title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 February 2005 in Case T-296/02 Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Likelihood of confusion — Application for Community word mark LINDENHOF — Earlier word and figurative mark LINDERHOF — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               16.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/26

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 15 February 2005
   in Case T-296/02 Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition - Likelihood of confusion - Application for Community word mark LINDENHOF - Earlier word and figurative mark LINDERHOF - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2005/C 93/51)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case T-296/02: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG, established in Neckarsulm (Germany), represented by P. Groß, lawyer, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl, B. Müller and G. Schneider), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court of First Instance, being REWE-Zentral AG, established in Cologne (Germany), represented by M. Kinkeldey, lawyer — action against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 July 2002 (Case R 0036/2002-3), relating to opposition proceedings between Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG and REWE-Zentral AG — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij and N.J. Forwood, Judges; I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 February 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 289, 23.11.2002.


title: Case T-46/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Deutsche Lufthansa and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European airfreight market — Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) — Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/36

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Deutsche Lufthansa and Others v Commission
   (Case T-46/11) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European airfreight market - Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) - Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2016/C 048/40)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Deutsche Lufthansa AG (Cologne, Germany); Lufthansa Cargo AG (Frankfurt am Main, Germany); and Swiss International Air Lines AG (Basel, Switzerland) (represented initially by S. Völcker, F. Louis, E. Arsenidou and A. Israel, and subsequently by S. Völcker and J. Orogolas, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by M. Kellerbauer, S. Noë and N. von Lingen, and subsequently by S. Noë and A. Dawes, acting as Agents, and by J. Anderson, Barrister)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Articles 1 to 4 of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Articles 1 to 4 of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as they concern Deutsche Lufthansa AG, Lufthansa Cargo AG and Swiss International Air Lines AG;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Deutsche Lufthansa, Lufthansa Cargo and Swiss International Air Lines.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.


title: Case T-100/14: Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2015 — Tecalan v OHIM — Ensinger (TECALAN) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark TECALAN — Earlier Community word mark TECADUR — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               15.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 198/37

         Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2015 — Tecalan v OHIM — Ensinger (TECALAN)
   (Case T-100/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark TECALAN - Earlier Community word mark TECADUR - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 198/50)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Tecalan GmbH (Grünberg, Germany) (represented by: S. Holthaus, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Ensinger GmbH (Nufringen, Germany) (represented by: K. Gründig-Schnelle, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 December 2013 (Case R 2308/2012-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Ensinger GmbH and Tecalan GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Tecalan GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 112, 14.4.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 June 1999 in Case C-256/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Commerce de Bruxelles): relating to Déménagements-Manutention Transport SA (DMT) (Article 92 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87 EC) - Concept of State aid - Payment facilities granted by a public body responsible for collecting employers' and workers' social security contributions)

text:
28.8.1999                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 246/5
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                                             of 29 June 1999
                                                                            in Case C-60/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                           of 29 June 1999                                  the Tribunale Civile e Penale, Milan): Butterfly Music
                                                                            Srl v Carosello Edizioni Musicali e Discografiche Srl
                                                                                (CEMED) (1)
in Case C-256/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal de Commerce de Bruxelles): relating to
   Déménagements-Manutention Transport SA (DMT) (1)                         (Copyright and related rights — Directive 93/98/EEC —
                                                                                Harmonisation of the term of protection)
(Article 92 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article
87 EC) — Concept of State aid — Payment facilities granted                                            (1999/C 246/09)
by a public body responsible for collecting employers’ and
              workers’ social security contributions)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                           (1999/C 246/08)
                                                                            (Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            In Case C-60/98: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
                                                                            (ex Article 177) of the EC Treaty from the Tribunale Civile e
(Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published      Penale (Civil and Criminal District Court), Milan for a prelimi-
                    in the European Court Reports)                          nary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
                                                                            between Butterfly Music Srl and Carosello Edizioni Musicali e
                                                                            Discografiche Srl (CEMED), intervener: Federazione Industria
                                                                            Musicale Italiana (FIMI) — on the interpretation of Article
In Case C-256/97: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC               10 of Council Directive 93/98/EEC of 29 October 1993
(ex Article 177) by the Tribunal de Commerce, Brussels,                     harmonising the term of protection of copyright and certain
Belgium, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending                related rights (OJ 1993 L 290, p. 9) — the Court, composed
before that court relating to Déménagements-Manutention                     of: G.C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, P.J.G. Kapteyn,
Transport SA (DMT), on the interpretation of Article 92 of the              J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), G. Hirsch and P. Jann, Presidents
EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87 EC) — the Court                 of Chambers, G.F. Mancini, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gul-
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of                  mann, J.L. Murray, D.A.O. Edward and L. Sevón, Judges;
Chamber, G. Hirsch (Rapporteur) and J.L. Murray, Judges;                    G. Cosmas, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for
F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Princi-                 the Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 June 1999, in which
pal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on               it has ruled:
29 June 1999, in which it has ruled:
                                                                            Article 10(3) of Council Directive 93/98/EEC of 29 October 1993
Payment facilities in respect of social security contributions granted      harmonising the term of protection of copyright and certain related
in a discretionary manner to an undertaking by the body responsible         rights does not preclude a provision of national law such as the
for collecting such contributions constitute State aid for the purposes     provision which, in Italian Law No 52 of 6 February 1996, as
of Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article            amended by Italian Law No 650 of 23 December 1996, lays down
87(1) EC) if, having regard to the size of the economic advantage so        a limited period in which sound-recording media may be distributed
conferred, the undertaking would manifestly have been unable to             by persons who, by reason of the expiry of the rights relating to those
obtain comparable facilities from a private creditor in the same            media under the previous legislation, had been able to reproduce and
situation vis-à-vis that undertaking as the collecting body.                market them before that Law entered into force.
(1) OJ C 271 of 6.9.1997.                                                   (1) OJ C 137 of 2.5.1998.


title: Case T-571/15: Action brought on 29 September 2015 — Bimbo v OHIM — ISMS (BIMBO BEL SIMPLY MARKET)

text:
               7.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 406/37

         Action brought on 29 September 2015 — Bimbo v OHIM — ISMS (BIMBO BEL SIMPLY MARKET)
   (Case T-571/15)
   (2015/C 406/37)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Bimbo, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: International Supermarket Stores (ISMS) SA (Croix, France)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

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

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘BIMBO BEL SIMPLY MARKET’ — Application for registration No 10 335 321

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 July 2015 in Case R 1297/2014-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               modify the decision of the Board of Appeal dated on 17 July 2015 in accordance with Article 65(3) CTMR, rejecting the CTM Application No 10 335 321 in its entirety;

               —

               subsidiarity and only in the case the above claim would be rejected, the annulment of the Board of Appeal decision, dated 17 July 2015;

               —

               order the defendants to pay the procedural costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b), 8(5), 42(2)(3), and 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-507/10 P: Order of the President of the General Court of 17 December 2010 — Uspaskich v Parliament (Interim measures — Waiver of the immunity of a member of the European Parliament — Application for suspension of operation)

text:
               19.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/24

         Order of the President of the General Court of 17 December 2010 — Uspaskich v Parliament
   (Case T-507/10 P)
   (Interim measures - Waiver of the immunity of a member of the European Parliament - Application for suspension of operation)
   2011/C 55/44
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Parties

      Applicant: Viktor Uspaskich (Kėdainiai, Lithuania) (represented by V Sviderskis, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Lorenz, A. Pospíšilová Padowska and L. Mašalaite, Agents)

      Re:

   Application to suspend the operation of the resolution of the European Parliament of 7 September 2010 waiving the applicant's immunity.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case T-307/09: Action brought on 6 August 2009 — Earle Beauty v OHIM (NATURALLY ACTIVE)

text:
               10.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 244/13

         Action brought on 6 August 2009 — Earle Beauty v OHIM (NATURALLY ACTIVE)
   (Case T-307/09)
   2009/C 244/21
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant(s): Liz Earle Beauty Co. Ltd (Ryde, United Kingdom) (represented by M. Cover, Solicitor)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 May 2009 in case R 27/2009-2 and declare that the Community trade mark concerned can proceed to publication and registration; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘NATURALLY ACTIVE’ for goods and services in classes 3, 5, 16, 18, 35 and 44

      Decision of the examiner: Refused the application for a Community trade mark

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 (which became Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation 207/2009) as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that the phrase ‘Naturally Active’ was normal in the English language and was therefore a laudatory term that could be easily understood by the general public, thus having no inherent distinctiveness; infringement of Article 7(3) of Council Regulation 40/94 (which became Article 7(3) of Council Regulation 207/2009) as the Board of Appeal: (i) was incorrect to find that the trade mark concerned had not become distinctive through use; and (ii) appears to have not given due weight to the objective evidence provided by the applicant and therefore did not have good and adequate reasons for their finding in relation to this legal provision; infringement of Article 7(2) of Council Regulation 40/94 (which became Article 7(2) of Council Regulation 207/2009) as the Board of Appeal was wrong to apply the test for this legal provision, in relation to their findings for Article 7(3) of Council Regulation 40/94, to all Member States of the EU, instead of applying the relevant test only to Member States which are predominantly English speaking.


title: Case C-449/99 P: Appeal brought on 26 November 1999 by the European Investment Bank against the judgment delivered on 28 September 1999 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-140/97 between Michel Hautem and the European Investment Bank

text:
C 34/16               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      5.2.2000
Appeal brought on 26 November 1999 by the European                     — Breach of the contractual rules applicable to relations
Investment Bank against the judgment delivered on                          between the EIB and its staff: the Court of First Instance
28 September 1999 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of                     wrongly considered that it could apply ‘by analogy’ the
First Instance of the European Communities in Case                         rule in Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations of officials of
T-140/97 between Michel Hautem and the European                            the European Communities. By ordering the EIB to pay the
                        Investment Bank                                    arrears of remuneration from the date of dismissal, the
                                                                           Court of First Instance adopted a statutory approach which
                                                                           cannot be applied to the EIB.
                       (Case C-449/99 P)
                         (2000/C 34/30)
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 28 September
1999 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities in Case T-140/97 between Michel
Hautem and the European Investment Bank was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 26 November 1999 by the European Investment Bank,
represented by Giannangelo Marchegiani, Director of Legal
Affairs, acting as Agent, assisted by Georges Vandersanden,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
Jean-Philippe Minnaert, of its Legal Directorate, Boulevard            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht
Konrad Adenauer.                                                       Korneuburg by order of 11 November 1999 in the case of
                                                                                Seiko Kabushiki Kaisha v Bajrami Sinavere
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Case C-450/99)
— Set aside points 1 and 2 of the operative part of the
    judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance on
    28 September 1999 in Case T-140/97;                                                         (2000/C 34/31)
— Order the respondent to bear his own costs.
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by order of 11 November 1999 from
                                                                       the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Regional Court, Korneuburg),
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        which was received at the Court Registry on 26 November
                                                                       l999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Seiko Kabushiki
                                                                       Kaisha v Bajrami Sinavere on the following question:
— Incorrect assessment of the legal nature of the facts,
    incorrect reasoning: the Court of First Instance wrongly
                                                                       On a proper construction of Article 1 thereof, is Council
    — considered that Mr Hautem had not carried on a                   Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 of 22 December 1994 laying
         professional activity of a commercial nature, whereas         down measures to prohibit the release for free circulation,
         it — correctly — reached that conclusion in the similar       export, re-export or entry for a suspensive procedure of
         case of Mr Yasse (Case T-141/97),                             counterfeit and pirated goods (Official Journal of the European
                                                                       Communities L 341 of 30 December 1994) also applicable to
                                                                       situations in which goods of the type specified therein are, in
    — considered that Mr Hautem had not made use of his                the course of transit between two countries not belonging to
         belonging to the EIB, had not involved the EIB, and           the European Community, temporarily detained by the cus-
         had not personally used its property,                         toms authorities in a Member State on the basis of that
                                                                       regulation, at the request of a holder of rights who claims that
                                                                       his rights have been infringed and whose undertaking does not
    — declined to attribute any legal value to the use of false        have its registered office in a country belonging to the
         documents and false statements in a procedure for             European Community?
         dismissal based on unauthorised commercial activity,
    — declined to attach importance to the unauthorised
         commercial activity in Andorra of Mr Hautem’s
         spouse.


title: Case T-489/11: Judgment of the General Court of 20 March 2013 — Ruse Industry v Commission (State aid — Aid granted by Bulgaria in the form of a debt waiver — Decision declaring that aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — New aid — Distortion of competition — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               4.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 March 2013 — Ruse Industry v Commission
   (Case T-489/11) (1)

   (State aid - Aid granted by Bulgaria in the form of a debt waiver - Decision declaring that aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - New aid - Distortion of competition - Obligation to state reasons)
   2013/C 129/35
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Parties

      Applicant: Ruse Industry (Ruse, Bulgaria) (represented by: A. Angelov and S. Panov, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Urraca Caviedes and D. Stefanov, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision 2012/706/EU of 13 July 2011 on the State aid SA.28903 (C 12/10) (ex N 389/09) implemented by Bulgaria in favour of Ruse Industry (OJ 2012 L 320, p. 27).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ruse Industry AD to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the application for interim relief.

      (1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.


title: Action brought on 19 May 1998 by Unione Provinciale degli Agricoltori di Firenze, Azienda Agraria Fattoria Giannozzi, Unione Pratese degli Agricoltori, Consorzio Produttori dell'Olio Tipico di Oliva della Provincia di Firenze, Società Fondiaria Colline Fiesolane SRL, Azienda Agraria Fattoria di Maiano, Azienda Agraria Tenuta Bossi, Azienda Agraria Il Valico, Azienda Agraria Il Bottaio against Commission of the European Communities (Case T-78/98)

text:
25.7.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 234/31
         procedure, in so far as that decision does not            The applicant claims that the Court should:
         mention the applicant's name.
                                                                   Ð Annul        and/or    declare    unlawful     Commission
Ð order the defendant to pay compensation of up to BFR                 Regulation (EC) No 644/98 of 20 March 1998 (OJ
    833 000;                                                           1998 L 87, p. 8) supplementing the Annex to
                                                                       Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 on the registration of
                                                                       geographical indications and designations of origin
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                       under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of
                                                                       Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92, in so far as it
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    provides for Italy, in respect of olive oil Ð in the
                                                                       context of the products intended for human
The applicant contests her omission from the list of                   consumption listed in Annex II to the Treaty under
officials most deserving of promotion in the 1997                      Oils and fats' Ð use of the Protected Geographical
promotions procedure and the refusal by the appointing                 Indication (PGI) Toscano' (Tuscan), subject to the
authority to promote her to grade B 2 in the course of                 rules laid down by the Italian State;
that procedure.
                                                                   Ð Order the Commission to pay the costs.
The applicant advances the following pleas in law in
support of her claims:                                             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð Infringement of Article 90(2) and the first paragraph            The applicants comprise two regional associations whose
    of Article 2 of the Staff Regulations, together with the       duty, according to their statutes, is to safeguard the
    decision     of   the    Commission      published     in      interests of agricultural producers in their respective
    Administrative Notices No 498 of 7 April 1986,                 provinces; a consortium which is an umbrella organisation
    inasmuch as the contested decision was signed by the           for various olive growers in the Province of Florence; and
    Member of the Commission responsible for personnel             other proprietors of agricultural holdings in that Province
    and administrative matters, whereas only the                   which produce significant quantities of extra virgin olive
    Commission as a whole or the Director-General for              oil from Tuscany. Hitherto, all the applicants have used,
    Personnel and Administration was competent to sign             as they saw fit, the designation Colli Fiorentini'
    it.                                                            (Florentine Hills) (or Colline di Firenze' (Hill Country of
                                                                   Florence) or di Firenze' (of Florence), and the like).
                                                                   Considering themselves to be adversely affected by the
Ð Breach of the principle of non-discrimination, as
                                                                   contested Regulation, in so far as it establishes toscano'
    enshrined in Article 5(3) of the Staff Regulations, and
                                                                   (Tuscan) as a protected geographical indication, and
    of Article 45(1) of those Regulations, inasmuch as the
                                                                   provides for the application of the related rules, which
    appointing authority failed in the present case to
                                                                   make it compulsory to adopt a single main common
    consider the comparative merits of those eligible, as
                                                                   designation for all olives from Tuscany and do not permit
    provided for therein.
                                                                   the more specific indication Colli Fiorentini' (or similar)
                                                                   to be used as appropriate. According to the applicants,
                                                                   notwithstanding the fact that Colli Fiorentini' is the only
                                                                   indication enabling a prestigious product to be effectively
                                                                   distinguished from other, more ordinary, products from
                                                                   other areas of Tuscany, it has been relegated in status to a
Action brought on 19 May 1998 by Unione Provinciale                mere indicator of a sottozona' (sub-area).
degli Agricoltori di Firenze, Azienda Agraria Fattoria
Giannozzi, Unione Pratese degli Agricoltori, Consorzio             In support of their claims, the applicants plead
Produttori dell'Olio Tipico di Oliva della Provincia di            infringement of Articles 2 and 17 of Council Regulation
Firenze, SocietaÁ Fondiaria Colline Fiesolane SRL, Azienda         (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 and Article 43 of the
Agraria Fattoria di Maiano, Azienda Agraria Tenuta                 Treaty establishing the European Communities. They
Bossi, Azienda Agraria Il Valico, Azienda Agraria Il               maintain not only that Community legislation does
        Bottaio against Commission of the European                 not recognise sub-areas' or additional geographical
                         Communities                               particulars', but also that a protected geographical
                       (Case T-78/98)                              indication' for the purposes of Article 2 of Regulation
                                                                   (EEC) No 2081/92, broken down and subdivided into
                        (98/C 234/61)
                                                                   sub-areas' or additional geographical particulars' seems
                                                                   to be a legal nonsense, given that the sub-divisions in
               (Language of the case: Italian)                     question ought really to have been recognised as genuine
                                                                   independent protected designations of origin'. In other
An action against the Commission of the European                   words, even though a product such as extra virgin olive
Communities was brought before the Court of First                  oil produced in the Florentine Hills satisfies, according to
Instance of the European Communities on 19 May 1998                the applicants, all the requirements set out in
by the Unione Provinciale degli Agricoltori di Firenze and         Article 2(2)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92, it has
Others, represented by Vittorio Chierroni, of the Florence         been relegated Ð by means of the contested geographical
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the              indication, which the related rules in fact divide in terms
Chambers of Franco Colussi, 36 Rue de Wiltz.                       of sub-areas Ð to a mere specification within that
 ---pagebreak--- C 234/32             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    25.7.98
geographical indication, as a result of a decision which            Executive Director of the EMEA definitively classified the
gives more the impression of a political compromise than            applicant upon recruitment in Grade 7, step 3.
the final legitimate outcome of a procedure for recognition
of a quality product.
                                                                    The applicant claims, inter alia, that the EMEA
                                                                    committed a manifest error of assessment by that
The applicants also argue that on 11 March 1996 the                 classification on the ground that he had not shown to
Director of Directorate-General VI (Agriculture) of the             have twelve years of experience, five of which of practical
Commission advised the Italian State that the proposal put          experience in the field specified in the job description for
forward on 22 January 1994 (that is to say, well beyond             which he had applied. That manifest error of assessment
the deadline set in Article 17(1) of Regulation (EEC)               prejudices the applicant's career prospect and runs counter
No 2081/92) to break down the designation of Tuscan'               to the principle of legitimate expectations.
origin in terms of sub-areas by way of variants' was not
permissible. On that basis, the applicants are at a loss to
understand how the Commission was able, ultimately, to
grant recognition of the protected geographical indication
Tuscan' and the related rules, which entail precisely those
variants' Ð sub-areas Ð which are clearly not permissible
in that, pursuant to Article 17 of Regulation (EEC)                 Action brought on 25 May 1998 by CIT Belgique SA
No 2081/92, they were proposed out of time.                           against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-80/98)
                                                                                (98/C 234/63)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
Action brought on 23 May 1998 by Manuel TomaÂs
Carrasco Benítez against European Agency for the
              Evaluation of Medicinal Products                      An action against the Commission of the European
                       (Case T-79/98)                               Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 25 May 1998
                        (98/C 234/62)                               by CIT Belgique SA, represented by Aurelio Pappalardo,
                                                                    of the Trapani Bar, Claudio Tesauro and Francesco
                (Language of the case: French)                      Tesauro, of the Naples Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                    Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain Lorang, 51 Rue
                                                                    Albert 1er
An action against European Agency for the Evaluation of
Medicinal Products (the EMEA) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on              The applicant claims that the Court should:
23 May 1998 by Manuel TomaÂs Carrasco Benítez,
residing at London, represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis,
VeÂronique Leclerq, Ariane Tornel and FrancËoise                    Ð annul the measure contained in a letter of 23 March
Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service            1998 whereby the Commission closed tender
in Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson S.aÁ.r.l., 30 Rue de                  procedure 97/33/IX.C.1, and all preceding, subsequent
Cessange.                                                               and/or connected acts and in particular the decision to
                                                                        award the contract for Travel agency services to
                                                                        provide tickets and associated services, especially hotel
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             reservations relating to business trips made by officials
                                                                        and agents on missions' (OJ 1998 p. 83);
Ð annul the EMEA's decision classifying the applicant in
    Grade A 7, step 3;
                                                                    Ð order the defendant to make good the harm suffered
                                                                        by CIT as a result of the unlawful award of the
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.                                 contract to BBL Travel for the provision of travel
                                                                        agency services to officials and other agents on
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     mission;
The applicant, a member of the temporary staff in Grade             Ð order the defendant to pay the costs, including the
A 7, passed competition EMEA/A/105. The experience                      costs incurred by the applicant by way of legal fees.
required for classification in Grade A 5 was of 12 years,
at least five years of which were to be of practical
experience.                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Although the Director General of the EMEA had indicated             The contested decision constitutes the last stage of a
in a letter to the applicant that he intended to engage him         tender procedure followed by the defendant for the award
as a member of the temporary staff in Grade A 5, the                of the contract for the provision of travel agency services


title: Case T-218/17: Action brought on 12 April 2017 — HF v Parliament

text:
               6.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/30

         Action brought on 12 April 2017 — HF v Parliament
   (Case T-218/17)
   (2017/C 178/44)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: HF (represented by: A. Tymen, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the present action admissible and well-founded;
               In consequence,

               —

               Annul the decision of 3 June 2016 rejecting the applicant’s request for assistance of 11 December 2014;

               —

               Insofar as necessary, annul the decision of 4 January 2017, received on 11 January 2017, rejecting the applicant’s claim of 6 September 2016;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay damages set ex aequo et bono at EUR 90 000 in compensation of the non-pecuniary harm suffered by the applicant;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence, infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, infringement of the right to be heard and infringement of the principle of an adversarial process.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging procedural errors such as to vitiate the contested decision and partiality in the procedure followed by the Committee.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment, [infringement] of the obligation to provide assistance and the duty of care and infringement of Articles 12a and 24 of the Staff Regulations.


title: Case C-474/08: Action brought on 4 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/13

         Action brought on 4 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-474/08)
   (2009/C 32/21)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Patakia and B. Schima, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that,
               by failing to provide that cases of refusal of access to the distribution or transmission network can be submitted to the regulatory authority which will rule by binding decision within two months, in accordance with Article 23(5) of Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC (1),
               by removing certain issues which are decisive for the calculation of tariffs from the competence of the regulatory authority as set out in Article 23(2) of Directive 2003/54/EC,
               the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission submits, first, that the transposition into Belgian law of Article 23(5) of Directive 2003/54/EC has not been carried out. The relevant provisions of Belgian law relating to the organisation of the electricity market are in fact so general that they do not enable it to be ascertained with any certainty whether there is an individual right of action against decisions to refuse access to the electricity distribution or transmission network. Those provisions do not set out an exact procedural framework and do not provide for a time-limit as regards the response of the regulatory authority, in this case the Commission nationale de régulation de l'électricité (National Commission for the Regulation of Electricity; CRE).
   The applicant secondly alleges that the defendant has infringed Article 23(2) of Directive 2003/54/EC in so far as it confers on the Crown, that is an authority other than the CRE, the power to set specific rules concerning the provision for depreciation and the profit margin relating to investments in the national interest and in European interest. That procedure is not compatible with the aforementioned article, since the regulatory authority does not seem to have any control in either of those situations over the methodology used to calculate or establish the tariffs for transmission and distribution.

      (1)  OJ L 176, p. 37.


title: Case T-530/10: Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2013 — Reber v OHIM — Klusmeier (Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart PREMIUM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart PREMIUM — Earlier national figurative marks W. Amadeus Mozart — No genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 15(1), first subparagraph and second subparagraph(a), and Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               29.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 189/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2013 — Reber v OHIM — Klusmeier (Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart PREMIUM)
   (Case T-530/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart PREMIUM - Earlier national figurative marks W. Amadeus Mozart - No genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 15(1), first subparagraph and second subparagraph(a), and Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 189/34
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Reber Holding GmbH & Co. KG (Bad Reichenhall, Germany) (represented by: O. Spuhler and M. Geitz, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented: initially by R. Manea, then by D. Walicka, agents

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Anna Klusmeier (Bielefeld, Germany) (represented by: G. Schmitt-Gaedke, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 September 2010 (Case R 363/2008-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Reber Holding GmbH & Co. KG and Ms Anna Klusmeier

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Reber Holding GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs, including the costs necessarily incurred by Mrs Anna Klusmeier for the purpose of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

      (1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.


title: Case C-100/13: Action brought on 27 February 2013 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               20.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 114/29

         Action brought on 27 February 2013 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-100/13)
   2013/C 114/45
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Wilms and G. Zavvos, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

      Form of order sought

   The European Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, in so far as the German authorities use the construction products lists to demand additional approvals for effective market access and the use of construction products, instead of incorporating the required assessment methods and criteria within the framework of the harmonised European standards, the defendant has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products, (1) and, in particular, under Article 4(2) and Article 6(1) thereof;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The defendant has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4 and 6 of Directive 89/106/EEC. The use of construction products lists has the result that additional, prior approvals are demanded for effective market access and the use of construction products. Many cases do not concern possible requirements with regard to new characteristics. Rather, requirements which were already established before harmonisation, and which could have and should have been covered by incorporation of the required assessment methods and criteria within the harmonised framework, are adhered to.

      (1)  OJ 1989 L 40, p. 12.


title: Case C-135/12: Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 19 September 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               21.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 377/9

         Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 19 September 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-135/12) (1)

   2013/C 377/20
   Language of the case: Polish
   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 126, 28.4.2012


title: Case T-347/14: Action brought on 14 May 2014 — Yanukovych v Council

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/39

         Action brought on 14 May 2014 — Yanukovych v Council
   (Case T-347/14)
   2014/C 253/53
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Viktor Viktorovych Yanukovych (Kyiv, Ukraine) (represented by: T. Beazley, QC)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ L 66, p. 26), as amended by Council Decision 2014/216/CFSP of 14 April 2014 (OJ L 111, p. 91) and Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 (OJ L 66, p. 1) concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, as amended by Council Regulation (EU) 381/2014 of 14 April 2014 (OJ L 111, p. 33), insofar as they apply to the applicant; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Council of the European Union (‘the Council’) lacked a proper legal basis for the Decision and the Regulation. Arguments in support of the plea include (a) that the conditions for the Council relying on Article 29 TEU were not fulfilled by the Decision. Amongst other things: (i) The Council’s expressly invoked objectives (consolidating the rule of law and respect for human rights in Ukraine) could not, as a matter of fact, be sustained by the Council, which then stated grounds for designation (linked to alleged embezzlement of Ukrainian State funds and their illegal transfer outside Ukraine, which the Applicant denies) which were not consistent with, and failed to comply with, the stated or any relevant objectives of Article 21 TEU. (ii) The Decision and the Regulation are contrary to other relevant objectives identified in Article 21 in that they failed to ‘consolidate and support democracy ... [and] the principles of international law’, in particular by wrongly asserting, and acting on the basis that, the legitimate democratically elected President of Ukraine, President Yanukovych, was a ‘former President’, contrary to the law of Ukraine and International law, and by providing support for the so-called ‘interim President and government’, who have not been lawfully and democratically elected, and who took what power they have from time to time by illegal force, contrary to the rule of law, democratic principles and international law. (b) The conditions for relying on Article 215 TFEU were not fulfilled because there was no valid decision under Chapter 2 of Title V TEU. (c) There was no sufficient link for Article 215 TFEU to be relied on against the applicant.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Council misused its powers. The Council’s actual purpose in implementing the Decision (and, therefore, the Regulation) was in essence to try to win favour with the so-called ‘interim regime’ of Ukraine so that Ukraine proceeded with closer ties with the EU (such closer ties having been rejected by the democratically elected President of Ukraine and his Government), and not the rationales stated on the face of the Decision and the Regulation.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to state reasons. The statement of reasons in the Decision and the Regulation for including the applicant (in addition to being wrong) are formulaic, inappropriate and deficient in required particularity.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the applicant failed to fulfil the stated criteria for a person to be listed at the relevant time. Amongst other things, the Council failed to provide relevant information, but so far as he is aware, the applicant (a) had not at the time been identified by any judicial or other relevant body as being responsible for the embezzlement of Ukrainian State funds or their illegal transfer, and (b) was not at the time subject to investigation for involvement in crimes in connection with the embezzlement of Ukrainian State funds and their illegal transfer abroad.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council made manifest errors of assessment in including the applicant in the contested measures. Amongst other things, the Council had no and, in any event, no ‘concrete’ evidence demonstrating that the allegations against the applicant were ‘materially accurate’, and wrongly relied on assertions by the illegitimate so-called ‘interim regime’ who were seeking to usurp power, and had a clear incentive to make such allegations for improper purposes.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s defence rights have been breached and/or that he has been denied effective judicial protection. Amongst other things, the Council has failed to provide the applicant with a full statement of reasons, including the evidence against him, and failed to provide him with precise information and material said to justify the asset freeze, and he has been obliged to make this application in an unfairly short time period.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s rights to property under Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, have been breached in that, amongst other things, the restrictive measures are an unjustified and disproportionate restriction on those rights.


title: Case C-167/15: Order of the President of the Court of 28 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile di Roma — Italy) — X v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

text:
               22.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/17

         Order of the President of the Court of 28 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile di Roma — Italy) — X v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri
   (Case C-167/15) (1)

   (2017/C 161/22)
   Language of the case: Italian
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.


title: Case C-315/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo de Zaragoza (Spain) lodged on 29 May 2017 — Pilar Centeno Meléndez v Universidad de Zaragoza

text:
               14.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo de Zaragoza (Spain) lodged on 29 May 2017 — Pilar Centeno Meléndez v Universidad de Zaragoza
   (Case C-315/17)
   (2017/C 269/13)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo de Zaragoza

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Pilar Centeno Meléndez

      Defendant: Universidad de Zaragoza

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Clause 4(1) of the Framework Agreement annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June (1) applicable to the horizontal career increment claimed by the applicant, on the basis that it is an employment condition, or, rather, does the increment constitute an element of remuneration with the characteristics described in the present order that depends on the subjective qualities of the recipient which have been gained by working for a number of years under a system based on increasing levels of difficulty and responsibility and on continuity, specialisation and professionalism?

               2.

               If the previous question is answered in the affirmative and the Court of Justice considers [the increment] to be an employment condition for the purposes of Clause 4(1) of the Framework Agreement, is the difference in remuneration justified on objective grounds?

      (1)  Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP.

      OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43.


title: Case C-111/04 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of  16 February 2006  — Adriatica di Navigazione SpA v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) — Competition — Cartels — Agreement between undertakings — Proof of participation of an undertaking in a cartel)

text:
               1.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 154/1

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 February 2006 — Adriatica di Navigazione SpA v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-111/04 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) - Competition - Cartels - Agreement between undertakings - Proof of participation of an undertaking in a cartel)
   (2006/C 154/02)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Adriatica di Navigazione SpA (represented by: M. Siragusa and F. Moretti, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Lyal and L. Pignataro, Agents, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)
   Re:
   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 11 December 2003 in Case T-61/99 Adriatica di Navigazione v Commission dismissing as unfounded an action for annulment of the Commission's decision of 9 December 1998 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/34466 — Greek Ferry Boats)
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed;

               2.

               The cross-appeal of the Commission of the European Communities is dismissed;

               3.

               Adriatica di Navigazione SpA shall pay 90 % of the costs;

               4.

               The Commission of the European Communities shall pay 10 % of the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106 of 30.04.2004


title: Case C-277/13: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 September 2014  — European Commission v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 96/67/EC — Article 11 — Air transport — Groundhandling service — Selection of suppliers)

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/14

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 September 2014 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-277/13) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 96/67/EC - Article 11 - Air transport - Groundhandling service - Selection of suppliers))
   2014/C 409/19
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and F.W. Bulst, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, T. Falcão and V. Moura Ramos, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to take the necessary measures for the organisation of a procedure for the selection of suppliers authorised to provide groundhandling services for the categories of ‘baggage handling’, ‘ramp handling’ and ‘freight and mail handling’ at Lisbon, Porto and Faro airports, in accordance with Article 11 of Council Directive 96/67/EC of 15 October 1996 on access to the groundhandling market at Community airports, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that article;

               2.

               Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 233, 10.8.2013.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 29 June 1995 in Case C-56/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Piacenza): SCAC Srl v. Associazione dei Produttori Ortofrutticoli (ASIPO) (Common organization of the market - Processed tomato products - Limit to the granting of production aid - Determination of quotas - Validity of Regulation (EEC) No 668/93)

text:
No C 229/6               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        2 . 9 . 95
and grape musts ( 3 ) — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ),                      preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
composed of F. A. Schockweiler, President of the Chamber,                 court between SCAC Sri and Associazione dei Produttori
G. F. Mancini, C. N. Kakouris, J. L. Murray ( Rapporteur )                Ortofrutticoli ( ASIPO ) — on the interpretation and validity
and G. Hirsch, Judges; P. Leger, Advocate-General; H.                     of Article 1 ( 2 ) of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 668/93 of
A. Riihl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a              1 7 March 1 993 on the introduction of a limit to the granting
judgment on 29 June 1995 , the operative part of which is as              of production aid for processed tomato products ( 2 ) — the
follows :                                                                 Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: F. A. Schockweiler
                                                                          ( Rapporteur ), President of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn,
                                                                          G. F. Mancini, J. L. Murray and G. Hirsch, Judges;
1 . Article 3 (2) of Commission Regulation (EEC)
                                                                          D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett,
       No 3201 /90 of 16 October 1990 laying down detailed
                                                                          Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
       rules for the description and presentation of wines and
                                                                          29 June 1995 , in which it rules :
       grape musts must be interpreted as not precluding
       the labelling of quality wines ('Qualitatsweine mit
       Pradikat') from repeating the terms 'Kabinett',                    1 . Article 1 (2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 668/93 of
       'Spatlese ' or 'Auslese ' — in addition to their prescribed              1 7 March 1 993 on the introduction of a limit to the
       use (in lettering of the same type and height as the name                granting of production aid for processed tomato
       of the specified region or of a geographical unit smaller                products must be interpreted as meaning that, in the
       than the specified region) — in different lettering with                 event of a transfer of fresh tomatoes by a processing
       higher letters, particularly in a conspicuous manner as                  undertaking during a marketing year from the 'peeled
       part of a brand name;                                                    tomatoes ' category to the 'concentrate ' or 'other tomato
                                                                                products ' category, only the quantities actually
2 . Article 3 (3) (a), first indent, in conjunction with the                    produced by that undertaking in each category, regard
       second subparagraph of Article 3 (3) of Regulation                       being had to that transfer, are to be taken into account in
       (EEC) No 3201 /90 must be interpreted as not                             the following marketing year for the purposes of the
       precluding the repetition on the label, in the case of                   division of the maximum quantities between the
       German quality wines produced in specified regions                       processing undertakings by the Member State
                                                                                concerned.
       (' Qualitatsweine bA '), of the term ' Weiflherbst' — in
       addition to its use in the same lettering as that used for
       indicating the specified region — in larger letters,               2 . Consideration of Article 1 (2) of Regulation (EEC)
       particularly in a conspicuous manner as part of a brand                  No 668/93 has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to
       name .
                                                                                affect the validity of that provision.
 (') OJ No C 27, 28 . 1 . 1994 .
 ( 2 ) OJ No L 232 , 9 . 8 . 1989 , p . 13 .                               (') OJ No C 90 , 26 . 3 . 1994 .
 ( 3 ) OJ No L 309 , 8 . 11 . 1990 , p. 1 .                                (2 ) OJ No L 72, 25 . 3 . 1993 , p. 1 .
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            ( Sixth Chamber)                                                         ( Fifth Chamber)
                            of 29 June 1995                                                         of 29 June 1995
 in Case C-56/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                  in Joined Cases C-109/94, C-207/94 and C-225/94:
 the Tribunale di Piacenza): SCAC Srl v. Associazione dei
                                                                           Commission of the European Communities v. Hellenic
               Produttori Ortofrutticoli ( ASIPO ) (M                                                   Republic ( ' )
  (Common organization of the market — Processed tomato                     (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
 products — Limit to the granting of production aid —                      Directives 90/61 8/EEC, 88/357/EEC and 90/619/EEC —
 Determination of quotas — Validity of Regulation (EEC)                                   Non-transposition — Insurances)
                                 No 668/93)
                                                                                95/C 229/ 12 )
                               ( 95/C 229/11 )
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                                         (Language of the case: Greek)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
            published in the European Court Reports)                                 published in the European Court Reports)
  In Case C-56/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of             In Joined Cases C-109/94 , C-207/94 and C-225/94 :
  the EC Treaty by the Tribunale di Piacenza ( Italy ) for a                Commission of the European Communities ( Agent:


title: Case T-401/11 P: Appeal brought on 27 July 2011 by Livio Missir Mamachi di Lusignano against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 May 2011 in Case F-50/09, Livio Missir Mamachi di Lusignano v Commission

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/38

         Appeal brought on 27 July 2011 by Livio Missir Mamachi di Lusignano against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 May 2011 in Case F-50/09, Livio Missir Mamachi di Lusignano v Commission
   (Case T-401/11 P)
   2011/C 282/73
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Livio Missir Mamachi di Lusignano (Kerkhove-Avelgem, Belgium) (represented by F. Di Gianni, R. Antonini, G. Coppo and A. Scalini, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 12 May 2011 in Case F-50/09 Livio Missir Macachi di Lusignano v European Commission rejecting the action brought by Livio Missir Mamachi di Lusignano under Article 236 EC and Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations for annulment of decision of the appointing authority of 3 February 2009 and an order that the Commission pay compensation for the material and non-material damage arising as a result of the murder of Alessandro Missir Mamachi di Lusignano and his wife;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay to the appellant and the successors of Alessandro Missir Mamachi di Lusignano represented by the appellant a sum of money by way of compensation for the material and non-material damage sustained by them as well as the non-material damage suffered by the victim before his death;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant relies on three grounds in support of his appeal:

               1.

               First ground, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in holding that the claim for compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the appellant, Alessandro Missir and his heirs was inadmissible.
               In support of that ground, the appellant submits, first, that the Civil Service Tribunal applied in an illogical, incorrect and discriminatory manner what is known as the rule on consistency, which requires identity of cause and subject-matter solely between the complaint submitted under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations and the appeal lodged under Article 91 of those regulations, not between the request under Article 90(1) and the complaint under Article 90(2). Second, the appellant submits that the Civil Service Tribunal’s interpretation of the rule on consistency gives rise to a limitation on the exercise of the fundamental right to effective judicial protection, enshrined, inter alia, in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

               2.

               The second ground of appeal, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in finding that the Commission was only 40 % responsible for the damage caused.
               In support of this ground, the appellant submits that the Civil Service Tribunal made an incorrect assessment of the relationship between the Commission’s unlawful conduct and the possible consequences of that failure to act, since the damage caused to the official was the direct and foreseeable consequence of that institution’s negligent conduct. Moreover, the appellant submits that, while the damage came about as a result of various contributory causes, the Commission is to be held jointly and severally liable with the murderer for the compensation for the damage. It follows that 100 % of the appellant’s claim for compensation to be paid by the Commission should be granted.

               3.

               The third ground, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in finding that, as a result of the benefits already paid to Alessandro Missir’s heirs, the Commission has fully compensated for the damage for which it is responsible.
               In support of the third ground, the appellant submits that, in the light of the principles to be inferred from European Union case-law, benefits other than those referred to in Article 73 cannot contribute to the compensation for the damage, since such benefits differ from compensation for damage under European Union law on account of the grounds and conditions on which they are granted and their purpose. Consequently, as the Commission has failed to compensate fully for the damage for which it is responsible, it must be ordered to pay to the appellant a sufficient amount to ensure full compensation for the damage suffered by the murdered official and his successors.


title: Case C-420/05 P: Appeal brought on  28 November 2005  by Ricosmos B.V. against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) on  13 September 2005  in Case T-53/02 Ricosmos v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               22.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/1

         Appeal brought on 28 November 2005 by Ricosmos B.V. against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) on 13 September 2005 in Case T-53/02 Ricosmos v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-420/05 P)
   (2006/C 96/02)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   An appeal was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 November 2005 by Ricosmos B.V., represented by J.J.M. Hertoghs and J.H. Peek, of the law firm Hertoghs Advocaten-Belastingkundigen, Parkstraat 8, (4818 SK) Breda, Netherlands, against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) of 13 September 2005 in Case T-53/02 Ricosmos B.V. v Commission of the European Communities.
   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the present appeal to be admissible and well founded;

               —

               set aside the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance on 13 September 2005;

               —

               grant the application made at first instance for the annulment of Commission Decision REM 09/00 of 16 November 2001 stating that remission of import duties in favour of the present appellant was not justified;

               —

               alternatively, remit the case to the Court of First Instance for further consideration;

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of its appeal against the aforementioned judgment, the appellant makes the following submissions:

               1.

               The appellant takes the view that the Court of First Instance proceeded on the basis of an incorrect, or at any rate unduly restricted, interpretation of, in particular, Articles 905 to 909 of the regulation implementing the Community Customs Code (1) with regard to the procedure for the repayment and/or remission of customs duties. The principle of legal certainty requires that the legal situation of Ricosmos should have been foreseeable in this particular case. Ricosmos takes the view that, because of suspensions of the proceedings of which it was not informed, that was not the case here. The Court of First Instance also proceeded incorrectly on the basis of an overly restricted view of the rights of the defence, reflected in its excessively circumscribed interpretation of the right to timeous and full access to the case files (both that of the national customs authorities and that of the Commission):

               2.

               The appellant considers that the decision of the Court of First Instance is also at variance with Community law. It takes the view that the principle of legal certainty also implies that the criteria for determining that there was no obvious negligence must be clear and readily identifiable. It is precisely because of the considerable flexibility of the term 'obvious negligence' that those criteria ought in principle to be construed restrictively and individually. The negligence must be evident and essential and must also be in a clear causal relationship with the special situation which has been established. In this case, the Court of First Instance wrongly attached in this regard no, or not enough, weight to the complexity of the legislation and to the significant professional experience of the appellant, and also misconstrued a number of obligations on the appellant, or at any rate appraised them in an overly formalistic manner;

               3.

               The appellant is also of the view that the Commission infringed the principle of proportionality and that the Court of First Instance also attached no, or at any rate insufficient, weight to new facts which suggested that the customs duties charged ought to have been cancelled;

               4.

               In conclusion, the appellant expresses the view that the establishment by the Court of First Instance of the facts underlying the dispute was in part erroneous or in any event incomplete.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 May 1999 in Joined Cases T-164/96, T-165/96, T-166/96, T-167/96, T-122/97 and T-130/97: Moccia Irme SpA and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment - State aid - ECSC Treaty - Fifth Steel Aid Code - Requirement of regular production within the meaning of Article 4(2) of the Fifth Steel Aid Code)

text:
28.8.1999                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 246/25
2. The applications in the two actions for career reclassification are       (Italy), Dora Ferriera Acciaieria Srl, established in Bergamo,
     dismissed as inadmissible;                                              Ferriera Lamifer SpA, established in Travagliato (Italy), rep-
                                                                             resented by Carmine Punzi and Filippo Satta, both of the Rome
3. In Case T-112/96, the action is dismissed;                                Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                             Chambers of Charles Turk, 13A Avenue Guillaume, Nuova
4. In Case T-115/96, the Commission’s decision of 1 December                 Sidercamuna SpA, established in Berzo Inferiore (Italy), rep-
     1995 is annulled in so far as it rejects the applicant’s alternative    resented by Enrico A. Raffaelli, of the Milan Bar, Ivo Van Bael,
     application that he be granted the benefit of the temporary             of the Brussels Bar and Fabrizio Di Gianni, of the Rome Bar,
     postings system;                                                        with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                             Freddy Brausch, 11 Rue Goethe v Commission of the European
                                                                             Communities (Agents: Paul Nemitz, Enrico Altieri, Laura
5. The Commission is ordered to pay the applicant the monthly                Pignataro and Massimo Moretto) — application for annulment
     payments of differential allowance referred to in Article 7(2) of       of Commission Decision 96/678/ECSC of 30 July 1996
     the Staff Regulations to which he would have been entitled if his       concerning certain aid proposed by Italy as part of a pro-
     application for a temporary posting had been accepted, together         gramme for the restructuring of its private steel industry and
     with interest for delay at the rate of 4.5 % per annum calculated       Commission Decision 97/258/ECSC of 18 December 1996
     from the dates on which those payments should have been made,           concerning aid closures envisaged by Italy as part of the
     as from 30 December 1995 and until full settlement;                     restructuring of its private steel industry (OJ 1996 L 316, p.
                                                                             24 and OJ 1997 L 102, p. 42 respectively) — the Court (Third
6. The remainder of the action in Case T-115/96 is dismissed;                Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: M. Jaeger,
                                                                             President, and K. Lenaerts, V. Tiili, J. Azizi and P. Mengozzi,
7. In Case T-112/96, each party is ordered to bear its own costs,            Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 May
     including those relating to the interim proceedings. Union              1999, in which it:
     Syndicale — Brussels is ordered to pay its own costs;
                                                                             1. Dismisses the applications;
8. In Case T-115/96, the Commission is ordered to pay its own
     costs and two-thirds of those incurred by the applicant, who is         2. Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and jointly and
     ordered to pay the remaining third. Union Syndicale — Brussels               severally to pay those of the Commission.
     is ordered to pay its own costs.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 40 of 8.2.1997 and C 199 of 28.6.1997.
(1) OJ C 269 of 14.9.1996 and C 294 of 5.10.1996.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 19 May 1999
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                             in Case T-214/96 Bernard Connolly v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                           of 12 May 1999
                                                                             (Officials — Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations —
in Joined Cases T-164/96, T-165/96, T-166/96, T-167/96,                      Action for compensation — Prelitigation procedure contrary
T-122/97 and T-130/97: Moccia Irme SpA and Others v                              to the terms of the Staff Regulations — Admissibility)
        Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 246/51)
(Action for annulment — State aid — ECSC Treaty — Fifth
Steel Aid Code — Requirement of regular production within                                         (Language of the case: French)
   the meaning of Article 4(2) of the Fifth Steel Aid Code)
                                                                             In Case T-214/96 Bernard Connolly, a former official of
                           (1999/C 246/50)                                   Commission of the European Communities, residing at Ever-
                                                                             berg (Belgium), represented by Jacques Sambon and Pierre-Paul
                                                                             Van Gehuchten, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                         in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du
                                                                             Fort Rheinsheim v Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Julian Currall), application for
In Joined Cases T-164/96, T-165/96, T-166/96, T-167/96,                      compensation for the material and non-material damage which
T-122/97 and T-130/97: Moccia Irme SpA, established in                       the applicant considers himself to have suffered as a result of
Naples (Italy), represented by Emilio Cappelli, Paolo De Caterini            the publication in the press of several pieces of information
and Andrea Bandini, all of the Rome Bar, with an address for                 and statements concerning him, the Court of First Instance
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Charles Turk, 13A                   (First Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, and J.
Avenue Guillaume, Prolafer, established in Bergamo (Italy),                  Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a
Ferriera Acciaieria Casilina SpA, established in Montecompatri               judgment on 19 May 1999 in which it:


title: Case C-141/06: Action brought on  15 March 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               20.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/6

         Action brought on 15 March 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-141/06)
   (2006/C 121/10)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Aresu and J.R. Vidal Puig, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, having failed to adopt, in relation to financial services other than private insurance, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/65/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 concerning the distance marketing of consumer financial services and amending Council Directive 90/619/EEC (2) and Directives 97/7/EC (3) and 98/27/EC (4), and, in any event, by having failed to inform the Commission of them, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for the transposition of Directive 2002/65/EC into national law expired on 9 October 2004.

      (1)  OJ L 271, p. 16

      (2)  OJ L 330, p. 50

      (3)  OJ L 144, p. 19

      (4)  OJ L 166, p. 51


title: Case C-199/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles by judgment of that court of 28 April 2005 in European Community v Belgian State

text:
               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/26

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles by judgment of that court of 28 April 2005 in European Community v Belgian State
   (Case C-199/05)
   (2005/C 182/49)
   Language of the case: French
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles (Court of Appeal, Brussels) of 28 April 2005, received at the Court Registry on 9 May 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between the European Community and the Belgian State on the following questions:

               1.

               Must the second paragraph of Article 3 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities, which provides that the governments of the Member States shall take the appropriate measures to remit or refund the amount of indirect taxes or sales taxes, be interpreted as meaning that a proportional duty levied in respect of decisions of courts and tribunals, given in all matters, concerning orders to pay amounts of money or securities and calculation of amounts of money or securities payable falls within its scope?

               2.

               Must the third paragraph of Article 3 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities, which provides that no exemption shall be granted in respect of a mere charge for a public utility service, be interpreted as meaning that the tax charged at the outcome of proceedings to the losing party, who is ordered to pay a specified amount, constitutes a mere charge for a public utility service?