in the framework of the Dignity at Work investigation procedure launched by the applicant dated 20 May 2015 against her supervisor, as investigated by the Investigation Panel and annulment of the Report by the Investigation Panel dated 14 September 2015 related to the Dignity at Work request filed by the applicant, in which her complaint has been rejected and inappropriate recommendations have been included, including a sanitization of the report;

               —

               Compensate for medical costs as a result of the damage suffered from the applicant in an amount of (i) 977 EUR to date (including VAT) and (ii) a provisional amount of 5 850 EUR for future medical costs;

               —

               Grant damages in relation to the moral prejudice suffered by the applicant amounting 20 000 EUR;

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs.


title: Case F-92/13: Action brought on 20 September 2013 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               16.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 336/32

         Action brought on 20 September 2013 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-92/13)
   2013/C 336/71
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision to calculate the bonus on pension rights acquired before the entry into the service on the basis of the new GIP concerning Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare Article 9 of the General Implementing Provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations unlawful and, accordingly, inapplicable;

               —

               Annul the decision of 15 February 2013 to add a bonus to the pension rights acquired by the applicant before her entry into the service, on the transfer thereof to the pension scheme of the European Union institutions (‘EUIPS’), by application of the General Implementing Provisions (‘GIP’) of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-303/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Łodzi (Poland) lodged on 22 June 2015 — Criminal proceedings against G.M. and M.S.

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Łodzi (Poland) lodged on 22 June 2015 — Criminal proceedings against G.M. and M.S.
   (Case C-303/15)
   (2015/C 311/25)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Okręgowy w Łodzi

      Parties to the main proceedings

   G.M. and M.S.

      Question referred

   Is Article 8(1) of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that in the event of failure to communicate regulations, which are considered to be technical regulations, different consequences are possible: as regards regulations which concern the freedoms which are not subject to the restrictions of Article 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the failure to communicate must have the consequence that those regulations cannot be applied; whereas, as regards regulations which concern the freedoms which are subject to the restrictions of Article 36 of the Treaty, the national court, which at the same time is an EU court, may assess whether those regulations, despite the failure to communicate, comply with the requirements of Article 36 of the Treaty and can be applied?

      (1)  OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37.


title: Action brought on 3 April 1997 by Horeca-Wallonie against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-85/97)

text:
No C 166/22             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     31 . 5 . 97
Instance of the European Communities on 28 March 1997                  works contract was awarded for the supply of monobloc
by Patrick Rousseaux, residing in Brussels, represented by             concrete sleepers on the basis of a qualification procedure
Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for               devised by the SNCB . One of the grounds of the
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson               applicant's complaint is the fact that the rejection of its
Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .                                             tender, for failure to meet technical requirements, was
                                                                       based on the misconception that the monobloc sleepers
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            decided on by the SNCB and the duo-bloc sleepers offered
                                                                       by the applicant are not perfectly substitutable . According
                                                                       to the applicant company, the contested decision closing
— annul the Commission's decision of 18 June 1996                      the file endorsed that incorrect technical assessment.
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give
     consideration to the possible application of Article 31
     (2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                                    The Commission based its decision not to proceed on the
                                                                       lack of any Community interest in bringing an action
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision                   against the Belgian State for failure to fulfil its obligations .
     adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996
     expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,                    In support of its contentions, the applicant alleges a
                                                                       breach of essential procedural requirements, in that, first,
— order the defendant to pay all the costs .                           the Commission did not hear its views at any stage and,
                                                                       second, it did not specify the legislative basis for its
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    decision not to proceed with an investigation. Specifically,
                                                                       in giving a decision on the contract in question, the
                                                                       Commission cannot rely in abstracto on Community law
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                 relating to public works contracts without taking account
Case T-16/97 C ).                                                      of the rules governing competition . In that regard, the
                                                                       contested decision should be declared unlawful under
(') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.                                  Article 86 of the Treaty, in conjunction with Article 90 (2 )
                                                                       thereof. The applicant stresses that the SNCB enjoys a
                                                                       monopoly for operation of the Belgian railway system,
                                                                       that it has been granted authority for type-approval of the
                                                                       equipment used in its network and that the technical
                                                                       specifications at issue in these proceedings are
Action brought on 1 April 1997 by Société Anonyme de                   unfavourable only to imported products .
Traverses en Béton Armé ( Sateba) against Commission of
                   the European Communities
                                                                       Finally, the applicant alleges an incorrect assessment of the
                          ( Case T-83/97)                              facts and a misuse of powers . It states in that connection
                            ( 97/C 166/45 )                            that, in the field of competition, where circumstances
                                                                       constituting an infringement exist, the Commission may
                 (Language of the case: French)                        impose a sanction of an economic nature on the
                                                                       undertakings concerned. In its view, it was only in order
An action against the Commission of the European                       to evade the application of Community law in this area
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      that the Commission adopted a decision not to proceed in
Instance on 1 April 1997 by Societe Anonyme de Traverses               respect of acts imputable to the SNCB, at the same time
en Beton Arme ( Sateba ), whose registered office is in                concluding that there was no Community interest in
Paris, represented by Jacques Manseau, of the Paris Bar,               taking proceedings against the Belgian State. However, by
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                       referring to the Belgian State rather than to the SNCB, the
 Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt.                    defendant is endeavouring to make its decision
                                                                        unchallengeable by virtue of the settled case-law
                                                                        concerning the application of Article 169 of the Treaty.
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance
 should :
— annul Commission Decision of 20 January 1997,
     Reference No XV/B3/MM/(96 ) D/2312,
                                                                        Action brought on 3 April 1997 by Horeca-Wallonie
 — order the defendant to pay the costs.                                  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-85/97)
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                97/C 166/46 )
 The applicant, a French company operating in the railway                              (Language of the case: French)
 infrastructure sector, contests the Commission decision
 closing the file on the complaint it lodged against Societe
 Nationale des Chemins de Fer Beiges ( SNCB ). That                     An action against the Commission of the European
 complaint concerned the conditions under which a public                Communities was brought before the Court of First
 ---pagebreak--- 31 . 5 . 97            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 166/23
Instance of the European Communities on 3 April 1997                 Action brought on 4 April 1997 by G. Van Dyck against
by Horeca-Wallonie, whose registered office is at Namur                     the Commission of the European Communities
( Belgium ), represented by Gilles Bouneou, of the                                           ( Case T-87/97)
Luxembourg Bar, and by Jean Materne and Alain Bernard,
                                                                                ( 97/C 166/47)
of the Liege Bar ( Belgium ), with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Gilles Bouneou, 15                                     (Language of the case: Dutch)
Avenue du Bois .
                                                                     An action against the Commission of European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
The applicant claims that the Court should:                          Instance of the European Communities on 4 April 1997
                                                                     by G. Van Dyck, residing in Wuustwezel ( Belgium ),
                                                                     represented by G. Vandersanden and M.-A. Marx, of the
— annul the decision of the Commission of the European               Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
     Union contained in the letter of 24 September 1996              the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
     addressed to the Belgian State as represented by its
     Minister for Foreign Affairs,                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     — declare the present application admissible and well
                                                                         founded,
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                     — consequently, annul the decision of the appointing
                                                                         authority of 21 June 1996 refusing to reconsider the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      applicant's grading in accordance with Article 31 ( 2 )
                                                                         of the Staff Regulations and, in so far as may be
                                                                         necessary, annul the decision of 27 December 1996
The Federation of Flotel, Restaurant and Cafe Proprietors                rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant on
of Wallonia challenges the Commission's declaration that                 9 September 1996,
a draft decree of the Wallonia Government concerning
social tourism in Wallonia which provides that 'recognized           — order the European Commission to take all
associations' within the meaning of Article 2 thereof may                appropriate steps to comply with the judgment to be
be entitled to subsidies while reserving up to 49 % of the               delivered in the case, so as to provide for the
actual occupation of each hotel to guests who do not fall                applicant's remuneration to be increased retroactively
within the scope of social tourism is compatible with the                and for the payment of default interest at the rate of
common market and its corresponding refusal to initiate                  8 % from the date of the applicant's entry into service,
the procedure provided for in Article 93 (2 ) of the EC
Treaty. The applicant points out in this regard that, in its         — order the Commission to pay all the costs.
present form, the wording of the draft allows social
tourism centres to compete directly and unfairly with                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
private sector undertakings.
                                                                     — Infringement of Article 31 (2 ) of the Staff Regulations
                                                                         The Commission failed, when fixing the applicant's
It claims that the figures referred to by the Commission in
                                                                         grade, to take into account the special circumstances
the letter containing the contested decision came solely
                                                                         prevailing — namely, the applicant's training and
from the Wallonia authority and do not correspond to the
facts and are inaccurate .                                               experience — and therefore failed to adopt a grading
                                                                         decision within the meaning of Article 31 ( 2 ) of the
                                                                         Staff Regulations .
The applicant considers that it should be allowed to                 — Breach of the principle of non-discrimination
submit a much more accurate analysis of the level of
planned subsidy, which would be in addition to the                       The Commission failed to observe the principle of
financial and fiscal structural advantages which social                  non-discrimination, in that it took account, when
tourism centres already enjoy as non-profit-making                       appointing members of the temporary staff to
associations .
                                                                         established posts, of the professional experience which
                                                                         those staff members had acquired at the time of their
                                                                         assignment to temporary posts, but failed to have
It therefore requests that the procedure for examining                   regard to the experience and training of probationer
State aid should be initiated on the basis of Article 93 ( 2 )           officials .
of the Treaty so that the interested parties, including the
applicant, can submit observations on the basis of a file            — Breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare and
made available to it and containing relevant information,                interests of officials and of the principle of sound
in particular statistical and financial information .                    administration
                                                                         By replying in French to the complaint lodged in the
                                                                         Dutch language, and by failing to inform the


title: Case T-46/10: Action brought on 28 January 2010 — Faci v Commission

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/53

         Action brought on 28 January 2010 — Faci v Commission
   (Case T-46/10)
   2010/C 100/79
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Faci SpA (Milano, Italy) (represented by: S. Piccardo, S. Crosby and S. Santoro, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               to annul the contested decision in so far as it finds that the Applicant colluded to fix prices, allocate markets through sales quotas and allocate customers;

               —

               to annul, or to substantially reduce the fine imposed on the Applicant;

               —

               to annul the decision in so far as it grants a reduction of the fine originally calculated for Bärlocher or to substantiallv reduce the reduction granted;

               —

               to order the Commission to pay the Applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission Decision of 11 November 2009 (Case No. COMP/38.589 — Heat Stabilisers) in so far as the Commission found the Applicant liable for an infringement of Article 8l EC (now Article 101 TFEU) and Article 53 EEA by colluding to fix prices, allocating markets through sales quotas and allocating customers in the ESBO/esters sector. Alternatively, the Applicant seeks a substantial reduction of the fine imposed upon it.
   In support of its application the Applicant claims that the Commission violated general principles of law, committed manifest errors of assessment, infringed the principles of good administration and equal treatment, acted without competence or infringed the principle of undistorted competition, infringed the obligation to state reasons and misapplied the 2006 Fining Guidelines. The applicant puts forward five pleas in law:

               —

               The Commission made a manifest error of assessment by attaching too little weight to the evidence prior to the Applicant’s participation in the cartel, whilst attaching too much weight to the other evidence. As a result, the significance of the fact that a fully operative hard core cartel involving price fixing, market allocation, customer allocation, injurious pricing and even collusive bribery, had been terminated before the Applicant’s participation began, was not properly assessed when calculating the gravity of the offence committed by the Applicant.

               —

               The Commission infringed the principle of equal treatment by treating the Applicant similarly to other undertakings, whereas the comparable gravity of its offence warranted substantially different treatment. The Commission imposed a differential of a mere 1 % of the value of sales in the market to be taken into account when setting the fine, despite the fact that the Applicant committed fewer offences and that none of them were hard core in nature and despite a finding of non-implementation by the Applicant. Furthermore, the Commission infringed the prohibition on discrimination by failing to inform the applicant that it was subject to investigation until much later than the other undertakings, thereby causing it prejudice.

               —

               The Commission infringed the principle of good administration with regard to the unreasonable duration of the administrative proceedings and its suspension of the proceedings to deal with an interlocutory matter. The principle of equal treatment was infringed as the Commission’s actions were unfairly prejudicial to the Applicant who, as a result, should have received a reduction in fine substantially greater than the 1 % received.

               —

               The Applicant challenges the reduction in fine (in excess of 95 %) granted to Bärlocher, which is an actual or potential competitor of the Applicant, on the grounds of lack of competence, infringement of the principle of equal treatment in the broad sense and of the duty to state reasons. In the Applicant’s view, the reduction in fine amounts to a subsidy, likely to lead to a distortion of competition. In addition, or in the alternative, the reasons for the reduction were not disclosed by the Commission in the version of the Decision notified to the Applicant, amounting to a breach of the duty to state reasons.

               —

               The fine imposed on it infringed the 2006 Fining Guidelines and attendant principles. When setting the fine, the Commission did not take proper account of the fact that the Applicant had not engaged in hard core cartel offences, unlike the other undertakings, and that it had demonstrated competitive behaviour on the relevant market throughout. The gravity of the Applicant’s infringement was mistakenly assessed by incorrectly imputing anticompetitive behaviour to it. In addition, the Commission failed to assess the actual role Faci played, failed to take account of the Applicant’s limited size, limited market power and inability to damage competition in comparison to the other undertakings and failed to rectify this by reference to point 37 of the 2006 Fining Guidelines, so as to apply them lawfully.


title: Case T-381/10: Action brought on 8 September 2010 — Sanitec Europe v Commission

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/41

         Action brought on 8 September 2010 — Sanitec Europe v Commission
   (Case T-381/10)
   ()
   2010/C 301/67
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Sanitec Europe Oy (Helsinki, Finland), (represented by: J. Killick, Barrister, I. Reynolds, Solicitor, P. Lindfelt and K. Struckmann, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul in whole or in part the Commission Decision No C(2010) 4185 final of 23 June 2010 in Case COMP/39092 — Bathroom Fittings and Fixtures;

               —

               Declare that the applicant bears no responsibility for anti-competitive activity in taps and, if necessary, annul the contested decision to the extent it may find the applicant (or its affiliates) so responsible;

               —

               Further or in the alternative, reduce the level of the fine;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs; and

               —

               Make any other order as may be appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of its application, the applicant seeks, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, the annulment of Commission Decision No C(2010) 4185 final of 23 June 2010 in Case COMP/39092 — Bathroom Fittings and Fixtures, relating to a an agreement between undertakings covering the Belgian, German, French, Italian, Dutch and Austrian markets of bathroom fittings and fixtures, concerning the sale prices and the exchange of sensitive commercial information, as well as, in the alternative, the reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on it.
   In support of its application, the applicant puts forward the following pleas in law:

               Firstly, the Commission failed to assess or investigate the economic context and thereby failed to establish the anti-competitive object of the alleged infringements to the requisite legal standard. It was not legally entitled to presume (or equally to find) that discussions (i) between non-competitors and (ii) about a non-economic price which no market actor pays had anti-competitive object.

               Secondly, the Commission would have been wrong to hold the applicant responsible for an infringement to taps given the first plea and the fact that neither the applicant nor its affiliates produce taps.

               In addition, the Commission failed to establish the existence of the alleged infringement to the requisite legal standard, notably because its analysis of the evidence was erroneous in France, Italy and in relation to Keramag Keramische Werke AG in Germany, for which the applicant was held liable.

               Fourthly, the Commission has not established an interest in finding an infringement in the Netherlands that was time-barred.

               Furthermore, the Commission failed (i) to adequately set out the allegations in the Statement of Objections and (ii) to retain and disclose relevant and potentially exculpatory evidence. These procedural failings irretrievably harmed the applicant’s rights of defence.

               As an additional plea in law, the applicant could not be held directly and individually liable for a fine of EUR 9 873 060. The Applicant was not itself found guilty of any illegal conduct. It was only liable as a parent company and as such cannot be directly and individually liable for a fine. Moreover, the possibility of direct and individual liability was not set forth in the Statement of Objections, which is a procedural irregularity that warrants annulment.

               Moreover, the applicant was wrongly held jointly liable for the actions of its affiliate Keramag Keramische Werke AG. The applicant did not own all the shares of Keramag Keramische Werke AG during the relevant period and was not in a position to, and did not, exercise decisive influence over it.

               At the same time, the investigation in this case was selective and arbitrary in nature given that many companies that are alleged to have participated in the supposedly illegal meetings or discussions were never prosecuted.

               Finally, the fine was unjustifiably and disproportionately high, in particular due to the absence of implementation or effects on the market. The Applicant invites the Court to exercise its unlimited jurisdiction under Article 261 TFEU to reduce the fine.


title: Case C-479/06: Order of the President of the Court of 19 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/25

         Order of the President of the Court of 19 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-479/06) (1)

   (2007/C 199/42)

      Language of the case: Greek

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

      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.


title: Case C-419/02: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of  21 February 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division) — BUPA Hospitals Ltd, Goldsborough Developments Ltd v Commissioners of Customs & Excise (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 10(2) — Chargeability of VAT — Payment of amounts on account — Prepayments for future supplies of pharmaceutical products and prostheses)

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 February 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division) — BUPA Hospitals Ltd, Goldsborough Developments Ltd v Commissioners of Customs & Excise
   (Case C-419/02) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Article 10(2) - Chargeability of VAT - Payment of amounts on account - Prepayments for future supplies of pharmaceutical products and prostheses)
   (2006/C 131/02)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: BUPA Hospitals Ltd, Goldsborough Developments Ltd

      Defendant: Commissioners of Customs & Excise
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice, Chancery Division — Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145 p. 1) — Concepts of ‘supply of goods’ and ‘economic activities’ — Contracts between companies for the supply of pharmaceutical products and prostheses having the sole aim of obtaining a tax advantage.
   Operative part of the judgment
   Prepayments of the kind at issue in the main proceedings whereby lump sums are paid for goods referred to in general terms in a list which may be altered at any time by agreement between the buyer and the seller and from which the buyer may possibly select articles, on the basis of an agreement which he may unilaterally resile from at any time, thereupon recovering the unused balance of the prepayments, do not fall within the scope of the second subparagraph of Article 10(2) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995.

      (1)  OJ C 31, 08.02.2003


title: Case T-476/15: Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2016 — European Food v EUIPO — Société des produits Nestlé (FITNESS) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark FITNESS — Absolute grounds for refusal — No distinctive character — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c), Article 52(1)(a) and Article 76 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Rule 37(b)(iv) and Rule 50(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal)

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2016 — European Food v EUIPO — Société des produits Nestlé (FITNESS)
   (Case T-476/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark FITNESS - Absolute grounds for refusal - No distinctive character - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c), Article 52(1)(a) and Article 76 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Rule 37(b)(iv) and Rule 50(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal))
   (2016/C 410/23)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Food SA (Drăgănești, Romania) (represented by: I. Speciac, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Rajh, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Jaeger-Lenz, A. Lambrecht and S. Cobet-Nüse, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 June 2015 (Case R 2542/2013-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between European Food and Société des produits Nestlé.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 19 June 2015 (Case R 2542/2013-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between European Food SA and Société des produits Nestlé SA;

               2.

               Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by European Food;

               3.

               Orders Société des produits Nestlé to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.


title: Case C-426/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 28 October 2009 — Ioannis Georgiou Askoxilakis v Ipourgos Ethnikis Pedias kai Thriskevmaton

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 28 October 2009 — Ioannis Georgiou Askoxilakis v Ipourgos Ethnikis Pedias kai Thriskevmaton
   (Case C-426/09)
   2010/C 24/39
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Simvoulio tis Epikratias

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ioannis Georgiou Askoxilakis

      Defendant: Ipourgos Ethnikis Pedias kai Thriskevmaton

      Question referred

   Does the term ‘professional experience’ in Article 4(1)(b) of Directive 89/48/EEC on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16), as amended by Article 1(3) of Directive 2001/19/EC (OJ 2001 L 206, p. 1), and prior to its repeal pursuant to Article 62 of Directive 2005/36/EC (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22), correspond to the term ‘professional experience’ defined in Article 1(e) of that Directive and can it be understood to include experience which exhibits the following cumulative characteristics:

               (a)

               it was acquired by the person concerned after obtaining a diploma granting access to a specific regulated profession in the Member State of origin;

               (b)

               it was acquired in the context of the exercise of the profession which is the subject of an application filed in reliance in reliance on Directive 89/48/EEC (see the terms ‘the profession concerned’, ‘la profession concernée’, ‘der betreffende Beruf’ used in the English, French and German versions of the Directive respectively) and

               (c)

               it was acquired during the lawful pursuit of the professional activity, that is to say, under the terms and conditions of the relevant legislation of the Member State in which it was acquired, thereby excluding experience acquired in the profession concerned in the host Member State before the application was accepted, because the profession concerned cannot be lawfully pursued in the host Member State before the application is accepted (subject of course to Article 5 of the Directive, which allows the applicant, subject to conditions, in order to undergo professional education and training not undergone in the Member State of origin, to pursue the profession in the host Member State with the assistance of a qualified member of the profession)?


title: Case C-89/07: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 March 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Employment in the public service — Posts of master (captain) and officer (chief mate) on board all ships flying the flag of a Member State — Condition of nationality)

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/8

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 March 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
   (Case C-89/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Employment in the public service - Posts of master (captain) and officer (chief mate) on board all ships flying the flag of a Member State - Condition of nationality)
   (2008/C 107/11)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and O. Christmann, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Article 39(4) EC — Free movement of workers — Exercise of public power — Requirement of French nationality for the pursuit of employment as master (captain) and officer (chief mate) on all vessels flying the French flag — Incompatible with Community law
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by maintaining in its legislation a requirement of French nationality for access to the posts of master (captain) and officer (chief mate) on all vessels flying the French flag, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 39 EC.

               2.

               Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.


title: Case C-105/06: Action brought on  22 February 2006  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/21

         Action brought on 22 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-105/06)
   (2006/C 86/41)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by B. Schima and J. Hottiaux, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 May 2003 on the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport (1) the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;

               2.

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for implementing Directive 2003/30/EC ended on 31 December 2004.

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 123, p. 42.


title: Case C-11/10: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 February 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Marishipping and Transport BV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 — Common Customs Tariff — Customs duties — Relief — Pharmaceutical substances — Composition — Restrictions)

text:
               2.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 February 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Marishipping and Transport BV
   (Case C-11/10) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 - Common Customs Tariff - Customs duties - Relief - Pharmaceutical substances - Composition - Restrictions)
   2011/C 103/10
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Defendant: Marishipping and Transport BV

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) — Interpretation of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1) — Pharmaceutical substances exempted from customs duties — Substance not presented in its pure form — Restrictions

      Operative part of the judgment

   Part One, Section II, C, 1(i) of 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, as amended by Commission Regulations (EC) Nos 2031/2001 of 6 August 2001 and 1832/2002 of 1 August 2002, must be interpreted as meaning that a pharmaceutical substance listed in Annex 3 of Part Three of Annex I, to which other substances have been added, in particular pharmaceutical substances, no longer qualifies for the duty-free treatment which would have applied if such a substance had been in its pure form.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.


title: Case T-407/15: Action brought on 27 July 2015 — Monster Energy v OHIM — Hot-Can Intellectual Property (HotoGo self-heating can technology)

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/59

         Action brought on 27 July 2015 — Monster Energy v OHIM — Hot-Can Intellectual Property (HotoGo self-heating can technology)
   (Case T-407/15)
   (2015/C 311/64)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hot-Can Intellectual Property Sdn Bhd (Cheras, Malaysia)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘HotoGo self-heating can technology’ — Application for registration No 11 418 101

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 May 2015 in Case R 1028/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 21 February 2014 in Opposition No B2178567;

               —

               reject the opposed mark in its entirety;

               —

               order OHIM to pay its own costs and those of the applicant.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case F-18/06: Action brought on  13 February 2006  — Duyster v Commission

text:
               1.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 154/23

         Action brought on 13 February 2006 — Duyster v Commission
   (Case F-18/06)
   (2006/C 154/56)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Tinike Duyster (Oetrange, Luxembourg) (represented by: W.H.A.M. van den Muijsenbergh, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul the Appointing Authority's decision of 17 November 2005 to send the applicant on parental leave from 8 November 2004 until an unspecified date;

               —

               Annul the Appointing Authority's decision of 6 April 2005;

               —

               Annul the decision to grant parental leave from 1 November 2004 to 30 April 2005 inclusive, and/or the salary slip for November 2004, and/or the Commission's decision of 30 November 2004 not to take account of the request for deferment or cancellation of the parental leave;

               —

               Find that from 1 November 2004 (or 8 November 2004) until 30 April 2005 inclusive the applicant had all the substantive rights connected with the active service of an official and that therefore payment according to her grade and step must be made to her with retroactive effect;

               —

               Find that this payment must be made with interest for late payment;

               —

               Find that the applicant may still request parental leave (even if, after the date when judgment is delivered, her son is more than or nearly 12 years old) since the failure to approve the request submitted is the Commission's fault; alternatively, that, since the Commission is responsible for the applicant's inability to take parental leave, she must be paid compensation corresponding to the loss of the benefits for parental leave, insurance, seniority, pension rights, appraisal reports and promotion opportunities; or, in the further alternative, that she must be paid damages for the period of parental leave not taken for loss of the benefits for parental leave, insurance and pension rights;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay compensation for the material and non-material damage caused by the decision of 17 November 2005, assessed at EUR 4 000 and EUR 5 000 respectively;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay EUR 2 500 as compensation for the uncertainty caused to the applicant regarding her status as an official and the non-material damage resulting from that uncertainty;

               —

               Compensate the applicant for the value of seven days of parental leave;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In Case F-51/05, (1) the applicant already challenged the fact that the Commission granted her parental leave for the period from 1 November 2004 to 30 April 2005. In this case, she challenges the Appointing Authority's decision, taken in the meantime, of 17 November 2005, which set the date of the start of the parental leave as 8 November 2004.
   In support of her action, the applicant submits that the decision of 17 November 2005 infringed the Treaty, the Staff Regulations and a number of legal principles. In particular, according to the applicant, that decision: (i) contains errors including, for example, an incorrect statement about a Court of First Instance case; (ii) is inaccurate for a number of reasons including, among others, a failure to specify on which of the applicant's complaints the decision is based, a failure to include the date of the end of the parental leave and a failure to include a description of the decision's effects; (iii) is drafted in a language other than that used by the applicant, in breach of Article 21 EC; (iv) does not cite any legal basis; (v) contains contradictions; (vi) states insufficient reasons; (vii) has retroactive effect although there was no longer any application for parental leave pending; (viii) fails to take account of the fact that the Appointing Authority's original decisions over the whole period were unlawful; (ix) takes no account of the application to defer the parental leave.
   Furthermore, the wording of the contested decision creates the impression that the applicant is at least in part responsible for the muddle, whereas she has acted very carefully and produced a large number of documents.

      (1)  OJ C 217, 3.9.2005 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under number T-249/05 and transferred to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal by order of 15.12.2005).


title: Case C-497/07 P: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 June 2008 — Philip Morris Products SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Three-dimensional mark representing the shape of a packet of cigarettes — Refusal to register)

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/12

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 June 2008 — Philip Morris Products SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-497/07 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Three-dimensional mark representing the shape of a packet of cigarettes - Refusal to register)
   (2008/C 285/20)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Philip Morris Products SA (represented by: T. Van Innis, avocat)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Rassat, Agent)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 12 September 2007 in Case T-140/06 Philip Morris Products v OHIM by which the Court dismissed the action brought by the applicant against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 February 2006 concerning its application for registration of the shape of a packet of cigarettes as a Community trade mark — Infringement of Articles 4 and 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1) — Distinctive character of a three-dimensional shape — Ways of embodying that shape and time at which it is to be assessed
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed;

               2.

               Philip Morris SA shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 22 of 26.1.2008.


title: Case C-466/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Trento (Italy) lodged on 3 August 2017 — Chiara Motter v Provincia autonoma di Trento

text:
               16.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Trento (Italy) lodged on 3 August 2017 — Chiara Motter v Provincia autonoma di Trento
   (Case C-466/17)
   (2017/C 347/18)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Trento

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Chiara Motter

      Defendant: Provincia autonoma di Trento

      Questions referred

               1.

               For the purposes of applying the principle of non-discrimination pursuant to clause 4 of the framework agreement, is the requirement to pass an initial objective test of professional qualifications in a public selection procedure a factor that can be ascribed to the training requirements that the national court must take into account in order to determine whether there is comparability between the situation of a permanent worker and that of a fixed-term worker and in order to decide whether this constitutes an objective ground capable of justifying a difference in treatment between permanent workers and fixed-term workers?

               2.

               Does the principle of non-discrimination under clause 4 of the framework agreement preclude a national provision (such as that contained in Article 485(1) of Legislative Decree No 297 of 16 April 1994) which lays down that, in order to determine seniority at the time of admittance to the permanent staff under a permanent employment contract, the first four years of service performed on a fixed-term basis are counted in full but subsequent periods are reduced by one-third for legal purposes and by two-thirds for salary purposes if one considers the absence, for the purposes of fixed-term employment, of a requirement to pass an initial objective test of professional qualifications in a public selection procedure?

               3.

               Does the principle of non-discrimination under clause 4 of the framework agreement preclude a national provision (such as that contained in Article 485(1) of Legislative Decree No 297 of 16 April 1994) which lays down that, in order to determine seniority at the time of admittance to the permanent staff under a permanent employment contract, the first four years of service performed on a fixed-term basis are counted in full but subsequent periods are reduced by one-third for legal purposes and by two-thirds for salary purposes, if one considers the objective of preventing reverse discrimination against career civil servants recruited after passing a general competition?


title: Case T-113/07: Action brought on 18 April 2007 — Toshiba v Commission

text:
               23.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 140/26

         Action brought on 18 April 2007 — Toshiba v Commission
   (Case T-113/07)
   (2007/C 140/47)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Toshiba Corp. (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: J. MacLennan, Solicitor, A. Schulz and J. Borum, laywers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant requests the Court to:

               —

               annul Commission's decision of 24 January 2007 — Case COMP/F/38.899 — Gas Insulated Switchgear; or

               —

               annul the Commission's decision as far as it relates to Toshiba; or

               —

               amend Articles 1 and 2 of the decision to annul or substantially reduce the fine imposed on Toshiba; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred in connection with the bank guarantee.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant lodged an action for annulment, under Article 230 EC against Commission decision of 24 January 2007 (Case COMP/F/38.899 — Gas insulated switchgear — C(2006) 6762 final), on the basis of which the Commission found the applicant, among other undertakings, liable to have infringed Article 81(1) EC and from 1 January 1994 also Article 53 EEA in the gas insulated switchgear sector (hereinafter ‘GIS’), through a set of agreements and concerted practices consisting of (a) market sharing, (b) the allocation of quotas and maintenance of the respective market shares, (c) the allocation of individual GIS projects (bid-rigging) to designated producers and the manipulation of the bidding procedure for those projects, (d) price fixing, (e) agreements to cease licence agreements with non-cartel members and (f) exchanges of sensitive market information. In the alternative, the applicant applies for a cancellation or reduction of the fines imposed.
   According to the applicant, the Commission appears to have based its findings on three arrangements concluding on the existence of a world-wide cartel. Even if that were the case, the applicant submits that the Commission has no jurisdiction over behaviour which might restrict competition outside the EEA.
   The applicant claims that the Commission has failed to prove to the requisite legal standard that the applicant took part in any agreement or concerted practice not to sell in Europe, or that European GIS suppliers compensated the Japanese companies for not entering Europe by way of ‘loading’ European projects into the European ‘GQ’ (1) quota. The applicant further submits that the Commission has relied for corroboration on equally indirect, vague, unsubstantiated evidence consisting mainly of oral statements made by the leniency applicant and, in addition, has allegedly ignored evidence provided to contradict the incriminating statements.
   Moreover, whereas the applicant does not deny that it was part of the ‘GQ agreement’ it contends that the agreement at stake was a world-wide agreement not covering Europe and over which the Commission lacked jurisdiction. The applicant claims that the Commission, in its attempt the bring the applicant under its jurisdiction, shifted the focus of its legal assessment entirely on whether there had been a ‘common understanding’ (that the Japanese would refrain form entering the European market that the European companies would equally refrain from competing in Japan) and whether certain European projects were systematically reported to the Japanese companies or ‘loaded’ into the European ‘GQ’ as part of this ‘common understanding’. Hence, it is claimed that the Commission has not established that the applicant should be held responsible for the series of infringements at European level and has allegedly committed a manifest error of appraisal.
   It is further submitted that the contested decision is vitiated by procedural irregularities. To this extent, the applicant suggests that its rights of defence have been compromised through the Commission's failure to provide adequate reasoning, to grant access to evidence and distortion of evidence.
   In the alternative, the applicant submits that the Commission's failure to properly apportion responsibility between the European and Japanese companies vitiated the method used for assessing the fines for the addressees of the decision. On this account, the applicant sustains that the Commission did not properly assess either the gravity or the duration of the infringement and thus, has unfairly discriminated against the applicant.

      (1)  ‘G’ stands for ‘gear’ and ‘Q’ for ‘quota’.


title: Case C-346/08: Action brought on 25 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
               11.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/9

         Action brought on 25 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-346/08)
   (2008/C 260/16)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Oliver and A. Alcover San Pedro, Agents)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by refusing to apply Directive 2001/80/EC (1) on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants to the Lynemouth Power Plant, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;

               —

               order United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission submits that the coal-fired power plant at Lynemouth in Northumberland constitutes a combustion plant within the meaning of the directive. Initially, the United Kingdom shared this view but, following a radical change of position, now vigorously contests it.
   If the Lynemouth power plant is covered by the directive, as the Commission claims, then it is plainly an ‘existing plant’ within the meaning of Article 2(10) of the directive. It is common ground between the parties that the original operating licence was granted before 1 July 1987. It follows that, in the Commission's view, emissions from the plant should have been significantly reduced by 1 January 2008 in accordance with Article 4(3).
   The Commission submits that, by failing to apply the directive to the Lynemouth power plant, the United Kingdom has acted in breach of that directive. The failure to significantly reduce emissions from the plant by 1 January 2008 constitutes a continuing breach of Community law.

      (1)  JO L 309, p. 1.


title: Composition of the Court

text:
Avis juridique important

|

E1994X0728(01)

Composition of the Court

Official Journal C 208 , 28/07/1994 P. 0008 - 0008

Composition of the Court (94/C 208/10)1. Composition of the CourtAt a formal sitting on 4 January 1994, Messrs Bjørn Haug, Thór Vilhjálmsson, Kurt Herndl, Sven Norberg and Leif Sevón, appointed as Judges of the EFTA Court by decision of the Governments of the EFTA States of 16 June 1993, took the oath according to Protocol 5, Article 2 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice (the EFTA Agreement).In accordance with Article 30 as adjusted by the Protocol adjusting the EFTA Agreement and Protocol 5, Article 3 of the EFTA Agreement, Messrs Thór Vilhjálmsson and Kurt Herndl were determined by lot as Judges whose terms of office are to expire after the first three years.2. Election of the President of the CourtOn 4 January 1994, the Judges elected Judge Leif Sevón as President of the Court, pursuant to Article 30 of the EFTA Agreement.3. Appointment of the RegistrarAt a formal sitting on 4 January 1994, Ms Karin Hökborg, appointed as Registrar of the EFTA Court pursuant to Protocol 5, Article 9 of the EFTA Agreement, took the oath provided for in Protocol 5, Article 10 of the Agreement.4. Appointment of the Assistant RegistrarThe EFTA Court has appointed Mr Heikki Kanninen as Assistant Registrar pursuant to Article 11 of the Rules of Procedure of the EFTA Court.


title: Case T-465/15: Order of the General Court of 14 September 2016 — Makhlouf v Council

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/33

         Order of the General Court of 14 September 2016 — Makhlouf v Council
   (Case T-465/15) (1)

   (2016/C 410/51)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.


C 7/18                  EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   11.1.2003
Since the United Kingdom has not informed the Commission                         Removal from the register of Case C-367/01 ( 1)
of the provisions adopted to comply fully with the Directive,
and since the Commission is in possession of no other                                              (2003/C 7/35)
information enabling it to conclude that the United Kingdom
has adopted the necessary provisions, it is compelled to assume
that the United Kingdom has not yet adopted such provisions              By order of 16 October 2002 the President of the Court of
and has thus failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive.       Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                         from the register of Case C-367/01: Commission of the
( 1) OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5                                                  European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
                                                                         (1 ) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.
        Removal from the register of Case C-374/00 ( 1)
                           (2003/C 7/33)                                         Removal from the register of Case C-371/01 ( 1)
                                                                                (2003/C 7/36)
By order of 23 October 2002 the President of the Sixth
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
ordered the removal from the register of Case C-374/00:                  By order of 23 October 2002 the President of the Third
Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic                        Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
Republic.                                                                ordered the removal from the register of Case C-371/01:
                                                                         Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic
                                                                         Republic.
( 1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.
                                                                         (1 ) OJ C 348 of 08.12.2001.
      Removal from the register of Case C-448/00 P (1)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-158/02 ( 1)
                           (2003/C 7/34)
                                                                                (2003/C 7/37)
By order of 4 November 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                  By order of 25 October 2002 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-448/00 P: Commission of the                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
European Communities v BP Chemicals Ltd.                                 from the register of Case C-158/02 (Referral for a preliminary
                                                                         ruling by the Tribunale di Roma): Lidia Marcaletti v Istituto
                                                                         nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS).
( 1) OJ C 28 of 27.01.2001.
                                                                         (1 ) OJ C 144 of 15.06.2002.


title: Action brought on 29 April 1997 by J. P. W. Vrencken against the European Community (Case T-145/97)

text:
No C 199/38                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   28 . 6 . 97
is liable for the loss of income which he has consequently                  residing at Beek ( Netherlands ), represented by E. H.
suffered and may suffer in the future, since, had he been                   Pijnacker Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, with an address
in possession of a quota at the time of relocating his                      for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden,
business activities, he could have transferred it to his new                62 Avenue Guillaume .
holding.
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should :
(') Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 1546/88 of 3 June 1988
    laying down detailed rules for the application of the additional        — order the Community to pay to the applicant the sum
    levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation ( EEC ) No 804/68
    ( OJ No L 139, 4 . 6 . 1988 , p. 12 ), as amended by Commission              of Fl 120 559 ( namely, the amount resulting from the
    Regulation ( EEC ) No 1033/89 of 20 April 1989 ( OJ No L 110,                application of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 ),
    21 . 4 . 1989 , p. 27 ).                                                     together with an amount corresponding to the damage
                                                                                sustained by the applicant in respect of tax
                                                                                disadvantages, monetary depreciation and loss of
                                                                                income, and interest on the principal sum at the rate
                                                                                of 8 % per annum from 19 May 1992 until the date of
                                                                                payment in full,
Action brought on 29 April 1997 by C. de Keijzer against
                       the European Community                               — order the Community to pay the costs .
                             ( Case T-144/97 )
                                ( 97/C 199/87 )
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                           The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                                                                            Case T-532/ 93 .
An action against the European Community was brought
 before the Court of First Instance of the European
 Communities on 29 April 1997 by C. de Keijzer, residing
 at Noordgouwe ( Netherlands ), represented by E. H.
 Pijnacker Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, with an address
 for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden,                   Action brought on 30 April 1997 by J. M. M. Bakkers
 62 Avenue Guillaume .                                                      against the Council of the European Union and the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
 The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                        ( Case T-146/97 )
 — order the Community to pay to the applicant the sum                                                ( 97/C 199/ 89 )
      of Fl 118 995 ( namely, the amount resulting from the
      application of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 ),                                         (Language of the case: Dutch)
      together with an amount corresponding to the damage
      sustained by the applicant in respect of tax                           An action against the European Community was brought
      disadvantages, monetary depreciation and loss of                       before the Court of First Instance of the European
      income, and interest on the principal sum at the rate                  Communities on 30 April 1997 by J. M. M. Bakkers,
      of 8 % per annum from 19 May 1992 until the date of                    residing at Diessen (Netherlands ), represented by A. A. M.
      payment in full ,                                                      Beek, of the Tilburg Bar.
 — order the Community to pay the costs .                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                         — declare that the European Economic Community is
                                                                                liable in damages to the applicant,
 The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
 Case T-532/93 .
                                                                             — declare that the European Economic Community is
                                                                                liable to the applicant for the loss of income suffered
                                                                                by him as a result of the application of Council
                                                                                Regulation ( EEC ) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 and
                                                                                of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 764/89 of 20 March
                                                                                1989 amending Regulation ( EEC ) No 857/84,
 Action brought on 29 April 1997 by J. P. W. Vrencken                             inasmuch as those regulations contain(ed ) no provision
                 against the European Community                                   enabling a representative reference quantity to be
                              ( Case T-145 /97 )                                  granted to SLOM transferees who, pursuant to an
                                  97/C 199/ 88 )                                  undertaking given in accordance with Council
                                                                                Regulation ( EEC ) No 1078/77, did not supply any
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)                                milk during the reference year selected by the Member
                                                                                State concerned,
 An action against the European Community was brought
  before the Court of First Instance of the European                         — declare that the applicant has suffered a loss of income
  Communities on 29 April 1997 by J. P. W. Vrencken,                              amounting to the difference between, on the one hand,


Important legal notice

|

E2001P0004

Request for an Advisory Opinion to the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík District Court) by decision of that court of 6 April 2001 in the case of Karl K. Karlsson hf. v Republic of Iceland (Case E-4/01)

Official Journal C 242 , 30/08/2001 P. 0005 - 0005

Request for an Advisory Opinion to the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík District Court) by decision of that court of 6 April 2001 in the case of Karl K. Karlsson hf. v Republic of Iceland(Case E-4/01)(2001/C 242/09)A request has been made to the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík District Court), which was received at the Court on 12 April 2001, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Karl K. Karlsson hf. v Republic of Iceland on the following questions:1. Should the provisions of the EEA Agreement, in particular Articles 11 and 16, be interpreted as meaning that Iceland was obliged to abolish the State monopoly for the import and wholesale distribution of alcoholic beverages as of the commencement of the Agreement on 1 January 1994?2. If the aforementioned question is answered in the affirmative, is Iceland liable for compensation to a legal person which, at the time of entry into force of the Agreement, was the exclusive agent for a specific type of alcoholic beverage, for the financial loss it incurred due to the fact that the import and wholesale distribution of the alcoholic beverage was not permitted until nearly two years after the entry into force of the EEA Agreement, provided that the conditions for liability for compensation according to the case-law of the EFTA Court and Court of Justice of the European Communities are fulfilled?3. If questions 1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative, are the conditions for liability for compensation according to the case-law of the aforementioned courts fulfilled?


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 March 2002 in Joined Cases T-92/00 and T-103/00, Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava and Others v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Concept of State aid — Tax measures — Selective nature — Justification owing to the nature or scheme of the tax system — Misuse of powers)

text:
C 156/18                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        29.6.2002
2.     Orders the Commission to pay the costs.                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 26 February 2002
(1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000 and C 211 of 22.7.2000.
                                                                          in Case T-169/00, Esedra SPRL v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                                                                          (Public contract for the supply of services — Day nursery
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              management services — Principle of non-discrimination —
                                                                          Contract notice — Contract documents — Reasons for
                                                                               decision not to award contract — Misuse of powers)
                          of 6 March 2002
in Joined Cases T-92/00 and T-103/00, Territorio Histórico                                        (2002/C 156/34)
de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava and Others v
         Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(State aid — Concept of State aid — Tax measures —
Selective nature — Justification owing to the nature or
         scheme of the tax system — Misuse of powers)
                          (2002/C 156/33)
                                                                          In Case T-169/00: Esedra SPRL, established in Brussels
                                                                          (Belgium), represented by G. Vandersanden, E. Gillet and
                    (Language of the case: Spanish)                       L. Levi, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
                                                                          against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                                                                          initially by X. Lewis and L. Parpala, and, subsequently, H. van
                                                                          Lier and L. Parpala) — application first, for the suspension of
In Joined Cases T-92/00, Territorio Histórico de Álava —                operation of the Commission’s decision not to award to the
Diputación Foral de Álava, represented by A. Creus Carreras             applicant the public contract relating to invitation to tender
and B. Uriarte Valiente, lawyers, and T-103/00 Ramondı́n                  No 99/52/IX.D.1, notified to the applicant by letter of 31 May
SA, established in Logroño (Spain), Ramondı́n Cápsulas SA,              2000, and the Commission’s decision to award the contract to
established in Laguardia (Spain), represented by J. Lazcano-              a group of Italian companies represented by Centro Studi
Iturburu, lawyer, against Commission of the European Com-                 Antonio Manieri Srl, notified to the applicant by letter of
munities (Agents: F. Santaolalla, G. Rozet and G. Valero                  9 June 2000, and, second, for compensation for the damage
Jordana) — application for the annulment of Commission                    allegedly caused by those decisions — the Court of First
Decision 2000/795/EC of 22 December 1999 on the State aid                 Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Lindh, President of
implemented by Spain for Ramondı́n SA and Ramondı́n                       the Chamber, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke, Judges;
Cápsulas SA (OJ 2000 L 318, p. 36) — the Court of First                  B. Pastor, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judg-
Instance (Third Chamber, Extended Composition), composed                  ment on 26 February 2002, in which it:
of J. Azizi, President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts, V. Tiili,
R.M. Moura Ramos and M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Plingers, Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 March
2002, in which it:                                                        1.    Dismisses the application.
1.     Dismisses the actions.                                             2.    Orders the applicant to pay its own costs and those of the
                                                                                Commission, including the costs incurred in the proceedings for
                                                                                interim measures.
2.     Orders the applicants to pay their own costs and also those
       incurred by the Commission.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.
( 1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.


title: Case F-76/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 17 December 2015 — López Cabeza v Commission (Civil Service — Open competition — Competition notice EPSO/AD/248/13 — Non-inclusion on the reserve list — Insufficient mark in the assessment centre tests — Action for annulment — Breach of the competition notice — Illegality of a test)

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/98

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 17 December 2015 — López Cabeza v Commission
   (Case F-76/14) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Open competition - Competition notice EPSO/AD/248/13 - Non-inclusion on the reserve list - Insufficient mark in the assessment centre tests - Action for annulment - Breach of the competition notice - Illegality of a test))
   (2016/C 048/113)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Alfonso López Cabeza (Valladolid, Spain) (represented by: G. Suárez de Castro and M. Orman, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and G. Gattinara)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision not to include the applicant on the reserve list for Competition EPSO/AD/248/13.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded.

               2.

               The European Commission shall bear its own costs and is ordered to pay all the costs incurred by Mr López Cabeza.

      (1)  OJ C 388, 3.11.2014, p. 30.


title: Case T-43/12: Action brought on 30 January 2012 — Hamcho and Hamcho International v Council

text:
               17.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/25

         Action brought on 30 January 2012 — Hamcho and Hamcho International v Council
   (Case T-43/12)
   2012/C 80/43
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Mohamad Hamcho (Damascus, Syria) and Hamcho International (Damascus) (represented by: M. Ponsard, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               allow the present action to be dealt with under an expedited procedure;

               —

               annul, in so far as these measures relate to the applicants:

                           —

                           Decision 2011/273/CFSP, as supplemented and amended to date, including all the decisions cited at point 17 above;

                           —

                           Regulation No 442/2011, as supplemented and amended to date, including all the regulations cited at point 18 above;

                           —

                           Decision 2011/782/CFSP, as supplemented and amended to date, in particular by Implementing Decision 2012/37/CFSP, in accordance with point 19 above;

                           —

                           Regulation No 36/2012, as supplemented and amended to date, in particular by Implementing Regulation No 55/2012, in accordance with point 20 above;

               —

               annul the Council’s decision contained in its letter to the applicants of 21 December 2011, in so far as it maintains their inclusion in the lists at issue;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-653/11 Jaber v Council.


title: Case T-368/09 P: Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2010 — Sevenier v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Resignation — Commission’s refusal to accept the withdrawal of the resignation and refer the matter to the invalidity committee — Time-limit for complaint — Lateness — No excusable error)

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/35

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2010 — Sevenier v Commission
   (Case T-368/09 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Resignation - Commission’s refusal to accept the withdrawal of the resignation and refer the matter to the invalidity committee - Time-limit for complaint - Lateness - No excusable error)
   2010/C 234/62
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Roberto Sevenier (Paris, France) (represented by: É. Boigelot and L. Defalque, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the order of 8 July 2009 of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) in Case F-62/08 Sevenier v Commission (not yet published in the ECR) to have that order set aside

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Mr Roberto Sevenier to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission on the appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.


title: Case C-319/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d'appel de Paris (France) lodged on 29 June 2015 — Overseas Financial Limited, Oaktree Finance Limited v Ministre de l’économie, de l'industrie et du numérique

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/25

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d'appel de Paris (France) lodged on 29 June 2015 — Overseas Financial Limited, Oaktree Finance Limited v Ministre de l’économie, de l'industrie et du numérique
   (Case C-319/15)
   (2015/C 279/31)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour administrative d'appel de Paris

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Overseas Financial Limited, Oaktree Finance Limited

      Defendant: Ministre de l'économie, de l'industrie et du numérique

      Question referred

   Do the provisions of Article 17 of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 (1) infringe Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the first article of the first additional protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which protect the right to property, read together with Article 47 of that Charter and the first paragraph of Article 6 of the Convention, which guarantee the implementation of a judicial decision within a reasonable period of time, particularly to the extent that those provisions do not provide for the release of frozen funds where a third person relies on a right to payment of debt acquired by virtue of a judicial decision ordering a person designated in a freezing measure to pay an indemnity to him, given at the end of proceedings commenced before that designation, and that those two persons have no relationship, even indirect, connected to the activities covered by the regulation?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1).


               25.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 334/32

         Action brought on 17 July 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
   (Case E-13/14)
   (2014/C 334/13)
   An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 17 July 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Markus Schneider and Maria Moustakali, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Rue Belliard 35, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               Declare that by failing to adopt, and/or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith of, all the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 21c of Annex XVIII to the EEA Agreement (Council Directive 2004/113/EC of 13 December 2004 implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by way of Protocol 1 and by Joint Committee Decision No 147/2009 thereto, within the time prescribed, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement.

               2.

               Order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.

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

               —

               The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than on 26 August 2013, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 26 June 2013 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Council Directive 2004/113/EC of 13 December 2004 implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services) (‘the Act’), as referred to at point 21c of Annex XVIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 17 of the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to adopt, and/or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority of, all the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.


title: Case T-253/15: Action brought on 21 May 2015 — Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona v Commission

text:
               27.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/36

         Action brought on 21 May 2015 — Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona v Commission
   (Case T-253/15)
   (2015/C 245/42)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. de Juan Casadevall, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Forms of order sought

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               in the alternative, if the main claim is rejected, annul the contested decision insofar as it does not limit the recovery order to indirect acquisitions made after 21 December 2007, and does not recognise the right to full application of tax concessions during the entire period provided for in Article 12.5 of the Royal Legislative Decree 4/2004 of 5 March approving the Texto Refundido de la Ley del Impuesto sobre Sociedades (the consolidated text of the Spanish Company Tax Act), and

               —

               order the European Commission to bear the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The contested decision in these proceedings is the same as that in Cases T-12/15, Banco de Santander and Santusa v Commission, and T-252/15 Ferrovial SA and others v Commission.
   The pleas and main arguments relied on are similar to those already raised in those cases.
   It is claimed in particular that there was an error in law in the application of the selectivity criterion, that there was a misuse of powers and an infringement of the principles of equality and legitimate expectations.


C 184/30              EN                     Official Journal of the European Union                                     2.8.2003
       Removal from the register of Case C-291/02 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-354/02 (1)
                         (2003/C 184/62)                                                     (2003/C 184/66)
By order of 28 May 2003 the President of the Court of Justice        By order of 2 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the             of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-291/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling        register of Case C-354/02: Commission of the European
by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Rethmann Photo Recycling             Communities v Republic of Austria.
GmbH v Bundesminister für Land- und Forstwirtschaft,
Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 305 of 07.12.2002.
(1) OJ C 261 of 26.10.2002.
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-355/02 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-311/02 (1)                                        (2003/C 184/67)
                         (2003/C 184/63)
                                                                     By order of 2 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                     of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
By order of 6 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice        register of Case C-355/02: Commission of the European
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the             Communities v Republic of Austria.
register of Case C-311/02: Commission of the European
Communities v Hellenic Republic.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 305 of 07.12.2002.
(1) OJ C 247 of 12.10.2002.
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-364/02 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-351/02 (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 184/68)
                         (2003/C 184/64)
                                                                     By order of 2 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
By order of 5 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice        of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the             register of Case C-364/02: Commission of the European
register of Case C-351/02: Commission of the European                Communities v Hellenic Republic.
Communities v Hellenic Republic.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.
( ) OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.
 1
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-367/02 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-353/02 ( )  1
                                                                                (2003/C 184/69)
                         (2003/C 184/65)
                                                                     By order of 26 March 2003 the President of the Court of
By order of 2 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the             from the register of Case C-367/02 (Reference for a preli-
register of Case C-353/02: Commission of the European                minary ruling by the Bundespatentgericht): Deutsche Telekom
Communities v Republic of Austria.                                   AG v DKV Deutsche Krankenversicherung AG.
(1) OJ C 305 of 07.12.2002.                                          (1) OJ C 19 of 25.01.2003.


title: Case T-86/13 P: Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2014 — Grazyte v Commission (Appeal — Civil Service — Temporary agents — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance — Condition set out in Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Ten-year reference period — Duties in the service of an international organisation)

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/43

      Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2014 — Grazyte v Commission
      (Case T-86/13 P) (1)

      ((Appeal - Civil Service - Temporary agents - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Condition set out in Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Ten-year reference period - Duties in the service of an international organisation))
      (2014/C 395/52)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Diana Grazyte (Utena, Lithuania) (represented by: R. Guarino, lawyer)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented initially by V. Joris and subsequently by J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

         Re

      Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 5 December 2012 in Case F-76/11 Grazyte v Commission, ECR-SC, EU:F:2012:173, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

         Operative part

                  1)

                  The appeal is dismissed.

                  2)

                  Ms Diana Grazyte shall bear her own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present appeal proceedings.

         (1)  OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.