title: Case C-439/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris (France)) — Pierre Fabre Dermo-Cosmétique SAS v Président de l’Autorité de la Concurrence, Ministre de l’Économie, de l’Industrie et de l’Emploi (Article 101(1) and (3) TFEU — Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 — Articles 2 to 4 — Competition — Restrictive practice — Selective distribution network — Cosmetics and personal care products — General and absolute ban on internet sales — Ban imposed by the supplier on authorised distributors)

text:
               3.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/3

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris (France)) — Pierre Fabre Dermo-Cosmétique SAS v Président de l’Autorité de la Concurrence, Ministre de l’Économie, de l’Industrie et de l’Emploi
   (Case C-439/09) (1)

   (Article 101(1) and (3) TFEU - Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 - Articles 2 to 4 - Competition - Restrictive practice - Selective distribution network - Cosmetics and personal care products - General and absolute ban on internet sales - Ban imposed by the supplier on authorised distributors)
   2011/C 355/04
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d’appel de Paris

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Pierre Fabre Dermo-Cosmétique SAS

      Defendants: Président de l’Autorité de la Concurrence, Ministre de l’Économie, de l’Industrie et de l’Emploi

      Intervening parties: Ministère public, European Commission

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour d’appel de Paris — Competition — General and absolute ban on internet sales of cosmetics and personal care products imposed by the supplier on authorised distributors in the context of a selective distribution network — Obligation to sell such products in a physical space in which a qualified pharmacist must be present — ‘Hardcore’ restriction of competition by object under Article 81(1) EC which cannot benefit from a block exemption under Commission Regulation No 2790/1999 of 22 December 1999 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices (OJ 1999 L 336, p. 21) — Possibility of benefiting from an individual exemption under Article 81(3) EC

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of a selective distribution system, a contractual clause requiring sales of cosmetics and personal care products to be made in a physical space where a qualified pharmacist must be present, resulting in a ban on the use of the internet for those sales, amounts to a restriction by object within the meaning of that provision where, following an individual and specific examination of the content and objective of that contractual clause and the legal and economic context of which it forms a part, it is apparent that, having regard to the properties of the products at issue, that clause is not objectively justified.
   Article 4(c) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 of 22 December 1999 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices must be interpreted as meaning that the block exemption provided for in Article 2 of that regulation does not apply to a selective distribution contract which contains a clause prohibiting de facto the internet as a method of marketing the contractual products. However, such a contract may benefit, on an individual basis, from the exception provided for in Article 101(3) TFEU where the conditions of that provision are met.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.


title: Case C-445/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on  9 October 2008 — Kurt Wierer v Land Baden-Württemberg

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 9 October 2008 — Kurt Wierer v Land Baden-Württemberg
   (Case C-445/08)
   (2009/C 32/19)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Kurt Wierer

      Defendant: Land Baden-Württemberg
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is it contrary to the principles developed by the Court of Justice in the judgments of 26 June 2008 (in Joined Cases C-329/06 and C-343/06 Wiedemann and Joined Cases C-334/06 and C-336/06 Zerche) for the national driving licence authorities and the courts of the host Member State, when examining compliance with the residence condition in Article 9 of Directive 91/439/EEC (1) by the issuing Member State at the time of issuing the driving licence, to rely, to the disadvantage of the holder of the driving licence, on statements and information which were provided by the holder in the course of administrative procedures or court proceedings and which he was obliged to provide when complying with an obligation of cooperation under national administrative law in the course of the investigation of facts relevant to the issues of the case?

               2.

               Should that question be answered in the negative:
               Is it contrary to the principles developed by the Court of Justice in the judgments of 26 June 2008 (in Joined Cases C-329/06 and C-343/06 Wiedemann and Joined Cases C-334/06 and C-336/06 Zerche) for the national driving licence authorities and the courts of the host Member State, when examining compliance with the residence condition in Article 9 of Directive 91/439/EEC by the issuing Member State at the time of issuing the driving licence, in a case where firm evidence exists that the condition was not met at the time the driving licence was issued, to conduct further investigations exclusively in the issuing Member State, for example, with registration authorities, landlords, or employers, and to use those facts, provided that they have evidentiary force, alone or together with information from the issuing Member State or the holder of the driving licence himself?

      (1)  OJ L 237, p. 1.


title: Case T-317/01: Action brought on 17 December 2001 by M+M Gesellschaft für Unternehmensberatung und Informationssyteme mbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
2.3.2002               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 56/17
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Action brought on 17 December 2001 by M+M Gesell-
                                                                        schaft für Unternehmensberatung und Informationssyte-
                                                                        me mbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the
—     grant him a Declaration that Commission Regulation
                                                                                Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
      (EC) No. 2062/2001 of 19 October 2001 and Council
      Regulation (EC) No. 467/2001 of 6 March 2001 are,
      insofar as they relate to the applicant, void, and an Order                                (Case T-317/01)
      for annulment in this regard;
                                                                                (2002/C 56/31)
—     order that the Council and/or the Commission pay the
      applicant’s costs of this action.
                                                                        (Language of the case: to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
                                                                        of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the application has
                                                                                been drafted: German)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
The applicant in the present case, a citizen of Saudi Arabia            Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
with substantial financial interests within the European Union,         Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
challenges Regulation (EC) No 2062/2001 of 19 October                   17 December 2001 by M+M Gesellschaft für Unter-
2001, amending, for the third time, Council Regulation (EC)             nehmensberatung und Informationssyteme mbH, of Frankfurt
No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and                 am Main (Germany), represented by M. Treis, lawyer. A further
services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and               party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal was
extending the freezing of funds and other financial resources           Mediametrie S.A., of Levallois Perret (France).
in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan and repealing Regu-
lation (EC) No 337/2000 (1), in as much as it inserted the
applicant’s name into Annex I to Council Regulation (EC)
No 467/2001. By Article 2/1 of the latter, all funds belonging          The applicant claims that the Court should:
to persons designated by the Taliban Sanctions Committee of
the United Nations are to be frozen.                                    —     annul the decision adopted on 2 October 2001 by the
                                                                              First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
                                                                              the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in Case
In support of its conclusions, the applicant submits that the                 No R 698/2000-1;
measures in question:
                                                                        —     order the Office to pay the applicant’s costs.
—     Amount to an interference with property rights, protected
      as a fundamental right within the Community legal order.
—     Entitle the Council and the Commission, in violation of           Pleas in law and main arguments
      the right to a fair hearing, to freeze his assets and to
      maintain his freeze without granting him any opportunity
      to make submissions to these authorities seeking to               Applicant for the Com-         the applicant
      persuade them to release his assets.                              munity trade mark:
—     Provide, in violation of the Community Law principle of           The Community trade            the verbal mark ‘M+M EURODA-
      effective judicial control, no remedy to the Applicant by         mark applied for:              TA’ for goods and services in
      which he may seek to challenge his inclusion in the list                                         Classes 9, 16, 35, 41 and 42 (inter
      by obtaining an independent judicial assessment of the                                           alia software, market research and
      evidential basis for the interference with his rights.                                           seminars)
                                                                        Proprietor of the trade-       Mediametrie S.A.
                                                                        mark right opposed in
According to the Applicant, an independent assessment by the
                                                                        the opposition proceed-
Communty institutions or by any judicial body of the evidential         ings:
basis for the freezing of its assets would show there is no basis
for the allegations against it.
                                                                        Trade-mark            right    the Irish, French and international
                                                                        opposed:                       (effective in respect of Benelux,
                                                                                Spain, Italy and Portugal) verbal
(1) OJ L 277, of 20.10.2001, p. 25.                                                                    mark ‘EURODATA TV’
                                                                        Decision of the Oppo-          rejection of the opposition
                                                                        sition Division:
 ---pagebreak--- C 56/18               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      2.3.2002
Decision of the Board of      rescission of the decision of the          —     order the defendant to pay damages provisionally asses-
Appeal:                       Opposition Division and referral                 sed, on a fair and equitable basis, in the sum of
                              of the case back to the Opposition               10 000 euros and to pay interest at 7 % per annum on
                              Division as regards the goods and                the balance of the pension due from 24 September 2000
                              services not covered by the                      to 1 April 2001;
                              decision of the Board of Appeal.
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
Grounds of claim:             —     infringement         of    Ar-
                                    ticle 8(1)(b) of Regulation
                                    (EC) No 40/94 (1);                   Pleas in law and main arguments
                              —     no risk of confusion;
                                                                         The pleas in law and arguments advanced are broadly similar
                              —     no similarity between the
                                                                         to those put forward in Case T-124/01 Del Vaglio v Com-
                                    allegedly conflicting services.
                                                                         mission (OJ 2001 C 227, p. 31).
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
    Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
                                                                         Action brought on 15 December 2001 by Internationaler
                                                                         Hilfsfonds e.V. against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                                                                                (Case T-321/01)
                                                                                (2002/C 56/33)
Action brought on 17 December 2001 by Pietro del Vaglio
against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                         (Case T-320/01)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                          (2002/C 56/32)                                 European Communities on 15 December 2001 by Interna-
                                                                         tionaler Hilfsfonds e.V., established at Rosbach (Federal Repub-
                                                                         lic of Germany), represented by Hans Kaltenecker, lawyer.
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     annul the decision of the European Commission of
                                                                               16 October 2001 by which it refused the applicant’s
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                      1996 and 1997 requests for co-financing;
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 17 December 2001 by Pietro del
                                                                         —     order the Commission, pursuant to the principle of
Vaglio, residing in London, represented by Georges Vander-
                                                                               reimbursement, to pay the costs, including those resulting
sanden and Laure Levi, lawyers.
                                                                               from the procedures before the Ombudsman which the
                                                                               applicant was constrained to incur in order to obtain its
                                                                               entitlement.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—    annul the defendant’s decision of 6 September 2001                  Pleas in law and main arguments
     rejecting the applicant’s complaint concerning the appli-
     cation to his pension of the weighting for the United
     Kingdom;                                                            The applicant is challenging the Commission’s decision of
                                                                         16 October 2001 rejecting three requests for co-financing
                                                                         which it had made under budget heading B7-6000, concerning
—    order the defendant to apply the weighting for the United           the co-financing of actions with European non-governmental
     Kingdom with retroactive effect from 24 September                   development organisations (NGDOs) in fields relating to
     2000;                                                               developing countries.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber) of 21 February 1995 in Case T-29/92: Vereniging van Samenwerkende Prijsregelende Organisaties in de Bouwnijverheid and Others v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Non-existent measure - Decisions of associations of undertakings - Complex rules and regulations - Infringement - Effect on trade between Member States - Exemption - Fines)

text:
No C 87/8            ΓΕΝ                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       8 . 4 . 95
 Article 1 of Regulation (EEC ) No 2241/87, not only to                     Removal from the register of Case C-146/94 ( )
 diligently to take all control measures necessary in order to                                    ( 95/C 87/16 )
ensure compliance with the rules in force but also to take
penal or administrative action against those responsible for
infringement of those rules. At no time have the French                By order of 8 February 1995 the President of the Fifth
authorities claimed that France has discharged its                     Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
obligations in the matter.                                             Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                       C-146/94: Commission of the European Communities v.
 (!) OJ No L 207, 29 . 7. 1987, p. 1 .                                 Hellenic Republic.
 (2 ) OJ No L 378 , 31 . 12 . 1990, p. 1 .
 (3 ) OJ No L 367, 31 . 12 . 1991 , p. 1 .                             (!) OJ No C 202 , 23 . 7. 1994 .
       Removal from the register of Case C-115/94 ( )
                             ( 95/C 87/15 )
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-203/94 ( )
By order of 1 February 1995 the President of the Court of                                         ( 95/C 87/17)
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-115/94: Commission of the                  By order of 3 February 1995 the President of the Court of
European Communities v. Hellenic Republic.                            Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                       from the register of Case C-203/94: French Republic v.
(M OJ No C 161 , 11 . 6. 1994 .                                        Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                       (!) OJ No C 254 , 10 . 9 . 1994 .
                                                     COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Haarlem-Bollenstreek,           established    in    Heemstede,
                          (First Chamber)                             Netherlands, Aannemersvereniging Veluwe en Zuidelijke
                                                                      Ijsselmeerpolders, established in Apeldoorn, Netherlands,
                      of 21 February 1995                             Combinatie van Aannemers in het Noorden, established in
in Case T-29/92: Vereniging van Samenwerkende                         Leeuwarden,        Netherlands,          Vereniging     Centrale
Prijsregelende Organisaties in de Bouwnijverheid and                  Prijsregeling Kabelwerken, established in Leeuwarden,
  Others v. Commission of the European Communities (*)                Netherlands, Delftse Aannemers Vereniging, established in
(Competition — Non-existent measure — Decisions of                    Rotterdam, Netherlands, Economisch Nationaal Verbond
associations of undertakings — Complex rules and                      van Aannemers van Sloopwerken, established in Utrecht,
regulations — Infringement — Effect on trade between                  Netherlands, Aannemersvereniging 'Gouda en Omstreken',
           Member States — Exemption — Fines)                         established in Rotterdam, Netherlands, Gelderse
                                                                      Aannemers Vereniging inzake Aanbestedingen, established
                            ( 95/C 87/18 )                            in Arnhem, Netherlands, Gooise Aannemers Vereniging,
                (Language of the case: Dutch)                         established in Huizen, Netherlands, 's-Gravenhaagse
                                                                      Aannemers Vereniging, established in The Hague,
In Case T-29/92 : Vereniging van Samenwerkende                        Netherlands, Leidse Aannemersvereniging, established in
Prijsregelende Organisaties in de Bouwnijverheid,                     Leiden, Netherlands, Vereniging Markeer Aannemers
established in Amersfoort, Netherlands, Amsterdamse                   Combinatie, established in Tilburg, Netherlands,
Aannemers Vereniging, established in Amsterdam,                       Nederlandse    Aannemers-          en  Patroonsbond    voor      de
Netherlands, Algemene Aannemersvereniging voor                        Bouwbedrijven, established in Dordrecht, Netherlands,
Waterbouwkundige Werken, established in Utrecht,                      Noordhollandse           Aannemers          Vereniging       voor
Netherlands, Aannemersvereniging van Boorondernemers                  Waterbouwkundige Werken, established in Amsterdam,
en Buizenleggers, established in Soest, Netherlands,                  Netherlands, Oostnederlandse-Vereniging-Aanbestedings
Aannemersvereniging Velsen, Beverwijk en Omstreken,                   Regeling, established in Delden, Netherlands, Provinciale
established in Velsen, Netherlands, Aannemers Vereniging              Vereniging van Bouwbedrijven in Groningen en Drenthe,
 ---pagebreak--- 8 . 4 . 95            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 87/9
established in Groningen, Netherlands, Rotterdamse                    Brautigam and G. Houttuin), supported by Commission of
Aannemersvereniging,          established     in     Rotterdam,       the European Communities (Agent: X. Lewis) —
Netherlands, Aannemersvereniging 'de Rijnstreek',                     application pursuant to Article 173 of the EEC Treaty for
established in Rotterdam, Netherlands, Stichting                      annulment of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3814/92 of
Aanbestedingsregeling           van     de     Samenwerkende          28 December 1992 amending Regulation (EEC)
Bouwbedrijven in Friesland, established in Leeuwarden,                No 1785/81 and introducing application in Spain of the
Netherlands, Samenwerkende Prijsregelnd Vereniging                    sugar sector prices provided for by that Regulation (2 ) and
Nijmegen en Omstreken, established in Nijmegen,                       for damages under Article 178 and the second paragraph of
Netherlands, Samenwerkende Patroons Verenigingen in de                Article 215 of the EEC Treaty, — the Court of First Instance
Boouwbedrijven Noor-Holland-Noord, established in                     (First Chamber), composed of R. Schintgen, President, R.
Alkmaar, Netherlands, Utrechtse Aannemers Vereniging,                 Garcfa-Valdecasas, H. Kirschner, B. Vesterdorf and C. W.
established in Utrecht, Netherlands, Vereniging                       Bellamy, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on
Wegenbouw         Aannemers         Combinatie       Nederland,       21 February 1995 , in which it:
established in Zeist, Netherlands, and Zuid Nederlandse
Aannemers Vereniging, established in Heeze, Netherlands,              1 . dismisses the application as inadmissible in so far as it
represented by Louis H. van Lennep, of the Hague Bar, and                  seeks annulment of Council Regulation (EEC)
Erik H. Pijnacker Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, with an                   No 3814/92 of 28 December 1992 amending
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Luc                   Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 and introducing
Frieden, 6, Avenue Guillaume v. Commission of the                          application in Spain of the sugar sector prices provided
European Communities (Agents: Berend J. Drijber, and P.                    for by that Regulation;
Glazener) — application for a declaration that Commission
Decision 92/204/EEC of 5 February 1992 relating to a
proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EEC Treaty                   2. dismisses the application as unfounded in so far as it
(IV/31.572 and 32.571 — Building and Construction                          seeks damages;
Industry in the Netherlands (2 ) is non-existent or,
alternatively, for a declaration that it is void — the Court of       3 . orders the applicants to pay their own costs and jointly
First Instance (First Chamber), composed of R. Schintgen,                  and severally to bear the costs incurred by the
President of the Chamber, H. Kirschner, B. Vesterdorf, K.                  Council;
Lenaerts and C. W. Bellamy, Judges; Registrar, H. Jung,
gave a judgment on 21 February 1995 , in which it:                    4 . orders the Commission to bear its own costs.
1 . dismisses the application;
                                                                      (!) OJ No C 135 , 14 . 5 . 1993 .
                                                                      (2 ) OJ No L 387, 31 . 12 . 1992 , p. 7.
2 . orders the applicants jointly and severally to pay the
     costs, including those relating to the application for
     interim measures.
(M OJ No C 142 , 4 . 6 . 1992 .
(2 ) OJ No L 92, 7. 4. 1992, p. 1 .
                                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 7 March 1995
                                                                      in Joined Cases T-432/93, T-433/93 and T-434/93 :
                                                                      Sociedade de Curtumes a Sul do Tejo, Ld, and Others v.
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                     Commission of the European Communities C )
                        (First Chamber)
                                                                       (European Social Fund — Decision reducing the amount of
                     of 21 February 1995                              financial assistance — Application for annulment —
in Case T-4 72/93 : Campo Ebro Industrial SA and Others v.            Non-existence — Admissibility — Breach of an essential
             Council of the European Union ( x )                                         procedural requirement)
(Action for annulment — Regulation — Alignment of the                                            ( 95/C 87/20
price of sugar in Spain with the common price — No
compensation for producers ofisoglucose — Admissibility                            (Language of the case: Portuguese)
— Action for damages — Legislative measure involving
                 choices of economic policy)                          In Joined Cases T-432/93 , T-433/93 and T-434/93 : Socurte
                          ( 95/C 87/19                                (Sociedade de Curtumes a Sul do Tejo, Ld ), Quavi
                                                                      ( Revestimentos de Cortiga, Ld), and Stec ( Sociedade
               (Language of the case: English)                        Transformadora di Carnes, Ld), established at Pau
                                                                      Queimado, Portugal, represented by Carlos Botelho Moniz
In Case T-472/93 : Campo Ebro Industrial, SA, Levantina               and Antonio Magalhaes Cardoso, of the Lisbon Bar, with an
Agricola Industrial, SA, and Cerestar Iberica, SA, companies          address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Guy
established under Spanish law, represented by Paul                    Harles, 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt, against Commission of
Glazener, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for service           the European Communities (Agents: N. Khan and F. de
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 1 1 Rue                 Sousa Fialho ) — application for a declaration that the
Goethe, against Council of the European Union (Agents: A.             Decision by which the Commission reduced the amount of


title: Action brought on 17 October 1995 by 'H' against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-196/95)

text:
9 . 12 . 95            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 333/21
withholding from the complainant of information as                     nevertheless obliged to carry out a careful and impartial
significant as the existence and contents of requests for              examination of all the relevant elements of each case, in
information and the observations of the undertaking                    order to be able to assess, with full knowledge of the matter,
concerned on the issues involved or on the request for its             the factual and legal aspects submitted by the complainants
comments on the complaint. The applicant remains                       for its consideration .
unaware of the nature of the request for information which
was addressed to Peugeot in the four matters referred to by            The applicant contends that the defendant institution failed
DG IV, and consequently whether that request has any                   to comply with those requirements in the present case. It
bearing whatever on its complaint.                                     argues in that regard that it is not open to the Commission to
                                                                       claim that there was no sufficient Community interest such
Lastly, the decision to proceed on the basis of a system of            as to require it to move on to the next stage of the procedure,
interconnections between the Sodima matter and other                   namely notification of the complaints, or at least the
matters, which is apparent from the Commission's letter of             communication of its intentions pursuant to Article 6 of
12 September 1995 , may be regarded as an artifice designed            Regulation No 99/63 , since :
to delay the outcome of the procedure in the applicant's own
case and to make improper use, in the other cases, of the              ( a ) the Commissioner responsible for competition matters
specific evidence produced by the applicant, thereby                          has publicly stated on numerous occasions that
disregarding the terms laid down by the complainant and                       complaints will be dealt with quickly and that sanctions
the requirements of confidentiality.                                          will be imposed where complaints are well-founded;
                                                                       ( b ) in the present matter, preparatory inquiries into the
                                                                              complaint were all the more necessary in that Nissan
                                                                              France involved the Commission in the drafting of its
Action brought on 17 October 1995 by Société Guérin                           dealership agreement, as is apparent from a letter of
Automobiles against the Commission of the European                             1 July 1993 sent by Nissan France to the applicant.
                            Communities
                                                                       It further states that, had the Commission adopted a
                         ( Case T- 195/95 )                            decision in the form of a withdrawal of exemption or a
                           ( 95/C 333/39 )                             declaration that the clauses and practices followed in its
                                                                       dealings with Nissan France were contrary to Community
                 (Language of the case: French)                        competition law, the applicant would have been able more
                                                                       rapidly to obtain an order for compensation from the
An action against the Commission of the European                       national court before which the matter is pending.
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 17 October 1995
by Societe Guerin Automobiles, established at Alen^on
( France ), represented by Jean-Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4 Rue Beatrix de Bourbon .                Action brought on 17 October 1995 by 'H' against the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                                   ( Case T-l 96/95 )
— declare that the Commission has wrongfully failed to                                           ( 95/C 333/40 )
     act ,
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
— alternatively, declare on the basis of Article 215 of the
     Treaty that the Commission has thus incurred                      An action against the Commission of the European
     non-contractual liability towards the applicant, and              Communities was brought before the Court of First
     order it to pay to the applicant compensation assessed at         Instance of the European Communities on 17 October 1995
     FF 1 577 188,53 ,
                                                                       by 'H ', residing in Brussels, represented by Pierre-Paul van
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                              Gehuchten and Jacques Sambon, of the Brussels Bar, with
                                                                       an address for service at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz,
                                                                       2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim .
Pleas in law and main arguments:
The applicant company, a concessionaire of Nissan France               The applicant claims that the Court should:
( which imports Nissan vehicles and is a subsidiary of the
Japanese manufacturer ), contests the Commission's refusal             — declare the conclusions of the Invalidity Committee
to act on a complaint lodged by it against Nissan France                     irregular and void,
concerning the compatibility of the dealership agreement
with Article 85 of the EC Treaty and Regulation                        — annul the decision of the Commission of the European
No 123/85 .                                                                  Communities of 27 September 1994 retiring the
                                                                             applicant and granting her an invalidity pension
It considers that, whilst the Commission is indeed at liberty                pursuant to the provisions of the third paragraph of
to establish an order of priority in dealing with matters, it is             Article 78 of the Staff Regulations,
 ---pagebreak--- No C 333/22           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   9 . 12 . 95
— order the Commission to pay all of the costs of the                concluding from the file in the matter, as constituted, that
    proceedings.                                                     the condition giving rise to invalidity was irreversible in
                                                                     nature, despite the fact that the documents on the file
Pleas in law and main arguments:                                     include numerous medical certificates showing that her state
                                                                     of health was good.
The applicant contends, first, that the defendant failed to
notify her that it had requested the President of the Court of       Lastly, the applicant pleads infringement of Article 25 of the
Justice, in accordance with Article 7 of Annex II to the Staff       Staff Regulations.
Regulations of Officials, to appoint the third doctor to sit on
the Invalidity Committee, and did not inform her of the
decision adopted in consequence of that request; she also
states that the doctor appointed to represent her did not
consider it necessary to advise her of his appointment, nor, a
fortiori, of the task with which he had been entrusted. In                Removal from the register of Case T-3 89/94 ( x )
those circumstances, the procedure by which the Invalidity
Committee was set up and instructed to act was seriously                                      ( 95/C 333/41 )
irregular.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The applicant also states that the fact that she was left in
ignorance of all of the work carried out by the Invalidity
Commission prevented her from exercising her right under             By order of 18 October 1995 the President of the Third
Article 9 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations to submit to the      Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Committee any reports or certificates from her regular               Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
doctor or from other medical practitioners .                         T-389/94 : Sebastiano Cordelia v. Comite Economique et
                                                                     Social des Communautes Europeennes .
She further considers that the Invalidity Committee has
breached the general principle of sound administration by            (') OJ No C 386 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .


title: Case C-501/03: Action brought on 26 November 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Sweden

text:
C 21/26                  EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                         24.1.2004
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               The Commission claims that the Court should:
—     Declare that, by approving Order No 783/98 without                  1.     Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      notifying it at the draft stage, the Portuguese Republic has               and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8 of Directive              Directive 2001/12/EC (1) of the European Parliament and
      98/34/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the                         of the Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council
      Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for                        Directive 91/440/EEC (2) on the development of the
      the provision of information in the field of technical                     Community’s railways, Directive 2001/13/EC (3) of the
      standards and regulations, in the version in force at the                  European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February
      material time;                                                             2001 amending Council Directive 95/18/EC (4) on the
                                                                                licensing of railway undertakings and Directive 2001/14/
—     Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.                            EC (5) of the European Parliament and of the Council
                                                                                of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway
                                                                                infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the
                                                                                use of railway infrastructure and safety certification and,
                                                                                in any event, by not having communicated them to the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  Commission, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil
                                                                                its obligations thereunder; and
Article 2 of the Regulamento da Navegação em Albufeiras                   2.     Order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.
(Waterway Navigation Regulations) (Order No 783/98 of
19 September 1998) contains technical regulations within the
meaning of Community law. It is a regulatory measure adopted
by the Government of the Portuguese Republic which is de jure
mandatory and which lays down the technical characteristics               Pleas in law and main arguments
(dimensions and power) which pleasure craft must observe in
order to be used in Portugal for pleasure navigation in public
waterways in Portugal, the only exception being the waterways
                                                                          The time-limit for transposition of the directives expired on
in the Douro River. The article thus manifestly applies to
                                                                          15 March 2003.
Portugal or, at least, to a major part of it. Accordingly, the
Portuguese Republic ought, pursuant to Article 8(1) of Direc-
tive 98/34/EC, to have forwarded to the Commission the draft
legislative measure which was adopted by the Portuguese                   (1 ) OJ 2001 L 75, p. 1.
Government as Order No 783/98.                                            (2 ) Of 29 July 1991 (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1).
                                                                          (3 ) OJ 2001 L 75, p. 26.
                                                                          (4 ) Of 19 June 1995 (OJ 1995 L 143, p. 70).
                                                                          (5 ) OJ 2001 L 75, p. 29.
(1) OJ L 204 of 21.7.1998, p. 37.
Action brought on 26 November 2003 by the Com-                            Action brought on 27 November 2003 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the                           mission of the European Communities against the
                        Kingdom of Sweden                                                          Kingdom of Spain
                           (Case C-501/03)                                                          (Case C-503/03)
                            (2004/C 21/48)                                                           (2004/C 21/49)
An action against the Kingdom of Sweden was brought                       An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 No-
26 November 2003 by the Commission of the European                        vember 2003 by the Commission of the European Communi-
Communities, represented by W. Wils and K. Simonsson,                     ties, represented by Carmel O’Reilly and Luis Escobar Guerrero,
acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.              acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Case T-263/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 November 2008 — Greece v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — Expenditure excluded from Community financing — Measures ancillary to rural development — Time-limit of 24 months — Assessment of the expenditure to be excluded — Key controls — Principle of ne bis in idem — Extrapolation of the findings of default — Principle of proportionality)

text:
               24.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/26

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 November 2008 — Greece v Commission
   (Case T-263/06) (1)

   (EAGGF - Guarantee Section - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Measures ancillary to rural development - Time-limit of 24 months - Assessment of the expenditure to be excluded - Key controls - Principle of ne bis in idem - Extrapolation of the findings of default - Principle of proportionality)
   (2009/C 19/47)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Chalkias and G. Kanellopoulos, Agents)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Jimeno Fernández and H. Tserepa-Lacombe, acting as Agents, and N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)
   Re:
   Annulment of Commission Decision 2006/554/EC of 27 July 2006 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2006 L 218, p. 12), in so far as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic in the sector of measures ancillary to rural development
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 281, 18.11.2006.


title: Case T-270/03: Action brought on 31 July 2003 by Ghiotto srl against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 239/24                EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                          4.10.2003
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             and subversion of the effectiveness of the agreement between
                                                                        the parties in the first case. Third, she alleges that the
                                                                        Commission breached the principle of good management
—     annul the decision of the selection board in competition          practice and sound administration and the duty to have regard
      COM/PB/99 of 24 January 2003 rejecting the applicant’s            for the welfare of officials. Finally, as her fourth plea in favour
      request of 26 June 2002 that the selection board recon-           of annulment, she relies on misuse of powers and alleged
      sider its decision of 8 March 2000 excluding the applicant        breaches of the principle of non-discrimination, of Article 27
      from the oral test in the competition pursuant to the             of the Staff Regulations and of the right to career advancement.
      agreement reached between the Commission and the
      applicant at the informal meeting held before the Fourth
      Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European            (1 ) Case T-34/01, notice published in OJ C 108, 7.4.2001, p. 28.
      Communities on 20 March 2002 in connection with the
      action brought against the decision of 8 March 2000
      (Case T-34/01);
—     annul, to the extent necessary, the decision of the
      appointing authority of 13 June 2003, served on 20 June
      2003, rejecting the applicant’s complaint;
                                                                        Action brought on 31 July 2003 by Ghiotto srl against the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
—     annul the decision of the selection board in competition
      COM/PB/99 of 8 March 2000 and admit the applicant to
      the oral test in competition COM/PB/99;                                                     (Case T-270/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 239/45)
—     award damages of EUR 8 150,10;
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
—     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 31 July 2003 by Ghiotto srl,
                                                                        represented by L. Lavitola and C. Reggio d’Aci.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant had brought an action before the Court of                 —      annul that part of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1065/
First Instance against the decision of the selection board in                  97 of 12 June 1997 which is prejudicial to the applicant’s
competition COM/PB/99 not to admit her to the oral test in                     interests, together with annexed documents and, specifi-
that competition (1). At the hearing in that case the parties                  cally, the rules governing the PGI ‘Prosciutto di Norcia’,
agreed on a settlement under which the applicant would be                      with reference to the unlawful provision (in Article 3)
sent corrected copies of her own answers and of the model                      that the pigs must come from Italian farms; make all
answers drawn up by selection board in the competition and                     consequential orders, and order the Commission to pay
the applicant would pass on any comments to that selection                     the costs.
board. Following that agreement, the applicant discontinued
her first action. Having examined the copies sent to her the
applicant asked the selection board to reconsider its previous
decision and admit her to the oral test. The present case arises
over the refusal of that request.                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        The applicant company operates in the food distribution
                                                                        sector. Through the company’s own supplier it purchased in
In support of her claims the applicant pleads breach of the rules       the European market from stock farms specialising in white
governing the work of a selection board, misinterpretation and          meat pork-meat intended for preparation and aging by com-
breach of the principle of non-discrimination. She also puts            panies authorised for that purpose with reference to the
forward a plea alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons       protected geographical indication (PGI) Prociutto di Norcia.
 ---pagebreak--- 4.10.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 239/25
The present action is directed against Commission Regulation               Action brought on 7 August 2003 by Azienda Agricola
(EC) No 1065/97 of 12 June 1997 supplementing the Annex                    ‘Le Canne’ srl against the Commission of the European
to Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 on the registration of geo-                                            Communities
graphical indications and designations of origin under the
procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2081/92 ( 1), insofar as it concerns the rules governing the                                     (Case T-276/03)
use of the PGI ‘Prociutto di Norcia’ adopted by the Commission.
                                                                                (2003/C 239/46)
The applicant points out, first and foremost, that Regulation                                  (Language of the case: Italian)
No 1065/97 contains no reference to the rules which the
Commission adopted and which govern the production of
‘Prosciutto di Norcia’. As regards raw materials, the rules
merely provide, in Article 3, that the meat must come from                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
farms rearing cross-bred selected white race pigs, with no                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
reference to where such farms must be situated. The rules were             European Communities on 7 August 2003 by Azienda Agrico-
published in the Official Journal of the Italian Republic.                 la ‘Le Canne’ srl, represented by G. Carraro and F. Mazzonetto.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
The national authorities competent in the matter have, how-
ever, enjoined the company which prepares and ages the                     —     declare, in accordance with Article 232 of the Treaty,
prosciutto to halt any processing of meat from farms outside                     that, by failing to adopt all the measures and to take all
Italy on the basis that the text of the scheme approved by the                   the steps required to comply with the judgment of
Commission for the PGI in question lays down a similar                           5 March 2002 (Case T-241/00) of the Court of First
prohibition.                                                                     Instance, the Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                                under Community law;
                                                                           —     order the Commission to pay damages which the appli-
                                                                                cant alleges it has sustained in a sum not less than the
In support of its claim, the applicant argues:                                   unpaid amount of the subsidy, together with interest at
                                                                                the rate charged to the applicant by the banking system
                                                                                from the date of the last part payment of the subsidy to
—     Infringement of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of                     the date when the balance due is paid;
      14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indi-
      cations and designations of origin for agricultural prod-
                                                                           —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
      ucts and foodstuffs (2);
—     Infringement of Articles 28 and 29 of the EC Treaty on
      the freedom of imports and of the rules for the protection           Pleas in law and main arguments
      of the functioning of the internal market (Articles 3 and
      4 of the Treaty);
                                                                           The present action was brought because of a reduction in the
                                                                           amount of the contribution paid by the Community to help
—     breach of the principles of free competition and breach              finance various works of modernisation and organisation of
      of the prohibition on introducing measures which favour              the applicant’s fish farms. The reduction was annulled by
      national undertakings;                                               judgment of the Court of Justice in Case T-10/98 P (1). By
                                                                           judgment of 5 March 2002 ( 2) a further decision reducing the
                                                                           amount of the contribution was annulled on the ground that
                                                                           the Commission had failed to assess whether the project
—     the existence of defects in the inquiry procedure which
                                                                           actually carried out could be regarded as productive and
      led the Commission to approve the rules.
                                                                           consistent with initial plans.
                                                                           The applicant asserts that after the second judgment had
( 1) OJ L 156 of 13.6.1997, p. 5.
                                                                           acquired the authority of a final decision the Commission
( 2) OJ L 208 of 24.7.1992, p. 1.
                                                                           endeavoured to conduct the necessary assessment, making an
                                                                           inspection in loco. However, after making its inspection on 16
                                                                           and 17 September 2002 the Commission failed to express a
                                                                           position and deferred sine dine payment of the balance of the
                                                                           subsidy.


19.6.1999             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 174/15
applicant states that Deutsche Post AG has spent several                        Removal from the register of Case T-210/96 (1)
billion DEM to acquire subsequently joint control of DHL
International and control of some of the major freight carriers                                  (1999/C 174/30)
and/or parcel providers. According to the applicant, there is
no evidence that no State aid is involved. Such issues can and
must be examined by the Commission.                                                         (Language of the case: French)
The applicant emphasises that the Commission’s intervention              By order of 10 February 1999 the President of the First
in this case is crucial for maintaining competition in the               Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
markets concerned. Currently, the postal and parcel market is            Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
characterised by an impressive wave of take-overs by the                 Case T-210/96: Margarida Marı́z Mendes Pires Afonso v
(former) national post offices and particularly Deutsche Post            Commission of the European Communities.
AG. Private operators are not able to meet this form of
competition and will, if no appropriate action is taken by the           (1) OJ No C 54 of 22.2.1997.
Commission, be eliminated from the market.
On 21 December 1998, the applicant sent a letter inviting the
Commission to take a decision with regard to its complaint.
The applicant announced that it would initiate proceedings
under Article 175 of the EC Treaty if the Commission did not
inform the applicant within two months from the date of that                    Removal from the register of Case T-291/97 (1)
letter. The period of two months thus expired on 21 February
1999 without the Commission having taken a decision or                                           (1999/C 174/31)
defined its position in regard to the applicant’s complaint
under Article 92 of the EC Treaty.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The applicant submits that the period of more than 10 months
which has elapsed since the complaint was submitted is a                 By order of 12 March 1999 the President of the Fifth Chamber
sufficiently long period to enable the Commission to close the           of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
preliminary stage of investigation and to initiate a formal              has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-291/97:
investigation under Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty.                      Robert Mehlen and Others v Council of the European Union
                                                                         and Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                         (1) OJ No C 7 of 10.1.1998.
       Removal from the register of Case T-194/96 (1)
                        (1999/C 174/29)                                         Removal from the register of Case T-610/97 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 174/32)
                   (Language of the case: French)
By order of 23 March 1999 the President of the First Chamber                               (Language of the case: Danish)
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-194/96:              By order of 8 February 1999 the President of the Fourth
Mireille Meskens v European Parliament.                                  Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                         Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                         Case T-610/97: Ingeborg Fangel v Council of the European
(1) OJ No C 9 of 11.1.1997.                                              Union and Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                         (1) OJ No C 55 of 20.2.1998.


title: Case T-182/12: Action brought on 26 April 2012 — HTTS v Council

text:
               16.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 174/29

         Action brought on 26 April 2012 — HTTS v Council
   (Case T-182/12)
   2012/C 174/47
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: J. Kienzle and M. Schlingmann, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               Order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings, in particular the applicant’s expenses.

      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 applicant’s rights of defence

                           —

                           In the applicant’s submission, the Council infringed the applicant’s right to effective legal protection and, in particular, the obligation to state reasons by failing to supply sufficient grounds for the applicant’s renewed inclusion in the lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures in accordance with Article 23 of the contested regulation.

                           —

                           The Council infringed the applicant’s right to be heard by not giving the applicant the opportunity to comment beforehand on its renewed inclusion in the sanctions lists and thereby to trigger a review by the Council.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging the absence of any basis for the applicant’s renewed inclusion in the sanctions lists

                           —

                           According to the applicant, the reasons stated by the Council for the applicant’s renewed inclusion in the sanctions lists do not support its renewed inclusion and are substantively inaccurate. In particular, the applicant is not controlled by IRISL.

                           —

                           The applicant’s inclusion in the sanctions lists is based on a manifestly erroneous assessment by the Council of the applicant’s situation and of its activities.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s fundamental right to respect for property

                           —

                           In the applicant’s submission, its renewed inclusion in the sanctions lists represents unjustified interference with its fundamental right to property as the applicant cannot, given the Council’s inadequate reasoning, understand on what grounds it has been included in the lists of persons affected by the sanctions.

                           —

                           The applicant’s inclusion in the sanctions lists represents disproportionate interference with its property rights and is manifestly inappropriate to the fulfilment of the objectives pursued by the contested regulation. In any event, it exceeds that which is necessary for the attainment of those objectives.


title: Case F-15/11: Action brought on 18 February 2011 — Mariën v EEAS

text:
               7.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/30

         Action brought on 18 February 2011 — Mariën v EEAS
   (Case F-15/11)
   2011/C 139/57
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Peter Mariën (Elsene, Belgium) (represented by: B. Theeuwes and F. Pons, attorneys)

      Defendant: European External Action Service

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the decision of Head of the EU Delegation to Afghanistan which ordered to members of this Delegation to leave their hotel and to move into a housing compound of the EU.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision contained in the e-mail message of January 11, 2011 of EU Special Representative and Head of the EU Delegation to Afghanistan ordering the Applicant to relocate on January 14, 2011 to the residential compound in Kabul, Afghanistan;

               —

               order the EEAS to bear all costs relating to the temporary residence measures;

               —

               order the EEAS to pay an indemnity of 10 000 euros to the Applicant for the psychological stress and harm caused;

               —

               order the EEAS to pay the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case F-61/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 24 April 2008 — Dalmasso v Commission (Staff case — Contract staff — Recruitment — Grading in function group — Application for review of grade and remuneration set on recruitment — Former auxiliary staff member employed as contract staff member — Article 3a and Article 80(2) and (3) of the CEOS — Duties falling under different function groups — Equal treatment — Action unfounded)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/68

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 24 April 2008 — Dalmasso v Commission
   (Case F-61/05) (1)

   (Staff case - Contract staff - Recruitment - Grading in function group - Application for review of grade and remuneration set on recruitment - Former auxiliary staff member employed as contract staff member - Article 3a and Article 80(2) and (3) of the CEOS - Duties falling under different function groups - Equal treatment - Action unfounded)
   (2008/C 209/122)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Raffaelle Dalmasso (Schaerbeek, Belgium) (represented by: L.Vogel, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and G. Berscheid, agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by M. Arpio Santacruz and I. Sulce, agents)
   Re:
   Staff case — First, annulment of the Commission's decision rejecting the complaint submitted by the applicant, a former member of the auxiliary staff, against the decision fixing his grade and remuneration as a contract staff member and, secondly, an application for damages (formerly T-269/05)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 229 of 17.9.2005, p. 30 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities as T-269/05 and transferred to the Civil Service Tribunal by order dated 15.12.2005).


C 357/26                 EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 22 . 11 . 97
        Removal from the register of Case C-362/96 (')                         Removal from the register of Case C-57/97 (')
                            ( 97/C 357/47)                                                           ( 97/C 357/48 )
By order of 24 September 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-362/96 : Commission                By order of 24 September 1997, the President of the Court
of the European Communities v. Grand Duchy of                          of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Luxembourg.                                                            removal from the register of Case C-57/97: Commission of
                                                                       the European Communities v. French Republic.
(») OJ C 9 , 11 . 1 . 1997.
                                                                       (') OJ C 108 , 5 . 4 . 1997.
                                                      COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              3.   orders the Commission to bear its own costs.
                        of 25 September 1997
                                                                       (■) OJ C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .
in Case T-170/94: Shanghai Bicycle Corporation ( Group )
             v. Council of the European Union (')
(Dumping — State-trading country — Like product —
Individual treatment — Calculation of the dumping
                                margin)
                            ( 97/C 357/49 )
                                                                            ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 18 July 1997
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                       in Case T-44/96: Oleifici Italiani SpA v. Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (')
In Case T-170/94: Shanghai Bicycle Corporation ( Group ),
established in Shanghai (People's Republic of China ),                 (Tendering procedure for the free supply of olive oil to the
represented by Izzet M. Sinan, Barrister, with an address              people of Georgia and Armenia — Damage alleged by the
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt and                successful tenderer as a result of a delay in the collection
Medernach, 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt, against Council of                  of the olive oil by the carrier designated by the
the European Union ( Agents: Bjarne Hoff-Nielsen, Jorge                Commission — Action for annulment of the Commission 's
Monteiro, Hans-Jürgen Rabe and Georg M. Berrisch ),                    refusal to grant compensation — Action to establish non-
supported by Commission of the European Communities                    contractual liability — Contractual origin of the
( Agents : Eric White and Nicolas Khan ) and The European              Commission 's obligation on which the action to establish
Bicycle Manufacturers' Association ( EBMA ), established               liability is based — Absence of any arbitration clause
in Paris, represented by Jacques H. J. Bourgeois, of the               within the meaning of Article 181 of the EC Treaty —
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at             Clear lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Court of First
the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe —                                                            Instance)
application for annulment of Council Regulation ( EEC )                                              ( 97/C 357/50 )
No 2474/93 of 8 September 1993 imposing a definitive
anti-dumping duty on imports into the Community of
bicycles originating in the People's Republic of China and                               (Language of the case: Italian)
collecting definitively the provisional anti-dumping duty
( OJ L 228 , 9 . 9 . 1993 , p. 1 ) — the Court of First Instance
( Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition ), composed of: R.
                                                                       In Case T-44/96, Oleifici Italiani SpA, established at
García-Valdecasas, President, V. Tiili , J. Azizi, R. M.
                                                                       Ostuni, Italy, represented by Antonio Tizzano and Gian
Moura Ramos and M. Jaeger, Judges; A. Mair,
                                                                       Michele Roberti, both of the " Naples Bar, 36 Place du
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                       Grand Sablon, Brussels, against Commission of the
25 September 1997, in which it:                                        European Communities ( Agents: Eugenio de March and
                                                                       Alberto Dal Farro ) — application under Articles 178 and
1 . dismisses the application;                                         173 of the EC Treaty for compensation for the damage
                                                                       alleged to have been suffered by the applicant as a result
                                                                       of the delay in collection by the carrier designated by the
2 . orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay              Commission of the olive oil made available by the
      those of the defendant and the intervener EBMA;                  applicant under a tendering procedure for the free supply


title: Case T-545/12: Order of the General Court of 11 November 2013 — Mory and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Traditional and express couriers — Decision not to extend the obligation of repayment to the potential purchasers of the beneficiary in composition with creditors — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)

text:
               18.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 15/16

         Order of the General Court of 11 November 2013 — Mory and Others v Commission
   (Case T-545/12) (1)

   (Action for annulment - State aid - Traditional and express couriers - Decision not to extend the obligation of repayment to the potential purchasers of the beneficiary in composition with creditors - No legal interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)
   2014/C 15/23
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Mory SA (Pantin, France); Mory Team (Pantin); Superga Invest, formerly Compagnie française superga d’investissement dans le service (CFSIS) (Miraumont, France) (represented by: B. Vatiert and F. Loubières, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 2401 final of 4 April 2012, concerning the takeover of assets of the Sernam group as part of its composition with creditors.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the applications of the French Republic and Calberson to intervene.

               3.

               Mory SA, Mory Team and Superga Invest shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

               4.

               The French Republic and Calberson, applicants for leave to intervene, shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 71, 9.3.2013.


title: Case T-221/07: Order of the General Court of 23 April 2013 — Hungary v Commission

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/40

         Order of the General Court of 23 April 2013 — Hungary v Commission
   (Case T-221/07) (1)

   2013/C 171/82
   Language of the case: Hungarian
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 199, 25.8.2007.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 October 2000 in Case C-371/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Civile e Penale di Venezia): Cinzia Gozza and Others v Università degli Studi di Padova and Others (Right of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Doctors — Medical specialties — Training periods — Remuneration — Direct effect)

text:
25.11.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 335/15
2.    Orders Ireland to pay the costs.                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fourth Chamber)
(1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.
                                                                                of 3 October 2000
                                                                         in Case C-371/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                         the Tribunale Civile e Penale di Venezia): Cinzia Gozza
                                                                         and Others v Università degli Studi di Padova and
                                                                                Others (1)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                         (Right of establishment — Freedom to provide services —
                                                                         Doctors — Medical specialties — Training periods —
                         (First Chamber)                                                   Remuneration — Direct effect)
                      of 28 September 2000                                                          (2000/C 335/29)
in Case C-193/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Sedgefield Magistrates’ Court): Criminal proceedings
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                against Graeme Edgar Hume (1)
(Social legislation relating to road transport — Weekly rest
                     period — Postponement)                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                         (2000/C 335/28)
                                                                         In Case C-371/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                         the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunale Civile
                   (Language of the case: English)                       e Penale di Venezia (Civil and Criminal District Court, Venice),
                                                                         Italy, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
                                                                         before that court between Cinzia Gozza and Others and
In Case C-193/99: reference to the Court Article 234 EC from             Università degli Studi di Padova and Others — on the
the Sedgefield Magistrates’ Court, United Kingdom, for a                 interpretation of Council Directive 82/76/EEC of 26 January
preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings pending before            1982 amending Directive 75/362/EEC concerning the mutual
that court against Graeme Edgar Hume on the interpretation               recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of
of Article 8(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of                formal qualifications in medicine, including measures to
20 December 1985 on the harmonisation of certain social                  facilitate effective exercise of the right of establishment and
legislation relating to road transport (OJ 1985 L 370, p. 1) —           freedom to provide services, and Directive 75/363/EEC con-
the Court (First Chamber), composed of: L. Sevón, President of          cerning the coordination of provisions laid down by law,
the Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Judges;               regulation or administrative action in respect of activities of
S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a             doctors (OJ 1982 L 43, p. 21) — the Court (Fourth Chamber),
judgment on 28 September 2000, in which it has ruled:                    composed of: D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), President of the
                                                                         Chamber, A. La Pergola and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; P. Léger,
                                                                         Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has
Article 8(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of                   given a judgment on 3 October 2000, in which it has ruled:
20 December 1985 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation
relating to road transport must be interpreted as meaning that a
driver who elects to postpone his weekly rest period until the week      On a proper construction of Article 2(1)(c) of Council Directive
following that in which it becomes due must take two weekly rest         75/363/EEC of 16 June 1975 concerning the coordination of
periods, consecutively and without any break between them, in that       provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in
second week.                                                             respect of activities of doctors and point 1 of the annex to that
                                                                         directive, as amended by Council Directive 82/76/EEC of 26 January
                                                                         1982 amending Directive 75/362/EEC concerning the mutual
                                                                         recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal
(1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.                                               qualifications in medicine, including measures to facilitate effective
                                                                         exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services
                                                                         and Directive 75/363, and of Article 3(2) of Directive 75/363 and
                                                                         point 2 of the annex to that directive, as amended by Directive
                                                                         82/76:
 ---pagebreak--- C 335/16                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         25.11.2000
—     the obligation to provide appropriate remuneration for periods         EC Treaty (now Articles 50 EC, 54 EC and 55 EC) and Council
      of both full-time and part-time training in specialised medicine       Directive 64/427/EEC of 7 July 1964 laying down detailed
      is binding only in respect of the medical specialties which are        provisions concerning transitional measures in respect of
      common to all the Member States or to two or more of them              activities of self-employed persons in manufacturing and
      and are mentioned in Article 5 or Article 7 of Council                 processing industries falling within ISIC Major Groups 23-40
      Directive 75/362/EEC of 16 June 1975 concerning the mutual             (Industry and small craft industries) (OJ, English Special Edition
      recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal     1963-1964, p. 148) — the Court, composed of:
      qualifications in medicine, including measures to facilitate the       G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida,
      effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to        D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), L. Sevón and R. Schintgen
      provide services;                                                      (Presidents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann,
                                                                             H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate
—     that obligation is binding only if the conditions for full-time        General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
      training set out in point 1 of the annex to Directive 75/363,          has given a judgment on 3 October 2000, in which it has
      as amended by Directive 82/76, or those for part-time training,        ruled:
      set out in point 2 of the annex to Directive 75/363, as
      amended by Directive 82/76, are complied with by the trainee           Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC)
      medical specialists;                                                   and Article 4 of Council Directive 64/427/EEC of 7 July 1964
—     that obligation is unconditional and sufficiently precise in so        laying down detailed provisions concerning transitional measures in
      far as it requires, for a medical specialist to be able to benefit     respect of activities of self-employed persons in manufacturing and
      from the system of mutual recognition established by Directive         processing industries failing within ISIC Major Groups 23-40
      75/362, that his training be full-time or part-time and                (Industry and small craft industries) preclude rules of a Member State
      remunerated;                                                           which make the carrying out on its territory of skilled trade work by
                                                                             providers of services established in other Member States subject to an
—     that obligation in itself does not, however, enable the national       authorisation procedure which is likely to delay or complicate exercise
      court to determine which body is liable to pay the appropriate         of the right to freedom to provide services, where examination of the
      remuneration or the level thereof.                                     conditions governing access to the activities concerned has been carried
                                                                             out and it has been established that those conditions are satisfied.
The national court is required, however, when it applies provisions of       Furthermore, any requirement of entry on the trades register of the
national law adopted either before or after a directive, to interpret        host Member State, assuming it was justified, should neither give rise
them as far as possible in the light of the wording and the purpose of       to additional administrative expense nor entail compulsory payment
that directive.                                                              of subscriptions to the chamber of trades.
(1) OJ C 370 of 6.12.1997.                                                   (1) OJ C 137 of 2.5.1998.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         of 3 October 2000
                                                                                of 3 October 2000
in Case C-58/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             in Case C-303/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling
the Amtsgericht Heinsberg): Proceedings against Josef
                                                                             from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad
                              Corsten (1)
                                                                             Valenciana, Spain): Sindicato de Médicos de Asistencia
(Freedom to provide services — Directive 64/427/EEC —                        Pública (Simap) v Conselleria de Sanidad y Consumo de
Skilled services in the building trade — National rules                                         la Generalidad Valenciana (1)
requiring foreign skilled trade undertakings to be entered on
              the trades register — Proportionality)                         (Social policy — Protection of the safety and health of
                                                                             workers — Directives 89/391/EEC and 93/104/EC — Scope
                           (2000/C 335/30)                                   — Doctors in primary health care teams — Average period
                                                                             of work — Inclusion of time on call — Night workers and
                                                                                shift workers)
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (2000/C 335/31)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                               (Language of the case: Spanish)
In Case C-58/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Amtsgericht                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Local Court) Heinsberg, (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in                                    in the European Court Reports)
the proceedings pending before that court against Josef Corsten
— on the interpretation of Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now,                 In Case C-303/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
after amendment, Article 49 EC), Articles 60, 65 and 66 of the               the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal Superior


title: Case F-80/06: Action brought on 21 July 2006 — Duyster v Commission

text:
               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/33

         Action brought on 21 July 2006 — Duyster v Commission
   (Case F-80/06)
   (2006/C 261/69)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

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

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

               —

               declare the action admissible or, in the alternative, in part admissible;

               —

               annul the Appointing Authority's decisions of 22 December 2005 and 11 May 2006 or, in the alternative, annul them in part;

               —

               hold that no legal rule precludes the applicant from applying for her parental leave to be withdrawn in reliance on Article 2 of the General Provisions for Implementing Article 42a of the Staff Regulations relating to Parental Leave (‘GPI’);

               —

               find that the defendant has advanced no valid argument or legal reason precluding the conclusion that the applicant is in active employment;

               —

               find that the defendant has advanced no argument for depriving the applicant of the benefits connected with the administrative position of active employment;

               —

               in the alternative, hold that no legal rule precludes the defendant from a balancing of interests, in which it applies Article 2(4) of the GPI and adopts a decision on that basis in respect of the withdrawal of parental leave;

               —

               in the further alternative, uphold in part one or more of the above claims;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs, including those of the legal assistance relating to the decision adopted following the applicant's request of 6 December 2005.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In Cases F-51/05 (1) and F-18/06 (2), the applicant has already challenged the Commission's giving her parental leave for the period from 1 November 2004 to 30 April 2005 and, then, by letter of 17 November 2005, fixing 8 November 2004 as the date when the parental leave started.
   On 6 December 2005, the applicant made a request based on, among others things, Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations and on the GPI in respect of parental leave. She sought the annulment of the parental leave referred to in the Appointing Authority's letter. On 22 December 2005, the Appointing Authority's declared that request inadmissible. The applicant then lodged, on 14 February 2006, a complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations against the decision of 22 December 2005. On 16 May 2006, the Appointing Authority also declared that complaint inadmissible in a decision of only a few lines.
   In support of her action against the inadmissibility decisions, the applicant pleads, in particular: (i) mistakes of fact on which the decisions are based; (ii) infringement of the content and purpose of Article 90(1) and (2) of the Staff Regulations; (iii) contradictions; (iv) the decision's lack of clarity; (v) infringement of the content and purpose of Article 42a of the Staff Regulations; (vi) infringement of the content and purpose of Article 2 of the GPI; (vii) failure to follow the case-law; (viii) infringement of the content and purpose of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations; (ix) breach of the principles of proportionality, protection of legitimate expectations, equal treatment and legal certainty, as well as breach of the principle of balancing the relevant interests, non-compliance with the employer's duty to provide information and breach of the principle of sound administration; (x) lack of foundation for the Appointing Authority's statement that the contents of the applicant's request already forms part of Case F-51/05.
   The applicant also puts forward the arguments by which she submits that it is possible to rule favourably on the substance of her request. She pleads, among other matters, new circumstances justifying the making of a further request (even with retrospective effect), the content and purpose of Article 42a of the Staff Regulations, the content of the GPI, in particular, Article 2(4) thereof, Articles 35, 36, 59 and 62 of the Staff Regulations and breach of the legal principles cited above under (x).

      (1)  OJ C 217, 3.9.2005 (Case initially registered in the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under No T-249/05 and transferred to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal by order of 15.12.2005).

      (2)  OJ C 154, 1.7.2006.