C 352/38              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                  4.12.1999
       Removal from the register of Case T-392/93 (1)                          Removal from the register of Case T-203/94 (1)
                       (1999/C 352/66)                                                         (1999/C 352/69)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
By order of 27 September 1999 the President of the Fourth
Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance           By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance
the register of Case T-392/93: Greg Walsh v Council of the              of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
European Union and Commission of the European Communi-                  the register of Case T-203/94: Hans-Hermann Blohm and
ties.                                                                   Others v Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 197 of 21.7.1993.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 218 of 68.1994.
Partial removal from the register in Joined Cases T-81/94
                         and Others (1)
                       (1999/C 352/67)                                         Removal from the register of Case T-225/94 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 352/70)
                  (Language of the case: German)
By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities has ordered the removal of
Cases T-81/94, T-114/94, T-135/94, T-200/94, T-204/94,                  By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth
T-205/94, T-206/94, T-207/94, T-208/94, T-209/94,                       Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance
T-210/94, T-211/94, T-213/94, T-214/94, T-215/94,                       of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
T-216/94, T-217/94, T-218/94, T-220/94, T-221/94,                       the register of Case T-225/94: Georg Hofstetter v Commission
T-222/94, T-223/94, T-254/94, T-255/94, T-256/94,                       of the European Communities.
T-257/94, T-258/94, T-269/94, T-287/94, T-288/94 and
T-296/94 from the list of Joined Cases T-81/94 and Others:
Anni Rau and Others v Council of the European Union and                 (1) OJ C 233 of 20.8.1994.
Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 103 of 11.4.1994, C 132 of 14.5.1994, C 218 of 6.8.1994,
    C 275 of 1.10.1994 and C 370 of 24.12.1994.
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case T-270/94 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case T-89/94 (1)                                           (1999/C 352/71)
                       (1999/C 352/68)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth
By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth               Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance
Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance           of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                the register of Case T-270/94: Claus-Heinrich Röhe v Council
the register of Case T-89/94: Hubert Remmers v Council                  of the European Union and Commission of the European
of the European Union and Commission of the European                    Communities.
Communities.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 275 of 1.10.1994.
(1) OJ C 103 of 11.4.1994.


title: Case C-163/15: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 February 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Youssef Hassan v Breiding Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 23 — Licence — Register of Community trade marks — Right of the licensee to bring proceedings for infringement notwithstanding the fact that the licence has not been entered in the Register)

text:
               21.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/9

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 February 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Youssef Hassan v Breiding Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH
   (Case C-163/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 23 - Licence - Register of Community trade marks - Right of the licensee to bring proceedings for infringement notwithstanding the fact that the licence has not been entered in the Register))
   (2016/C 106/12)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Youssef Hassan

      Defendant: Breiding Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH

      Operative part of the judgment

   The first sentence of Article 23(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that the licensee may bring proceedings alleging infringement of a Community trade mark which is the subject of the licence, although that licence has not been entered in the Register of Community trade marks.

      (1)  OJ C 254, 3.8.2015.


title: Case T-155/99: Action brought on 25 June 1999 by Dieckmann & Hansen GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
2.10.1999              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 281/17
Action brought on 14 June 1999 by the Institute of                       — its obligation to provide a statement of reasons, in that it
Professional Representatives before the European Patent                       does not explain in what respect, going beyond the
Office (EPI) against the Commission of the European                           principle of comparative advertising authorised by Direc-
                           Communities                                        tive 84/450 as amended by Directive 97/55 (1), the
                                                                              implementation of that principle by the EPI was contrary
                                                                              to Community competition law;
                         (Case T-144/99)
                                                                         — the rules of the EC Treaty, in particular Article 81 thereof,
                                                                              and the rules of law concerning its application, by declaring
                         (1999/C 281/34)                                      the articles of the Code of Conduct in issue, as referred to
                                                                              above, to be contrary to Article 81(1), whereas:
                   (Language of the case: French)                             — first, by amending Directive 84/450 in order to include
                                                                                comparative advertising within its scope, Directive
                                                                                97/55 expressly provided for the right to prohibit such
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                advertising in relation to the activities of professional
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                                persons; and
European Communities on 14 June 1999 by the Institute of
Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office
(EPI), established in Munich (Federal Republic of Germany),                   — second, the provisions forming the subject-matter of
represented by Robert Collin and Mary-Claude Mitchell, of the                     the contested decision concern professional conduct
Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                       obligations which pursue an objective in the public
Chambers of Nicolas Decker, 16 Avenue Marie-Thérèse.                              interest, constituting a competition factor in accord-
                                                                                ance with Article 81(1) which is justified by the nature
                                                                                of those provisions.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— partially annul the Commission’s decision of 7 April 1999              In the alternative, the EPI maintains that, by exempting the
     relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the              two provisions in issue for a transitional period only, in order
     EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) (Article 53 of the EEA                to give the applicant institute time to adapt to the situation by
     Agreement) (IV/36.147 EPI Code of Conduct), in so far as            amending its Code of Conduct, when the conditions for
     it concerns Article 2(b)(1) and (3) and Article 5(c) of the         the application of Article 85(3) are already fully met, the
     EPI Code of Conduct;                                                Commission has infringed Article 81(3) of the EC Treaty and
                                                                         Article 8 of Regulation No 17/62.
— order the Commission to pay all the costs and expenses
     incurred as a result of these proceedings.
                                                                         (1) Directive 97/55/EC of European Parliament and of the Council of
                                                                             6 October 1997 amending Directive 84/450/EEC concerning
                                                                             misleading advertising so as to include comparative advertising
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              (OJ L 290 of 23.10.1997, p. 18).
The application contests the decision of the Commission by
which it held that two articles of the Code of Professional
Conduct drawn up by the applicant institute (the EPI), which
was itself set up by the Administrative Council of the European
Patent Organisation (‘the EPO’), are contrary to Article 85 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC). The provisions in issue are
Article 2(b)(1) and (3), relating to comparative advertising, and
Article 5(c), relating to relations between representatives of           Action brought on 25 June 1999 by Dieckmann &
clients and former representatives of those clients.                     Hansen GmbH against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
In the contested decision, the Commission takes the view that
those two provisions restrict the freedom of action of members                                    (Case T-155/99)
of the EPI and are designed to restrict competition between
members of the profession. According to the Commission,
those two provisions, one of which prohibits comparative                                          (1999/C 281/35)
advertising and the other of which is liable to impede the
supply of services to former clients of other representatives,
help to crystallise the clientele of each professional representa-                          (Language of the case: German)
tive within each national market, and thus constitute a
restriction of competition which is unnecessary and significant,
since it concerns all professional representatives on the EPO            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
list who are members of the EPI.                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 25 June 1999 by Dieckmann
                                                                         & Hansen GmbH, of Hamburg, represented by Professor
In support of its arguments, the applicant maintains that the            Hans-Jürgen Rabe, of the Gaedertz partnership, 35 Avenue de
defendant institution has infringed:                                     Tervuren, Brussels.
 ---pagebreak--- C 281/18               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        2.10.1999
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 meeting of the Standing Veterinary Committee of 23 Feb-
                                                                            ruary 1999 that the Commission submitted the final report
— set aside the contested decision;                                         on the inspection visit to Kazakhstan, and moreover it
                                                                            does not appear from the minutes that the Commission
— order the defendant to pay the applicant DEM                              submitted to the Standing Veterinary Committee the
    9 519 974 .00, with interest at 8 % per annum from the                  specific proposal for the contested decision.
    date when the present action was brought;
— declare that the defendant is obliged to compensate the              The liquidated claim for damages essentially concerns an
    applicant for all further damage which may arise;                  advance payment for a delivery of 9 500 kg of caviar which is
                                                                       likely to be irrecoverable, and the loss of profit which could
— order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                       have been earned on the processing and sale of that quantity.
                                                                       The final amount of damage cannot yet be completely
                                                                       calculated, however, and so the Community must be held to
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        be liable in principle.
The applicant imports caviar mainly from Kazakhstan in large
units (as a rule 1.8 kg tins), packages it in small portions           (1) Commission Decision of 26 March 1999 amending Decision
and sells these on to its customers inside and outside the                 97/296/EC drawing up the list of third countries from which the
Community.                                                                 import of fishery products is authorised for human consumption
                                                                           (OJ No L 91 of 7.4.1999, p. 37).
                                                                       (2) Commission Decision of 28 January 1999 amending Decision
In accordance with Article 1 of in conjunction with the Annex              97/296/EC drawing up the list of third countries from which the
to the contested Commission decision (1), Kazakhstan was                   import of fishery products is authorised for human consumption
deleted from the list of third countries from which fishery                (OJ No L 44 of 18.2.1999, p. 61).
products may be imported into the Community, so that                   (3) Council Decision of 22 June 1995 on the conditions for drawing
the previously authorised import of caviar was no longer                   up, for an interim period, provisional lists of third country
permitted.                                                                 establishments from which Member States are authorised to
                                                                           import certain products of animal origin, fishery products or live
                                                                           bivalve mulluscs (OJ No L 243 of 11.10.1995, p. 17).
In the period November/December 1998 three veterinary
inspectors instructed by the Commission carried out an
investigative mission for examining conditions in Kazakhstan
with respect to imports of horsemeat and of fist products
other than caviar. Although caviar was not even a subject
of investigation, the inspectors nevertheless proposed that
Kazakhstan should be deleted from the list of authorised
countries of import with respect also to imports of caviar. In
the fourth recital in the preamble to the contested decision the
Commission then indeed gave as reasons for the deletion of
Kazakhstan the serious deficiencies found during the inspec-           Action brought on 2 July 1999 by Helga Griesel against
tion visit.                                                                          the Council of the European Union
As a result of the contested decision, it was no longer possible                                (Case T-157/99)
for the applicant to import into the Community the fresh
caviar for which it had concluded a supply contract shortly
before the adoption of the contested decision, and it has                                       (1999/C 281/36)
thereby incurred substantial damage.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
In the applicant’s view, the contested decision infringes
— the principle of sound administration, because it incor-             An action against the Council of the European Union was
    rectly assesses the facts on which it is based and draws           brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
    implausible conclusions from them, and                             Communities on 2 July 1999 by Helga Griesel, residing in
                                                                       Brussels, represented by Jacques Sambon and Pierre-Paul van
— the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations,          Gehuchten, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service at
    since the Commission, after the inspection visit to Kazakh-        the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim.
    stan by the veterinary inspectors, in Decision 99/136/EC (2)
    still left Kazakhstan on the list of authorised countries of
    import for caviar and then by the contested decision
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
    suddenly and without warning deleted Kazakhstan from
    the list, and also breaches
                                                                       — annul the defendant’s decision not to promote her to grade
— essential procedural requirements, since — in breach of                   C 4 in the 1998 promotions procedure;
    Decision 95/408/EC (3) on which the contested decision is
    based — it does not appear from the minutes of the                 — order the defendant to pay all of the costs.


title: Case C-263/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Gorj (Romania) lodged on 27 May 2010 — Iulian Andrei Nisipeanu v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Gorj, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Târgu-Cărbunești, Administrația Fondului Pentru Mediu

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Gorj (Romania) lodged on 27 May 2010 — Iulian Andrei Nisipeanu v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Gorj, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Târgu-Cărbunești, Administrația Fondului Pentru Mediu
   (Case C-263/10)
   ()
   2010/C 234/35
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Tribunalul Gorj

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Iulian Andrei Nisipeanu

      Defendants: Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Gorj, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Târgu-Cărbunești, Administrația Fondului Pentru Mediu

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 110 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition in the Treaty on discriminatory internal taxes extends to the tax provided for by the rules enacted in Romania by Government Emergency Order No 50/2008 of 25 April 2008 introducing a pollution tax on vehicles, as amended by Emergency Order No 208/2008 of 8 December 2008, Emergency Order No 218/2008 of 11 December 2008, Emergency Order No 7/2009 of 19 February 2009 and Emergency Order No 117/2009 30 December 2009?

               2.

               Does Article 110 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union permit Romania to implement in its national legislation, by means of Government Emergency Order No 50/2008, which entered into force on 1 July 2008, the criterion of ‘first registration in Romania’, as laid down by Article 4(a) of the emergency order, and is that criterion an objective requirement, as required by the provisions of the Treaty?

               3.

               Does Article 110 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union authorise Romania, as a Member State of the European Union, to apply, with effect from 1 July 2008, the pollution tax to second-hand vehicles imported from within the European Union or purchased within the European Union which are registered for the first time in Romania, whilst exempting second-hand vehicles purchased in Romania?

               4.

               Does Article 110 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union permit Romania, under the legislation referred to above, to grant exemption from payment of the pollution tax solely in respect of ‘vehicles in category M1 and pollution class Euro 4, with an engine capacity no greater than 2 000 cubic centimetres, and all vehicles in category N1 and pollution class Euro 4, registered for the first time in Romania or in another Member State of the European Union between 15 December 2008 and 31 December 2009’ and to withhold such exemption from new motor vehicles with different characteristics?

               5.

               Must Article 110 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as permitting Romania to protect its own motor car industry, inasmuch as the pollution tax must be paid only in respect of imported second-hand motor vehicles registered elsewhere in the European Union or purchased elsewhere in the European Union, whilst it is not payable in respect of second-hand motor vehicles that are already registered in Romania and are resold within the territory of Romania?

               6.

               If the criterion of ‘first registration in Romania’ laid down in Article 4(a) of Government Emergency Order No 50/2008 cannot be regarded as objective in relation to the stated aim of introducing a pollution tax in accordance with the ‘polluter pays’ principle and that tax, which is linked to that criterion, protects the Romanian motor vehicle manufacturing industry and the Romanian market for second-hand motor vehicles, does the situation described constitute discriminatory taxation, prohibited by Article 110 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?


title: Case T-63/10: Action brought on 10 February 2010 — Jurašinović v Council

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/50

         Action brought on 10 February 2010 — Jurašinović v Council
   (Case T-63/10)
   2010/C 113/81
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Ivan Jurašinović (Angers, France) (represented by: N. Amara-Lebret, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               annulment of the decision of 7 December 2009 by which the Council refused the applicant access to the following documents:

                           —

                           Council decisions relating to the transmission to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia of documents which that Tribunal requested in connection with the Gotovina case;

                           —

                           all the correspondence exchanged in that connection by the EU Institutions with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (+ any annexes) and particularly the initial requests from both the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and Mr GOTOVINA’s lawyers;

                           —

                           an order that the General Secretariat of the Council of the EU allow access, electronically, to all the documents sought;

                           —

                           an order that the Council of the EU pay the applicant a sum of EUR 2,000 exclusive of tax, being EUR 2,392 inclusive of all taxes for its legal costs, with interest at the ECB’s rate to the date of registration of the application.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of the Council's decision of 7 December 2009 refusing it access to the Council's decisions relating to the transmission to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) of the documents which that Tribunal requested in connection with the Gotovina case and all the correspondence exchanged in that connection by the EU Institutions with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (+ any annexes) and particularly the initial requests from both the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and Mr GOTOVINA’s lawyers.
   In support of its action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law alleging:

               —

               error of law in that the Council refused access to the documents on the basis of Article 70B of the ICTY's Rules of Procedure and Evidence, although those rules are not applicable;

               —

               that the protection of court proceedings and legal advice under the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 (1) would not be undermined because that exception concerns the protection of court proceedings of the European Union and its Member States and not proceedings before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia which are outside the EU’s jurisdiction;

               —

               that the protection of the public interest as regards international relations under the third indent of Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation No 1049/2001 would not be undermined;

               —

               that there is an overriding public interest under the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 because the applicant seeks the disclosure of the documents sought so as to establish its rights in Case T-465/09. That request appertains to access to justice and the right to due process before the European Courts. In addition, the conflict to which those documents relate was concluded in 1995.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).


title: Case T-93/12: Action brought on 23 February 2012 — Gas v OHIM — Grotto (BLUE JEANS GAS)

text:
               28.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 126/21

         Action brought on 23 February 2012 — Gas v OHIM — Grotto (BLUE JEANS GAS)
   (Case T-93/12)
   2012/C 126/42
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: André Pierre Gas (Marseille, France) (represented by: L. Levy, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Grotto SpA (Chiuppano, Italy)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 December 2011 in Case R 620/2009-1 in its entirety and refer the case back to OHIM to be reconsidered in the light of the decision to be made;

               —

               Order the proprietor of the disputed Community trade mark to pay all the future costs of these proceedings and to reimburse the applicant for the costs of appeal incurred by him to date.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Figurative mark including the word elements ‘BLUE JEANS GAS’ for goods in Classes 3, 9, 14 and 25 — Registered Community trade mark No 205050.

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant.

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The grounds put forward for the application for the declaration of invalidity are based, on the one hand, on the application of Article 53(1)(a) and (c), Article 8(1)(b), Article 53(2) and Article 8(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 and, on the other, on French registrations No 1594704 and No 1627459 of figurative [marks] ‘-GAS- BIJOUX’ and ‘BIJOUX –GAS-’ for goods in Classes 14 and 25.

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Annulment in part of the Community trade mark.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment in part of the decision of the Cancellation Division, annulment in part of the Community trade mark and dismissal of the application for annulment.

      Pleas in law:

               Infringement of Article 56(3) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 57(3) [of Regulation No 207/2009]) and of Rule 22(3) and (4) of Regulation No 2868/95; infringement of Article 15(1) and (2) of Regulation No 40/94 and of Article L714(5)(b) of the French Intellectual Property Code; infringement of Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 75 [of Regulation No 207/2009]), in that the Board of Appeal committed a number of errors in law and of assessment as regards the evidence of genuine use of the earlier mark under Class 25.

               Incorrect application of Article 52(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 and infringement of Article 53 of Regulation No 40/94 and [the following] provisions of French law: Article 2262 of the Civil Code and Article L714(3) of the French Intellectual Property Code, in that the assessment by the Board of Appeal of the likelihood of confusion is incorrect.

               Infringement of Article 74 of Regulation No 40/94, in that the Board of Appeal ruled ultra petita by ruling on the comparison of the goods in Class 14, which was not part of the subject-matter of the appeal brought before it.

               Infringement of Article 62(1) of Regulation No 40/94, in that the Board of Appeal was not entitled to limit its examination to only the prior right existing under mark No 1594704, after having decided to exercise the powers of the Cancellation Division, nor to refer the case back to the Cancellation Division to rule on the other rights relied on, which had already been examined.


title: Case F-17/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 11 March 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Civil service — Article 34(1) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure — Application lodged by fax within the time-limit for bringing proceedings — Lawyer’s hand-written signature different from that on the original application received by post — Action lodged out of time — Manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               25.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 147/34

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 11 March 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-17/12) (1)

   (Civil service - Article 34(1) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure - Application lodged by fax within the time-limit for bringing proceedings - Lawyer’s hand-written signature different from that on the original application received by post - Action lodged out of time - Manifestly inadmissible)
   2013/C 147/64
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser, J. Banquero Cruz, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for an order that the Commission pay compensation for the damage which the applicant claims to have sustained as a result of the excessive duration of the procedure for recognising the serious nature of the illness from which he suffered.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Mr Marcuccio is order to pay his own costs and to bear the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 138, 12.5.2012, p. 33.


title: Case T-302/16: Judgment of the General Court of 15 June 2017 — Bay v Parliament (Law governing the Institutions — Decision of the President of the Parliament imposing on a Member of the European Parliament the penalty of forfeiture of entitlement to the subsistence allowance — Article 166 of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament — Right of access to the file — Error of fact)

text:
               31.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 June 2017 — Bay v Parliament
   (Case T-302/16) (1)

   ((Law governing the Institutions - Decision of the President of the Parliament imposing on a Member of the European Parliament the penalty of forfeiture of entitlement to the subsistence allowance - Article 166 of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament - Right of access to the file - Error of fact))
   (2017/C 249/40)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Nicolas Bay (La Celle-Saint-Cloud, France) (represented by: A. Cuignache, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz, S. Alonso de León and S. Seyr, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of the decision of the President of the Parliament of 9 March 2016 and of the decision of the Bureau of the Parliament of 11 April 2016 imposing on the applicant the penalty of forfeiture of entitlement to the subsistence allowance for a period of five days.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Nicolas Bay to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 279, 1.8.2016.


2.6.2001              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 161/27
      Removal from the Register of Case T-351/00 (1)                           Removal from the Register of Case T-362/00 (1)
                        (2001/C 161/57)                                                          (2001/C 161/58)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
By order of 6 March 2001, the President of the First Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities               By order of 15 February 2001, the President of the Second
has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-351/00,              Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Hubert Huygens v Commission of the European Communities.                 Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
                                                                         Case T-362/00, Adolfo Kind v Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities.
(1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.


title: Case F-63/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 13 June 2012 — Macchia v Commission (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract — Administration’s discretion — Duty to have regard to the welfare of officials — Article 8 of the Conditions of Employment of other Servants of the European Communities — Article 4 of the decision of the Director General of OLAF, of 30 June 2005 , on the engagement and employment of OLAF’s temporary staff — Maximum duration of contracts of a temporary agent)

text:
               28.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 227/36

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 13 June 2012 — Macchia v Commission
   (Case F-63/11) (1)

   (Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract - Administration’s discretion - Duty to have regard to the welfare of officials - Article 8 of the Conditions of Employment of other Servants of the European Communities - Article 4 of the decision of the Director General of OLAF, of 30 June 2005, on the engagement and employment of OLAF’s temporary staff - Maximum duration of contracts of a temporary agent)
   2012/C 227/60
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Macchia (Woluwé-Saint-Lambert, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rogrigues, A. Blot and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the implied decision not to renew the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the acting Director General of the European Anti-Fraud Office, of 12 August 2010, rejecting the application to extend Mr Macchia’s contract as a member of the temporary staff;

               2.

               Rejects the application for the rest.

      (1)  OJ C 226 of 30 July 2011, p. 32


title: Case C-565/07 P: Appeal brought on 31 December 2007 by AMS Advanced Medical Services GmbH against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 18 October 2007 in Case T-425/03 AMS Advanced Medical Services GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/23

         Appeal brought on 31 December 2007 by AMS Advanced Medical Services GmbH against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 18 October 2007 in Case T-425/03 AMS Advanced Medical Services GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

   (Case C-565/07 P)
   (2008/C 64/34)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: AMS Advanced Medical Services GmbH (represented by: S. Schäffler, Rechtsanwältin)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), American Medical Systems, Inc.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 October 2007.

               —

               Order the defendant and defendant on appeal to pay the costs incurred both at first instance and on appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appeal is based on an infringement of Community law by the Court of First Instance. It was not until the proceedings before the Board of Appeal that the Court of First Instance refused to uphold the appellant's request for the opponent to prove the use of its mark. The Court of First Instance thereby misconceived the principle of continuity in terms of functions between OHIM departments and infringed Article 43(2) and (3) and Article 74 of Regulation No 40/94.
   Pursuant to the principle of continuity in terms of functions between OHIM departments the Board of Appeal should have based its decision on all of the claims made by the appellant both in the proceedings before the Opposition Division and those before the Board of Appeal.


title: Action brought on 2 February 1996 by Télévision Française 1 against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-17/96)

text:
30 . 3 . 96             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 95/ 17
foreign subsidiaries with a view to preventing them from             In the alternative, the Court should :
agreeing to sell vehicles to French intermediaries, and,
second, to the request for action which it sent to the               — annul the position adopted by the Commission on
Commission on 27 September 1995 .                                         11 December 1995 in so far as it may be deemed a
                                                                         decision for the purposes of Article 189 of the EC
The applicant pleads that it has been the subject of a judicial          Treaty .
offensive on the part of Auto Cite for alleged unfair                In any event, the Court should :
competition, the ultimate aim of which was to prevent it
from carrying on its business as an agent.                           — order the Commission to pay the costs in their
                                                                         entirety .
According to the applicant, a further stratagem has been
established at national level and employed at local level by         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
the Peugeot concessionaire with a view to preventing
parallel imports, consisting in private inquiries in the form        The applicant relates that, on 10 March 1993 , it submitted
of affidavits made by process-servers with a view to                 to the Commission a complaint against the French State
obtaining information on Europe Auto's customers and                 concerning the methods of financing and operating the
sources of supply.                                                   French public television broadcasting channels, France 2
                                                                     and France 3 ( France-Television ). That complaint was based
Lastly, according to the applicant, those restrictive practices      on the infringement by the French State of Articles 85 , 90 ( 1 )
are recurring at the level of the Member States, in which            and 92 of the EC Treaty . On 15 July 1995 , after conducting
French agents tend to obtain their supplies, by the exertion         an investigation for more than two years, the Commission
of pressure and the imposition of prohibitions on local              informed the applicant that it had decided to arrange for a
distributors of Peugeot vehicles, on threat of the loss of their     study to be undertaken concerning the general question of
dealership .                                                         the financing of public television broadcasting in the
                                                                     Member States . On 3 October 1995 the applicant sent a
According to the applicant, the Commission's failure to act          letter of formal notice calling upon the Commission to act.
also gives rise to non-contractual liability on its part.            By letter of 11 December 1995 , the Director-General for
                                                                     Competition informed the applicant that, following the
                                                                     results of the study, a letter had been sent to the French
                                                                     authorities and that, depending on the response to that
                                                                     letter, the Commission would be able to adopt a decision as
                                                                     to what action to take with regard to the complaint.
Action brought on 2 February 1996 by Television                      The applicant points out that, despite the letter of formal
Frangaise 1 against the Commission of the European                   notice, the Commission failed to reply — and, accordingly,
                           Communities                               failed to take steps — within the two-month period
                                                                     provided for in the second paragraph of Article 175 of the
                         ( Case T-17/96 )                            EC Treaty and that it had therefore failed to act, within the
                           ( 96/C 95/34 )                            meaning of Article 175 .
                                                                     As regards France-Television 's infringement of Article 85 of
                  (Language of the case: French)                     the Treaty, the Commission was under a duty to send the
                                                                     applicant the communication provided for in Article 6 of
An action against the Commission of the European                     Regulation No 99/63 , which it failed to do . As regards the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                    part of the complaint concerning the infringement of
Instance of the European Communities on 2 February 1996              Articles 90 ( 1 ) and 92 of the Treaty, the Commission was
by Television Fran^aise 1 , whose registered office is in Paris,     likewise under a duty not to let matters rest at the
represented by Georges Vandersanden, Jean-Paul Hordies               preliminary stage described in Article 93 ( 3 ), but to initiate
and Agnes Maqua , of the Brussels Bar, with an adress for            the procedure under Article 93 ( 2 ), which it failed to do .
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
SARL, 1 Rue Glesener.                                                Alternatively, in the event that the Commission's reply of
                                                                     11 December 1995 is deemed to constitute an express
                                                                     decision in response to the complaint, the applicant argues
The applicant claims that the Court should :                         that that decision should be declared unlawful on the
                                                                     ground that it fails to state that France 2 and France 3
— declare that the Commission, by not adopting a position            infringed, on the one hand, Article 85 and, on the other,
     within two months of the applicant's letter of formal           Articles 90 ( 1 ) and 92 , and thereby acted contrary to the
     notice of 3 October 1995 , failed to act,                       principle of equal treatment (a breach of the principle of
                                                                     contrary to the principle of equal treatment (a breach of the
— declare that, by thus failing to act, the Commission failed        principle of non-discrimination ) of private and public
     to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty,                     broadcasting channels, whose task of providing television
                                                                     broadcasting services is in this case the same, and which
— call upon the Commission to act, by adopting a decision            should benefit from identical conditions of competition .
     with regard to the complaint lodged by the applicant on
     10 March 1993 .


title: Case T-207/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2008 — Italian Republic v Commission

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/60

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2008 — Italian Republic v Commission
   (Case T-207/04) (1)

   (2008/C 301/100)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 201, 7.8.2004.


title: Case C-5/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social n °1 de Lleida — Spain) — Marc Betriu Montull v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS) (Social policy — Directive 92/85/EEC — Protection of the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding — Article 8 — Maternity leave — Directive 76/207/EEC — Equal treatment for male and female workers — Article 2(1) and (3) — Right to leave for employed mothers after the birth of a child — Possible use by an employed mother or an employed father — Non-employed mother who is not covered by a State social security scheme — No right to leave for employed father — Biological father and adoptive father — Principle of equal treatment)

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/19

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social no 1 de Lleida — Spain) — Marc Betriu Montull v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS)
   (Case C-5/12) (1)

   (Social policy - Directive 92/85/EEC - Protection of the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding - Article 8 - Maternity leave - Directive 76/207/EEC - Equal treatment for male and female workers - Article 2(1) and (3) - Right to leave for employed mothers after the birth of a child - Possible use by an employed mother or an employed father - Non-employed mother who is not covered by a State social security scheme - No right to leave for employed father - Biological father and adoptive father - Principle of equal treatment)
   2013/C 344/31
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Social no 1 de Lleida

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Marc Betriu Montull

      Defendant: Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS)

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo Social de Lleida — Interpretation of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40) and of Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC (OJ 1996 L 145, p. 4) — National legislation granting six weeks of breastfeeding leave to mothers after giving birth — Right to leave of employed fathers — Conditions — National legislation providing for the right of employed fathers who adopt a child, but not those who have a child by birth, to suspend their contract of employment and to return to the same job, paid for by the social security system — Infringement of the principle of equal treatment

      Operative part of the judgment

   Council Directives 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) and 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions must be interpreted as not precluding a national measure, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that the father of a child, who is an employed person, is entitled, with the consent of the mother, who is also an employed person, to take maternity leave for the period following the compulsory leave of six weeks which the mother must take after childbirth except where her health would be at risk, whereas a father of a child who is an employed person is not entitled to take such leave where the mother of his child is not an employed person and is not covered by a State social security scheme.

      (1)  OJ C 98, 31.03.2012.


title: Removal from the register of C-317/95

text:
1 . 11 . 97             1 EN 1               Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 331 /17
Action brought on 30 September 1997 by the Commission                            Removal from the register of C-145/95 ( J )
of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of                                              ( 97/C 331/34 )
                              Luxembourg
                             Case C-339/97 )                            By order of 10 July 1997, the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                             ( 97/C 331/33 )
                                                                        from the register of Case C-145/95 ( Reference for a
                                                                        preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                     Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Castelnuovo di Porto ( Rome
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                     District Magistrates ' Court, Castelnuovo di Porto
Communities on 30 September 1997 by the Commission                      Division)): Città Convenienza Bergamo Sri v. Sindaco del
of the European Communities, represented by Götz zur                    Commune di Naviglio.
Hausen, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez                 (>) OJ C 174, 8 . 7. 1995 .
de la Cruz, of the Commission's Legal Service, Wagner
Centre, Kirchberg.
The Commission claims that the Court should :
                                                                                Removal from the register of C- 146/95 ( 1 )
1 . declare that, by failing to adopt the laws,        regulations                                  ( 97/C 331 /35 )
       and administrative provisions necessary         to comply
       with Commission Directive 94/1 5/EC of 15       April 1994       By order of 10 July 1997, the President of the Court of
       adapting to technical progress for the           first time      Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
       Council    Directive      90/220/EEC  on   the    deliberate     from the register of Case C-146/95 ( Reference for a
       release into the environment of genetically modified             preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
       organisms (*) and Commission Directive 94/5 1/EC of              Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Castelnuovo di Porto (Rome
       7 November 1994 adapting to technical progress                   District Magistrates' Court, Castelnuovo di Porto
       Council Directive 90/219/EEC on the contained use of             Division)): Città Convenienza Bergamo Sri v. Sindaco del
                                                                        Commune di Torino .
       genetically modified micro-organisms (2 ), the Grand
       Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
       obligations under those Directives;                              H OJ C 174 , 8 . 7. 1995 .
2 . order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
       costs .
                                                                                Removal from the register of C-3 17/95 H
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                ( 97/C 331 /36 )
Pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those set                 By order of 8 August 1997, the President of the Court of
out in Case C-320/97 ( 3 ); the period prescribed for                   Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
transposition expired on 30 June 1994 (Directive 94/15/                 from the register of Case C-3 17/95 ( Reference for a
EC ) and 30 April 1995 ( Directive 94/51 /EC ).                         preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias
                                                                        ( Council of State, Greece )): Canadane Cheese Trading
(') OJ L 103 , 22 . 4 . 1994, p . 20 .                                  AMBA, Adelfi G. Kouri AEVE v. Ministers of ( 1 )
( 2 ) OJ L297, 18 . 11 . 1994 , p. 29 .                                 Commerce, ( 2 ) Finance, ( 3 ) Health, Welfare and Social
( 3 ) See p. 13 of this Official Journal.                               Security, and (4 ) Agriculture.
                                                                        (') OJ C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .


title: Case T-274/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  8 December 2005  — Rounis v Commission (Officials — Staff report — Action for annulment — No longer any legal interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate — Action for damages — Late drawing-up of the staff report)

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/30

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 December 2005 — Rounis v Commission
   (Case T-274/04) (1)

   (Officials - Staff report - Action for annulment - No longer any legal interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate - Action for damages - Late drawing-up of the staff report)
   (2006/C 48/58)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Georgios Rounis (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and M. Velardo, Agents)
   Application for
   Firstly, annulment of the appeal assessor's decision to confirm the applicant's staff reports for the periods 1997/1999 and 1999/2001 and, secondly, damages.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the claims for annulment;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to pay the applicant a sum of EUR 3 500;

               3.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               4.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay two thirds of those incurred by the applicant.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 21.10.2004.


title: Case T-263/01: Action brought on 17 October 2001 by Petros Mavromikhalis against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 3/40                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     5.1.2002
Action brought on 19 October 2001 by Jürgen Sachau                       The applicant submits that the decision is defective in form
  against the Commission of the European Communities                     and in content, inter alia because the Commission exceeded the
                                                                         period allowed for replying to the application and the decision
                                                                         contains no statement of reasons. Furthermore, the decision is
                         (Case T-262/01)                                 contrary to the principles of proper administration and equal
                                                                         treatment, to the proper exercise of discretion and to the duty
                                                                         to have regard for the interests of officials.
                          (2002/C 3/68)
                   (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                Action brought on 17 October 2001 by Petros Mavromi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               khalis against the Commission of the European Communi-
European Communities on 19 October 2001 by Jürgen                                                       ties
Sachau, resident in Kassel, Germany, represented by Dörte
Fouquet, Lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                                (Case T-263/01)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                        (2002/C 3/69)
—     declare that the decision dated 19 December 2000 sent                                 (Language of the case: Greek)
      by the defendant to the applicant is inoperative;
—     declare that the defendant is to reimburse to the applicant
      all costs and expenditure which he has incurred as a               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      result of the period allowed for replying to the application       ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      for continued employment, which expired on 19 Decem-               European Communities on 17 October 2001 by Petros
      ber 2000, being clearly exceeded by the defendant in that          Mavromikhalis, a Commission official, resident in Brussels,
      it did not formulate the decision until 19 December                represented by Nikolaos Korogiannakis, Lawyer, with an
      2000;                                                              address for service in Brussels.
—     declare that the applicant is to be engaged by the
      defendant with immediate effect on a contract of unlimi-           The applicant claims that the Court should:
      ted duration retroactively in Post COM/R/5698/00-
      A8/A5 ST or in a comparable post in accordance with                —    grant the application as well founded in law and in
      the applicant’s professional qualifications;                            substance;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings            —    annul:
      including the applicant’s costs.
                                                                              —     the implied decision of the European Commission
                                                                                by which it rejected the applicant’s complaint seek-
                                                                                ing reconsideration of his placement in Grade A 5
                                                                                instead of Grade A 4 on the basis of Article 31(2) of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                     the Staff Regulations;
                                                                              —     in the alternative, the implied decision of the
The applicant submitted his candidature for Post                                    European Commission by which it rejected the
COM/R/5698/00-A8/A5 ST at the Joint Research Centre in                              applicant’s complaint seeking placement at Step 2
Ispra. At that time he was engaged in that post on a fixed-term                     with additional seniority of 5,5 months instead of at
contract. His contract expired on 30 September 2000 and,                            Step 1 on the basis of Article 32 of the Staff
since it had been indicated to him internally that he would be                      Regulations retroactively from the date of his
able to continue in the post, he decided to remain in Ispra in                      appointment;
order to be available to be called by the Commission. He did
not receive the Commission’s rejection until the decision of             —    order the defendant to pay the costs irrespective of the
19 December 2000.                                                             outcome of the case.
 ---pagebreak--- 5.1.2002               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 3/41
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The appointing authority applied Article 46 of the Staff                 The applicant is challenging Commission Decision
Regulations and did not evaluate the applicant’s professional            C(2001)1759 final of 11 July 2001 in so far as it characterises
experience in order to establish whether it would be possible            as State aid incompatible with the common market the tax
for Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations to be applied in order        reductions under Articles 52 to 56 of the Ley Foral (Regional
to appoint him in Grade A 4 instead of Grade A 5.                        Law) 24/1996 del impuesto sobre sociedades (Regional Law
                                                                         on corporation tax) of 30 December 1996 (Boletı́n Oficial de
                                                                         Navarra No 159 of 31 December 1996) which provide for a
                                                                         reduction of 50 % on the aforementioned tax for undertakings
The appointing authority should have calculated, on the basis
                                                                         which take up business in the Autonomous Community of
of the second paragraph of Article 32(2), his additional
professional experience and placed him at Step 2, and should             Navarra after the entry into force of that Law, provided they
                                                                         invest a minimum of PTA 100 million (EUR 601 012) and
have granted him additional seniority of 5,5 months at Step 2.
                                                                         create more than 10 new jobs.
Deficient statement of reasons.                                          The pleas in law and main arguments on which the applicant
                                                                         relies are similar to those put forward in Case T-225/01.
Action brought on 22 October 2001 by Confederación
Empresarial Vasca against Commission of the European                     Action brought on 22 October 2001 by Confederación
                          Communities                                    Empresarial Vasca against Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                         (Case T-265/01)
                                                                                (Case T-266/01)
                          (2002/C 3/70)
                                                                                (2002/C 3/71)
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
European Communities on 22 October 2001 by Confedera-                    ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
ción Empresarial Vasca, whose registered office is at Bilbao            European Communities on 22 October 2001 by Confedera-
(Spain, represented by Marcos Araujo Boyd, lawyer.                       ción Empresarial Vasca, whose registered office is at Bilbao
                                                                         (Spain, represented by Marcos Araujo Boyd, lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the defendant of 11 July 2001 on             —     annul the decision of the defendant of 11 July 2001 on
      the system of State aid applied by Spain to undertakings                 the system of State aid applied by Spain to undertakings
      in Alava in the shape of a tax credit of 45 % of the cost                in Vizcaya in the shape of a tax credit of 45 % of the cost
      of the investment;                                                       of the investment;
—     in the alternative, annul Articles 3 and 4 of the decision         —     in the alternative, annul Articles 3 and 4 of the decision
      of the defendant of 11 July 2001 on the system of State                  of the defendant of 11 July 2001 on the system of State
      aid applied by Spain to undertakings in Alava in the                     aid applied by Spain to undertakings in Vizcaya in the
      shape of a tax credit of 45 % of the cost of the investment,             shape of a tax credit of 45 % of the cost of the investment,
      inasmuch as the obligation to recover the amounts not                    inasmuch as the obligation to recover the amounts
      levied by the Alava regional revenue authorities pursuant                not levied by the Vizcaya regional revenue authorities
      to the disputed fiscal legislation is unjustified;                       pursuant to the disputed fiscal legislation is unjustified;
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                             —     order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 May 2001 in Joined Cases C-223/99 and C-260/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia): Agorà Srl v Ente Autonomo Fiera Internazionale di Milano, and between Excelsior Snc di Pedrotti Bruna & C. and Ente Autonomo Fiera Internazionale di Milano, Ciftat soc. coop. arl (Public service contracts — Definition of contracting authorities — Body governed by public law)

text:
14.7.2001                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 200/13
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and          2.    Article 7(c) of Directive 85/374 is to be interpreted as meaning
      administrative provisions necessary for the full transposition              that the exemption from liability where an activity has no
      into national law of Articles 4(2) and 5 of Council Directive               economic or business purpose does not extend to the case of a
      93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer                       defective product which has been manufactured and used in the
      contracts, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil              course of a specific medical service which is financed entirely
      its obligations under that Directive;                                       from public funds and for which the patient is not required to
                                                                                pay any consideration.
2.    Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
                                                                            3.    Article 9 of Directive 85/374 is to be interpreted as meaning
                                                                                that, save for non-material damage whose reparation is
(1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
                                                                                governed solely by national law and the exclusions detailed in
                                                                                that article as regards damage to an item of property, a Member
                                                                                State may not restrict the types of material damage, resulting
                                                                                from death or from personal injury, or from damage to or
                                                                                destruction of an item of property, which are to be made good.
                                                                            4.    The national court is required, under Directive 85/374, to
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                          examine under which head the circumstances of the case are to
                                                                                be categorised, namely whether the case concerns damage
                            (Fifth Chamber)                                       covered either by point (a) or by point (b) of the first paragraph
                                                                                of Article 9 or non-material damage which may possibly be
                                                                                covered by national law. The national court may, however, not
                            of 10 May 2001                                        decline to award any damages at all under the Directive on the
                                                                                ground that, where the other conditions of liability are fulfilled,
in Case C-203/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                         the damage incurred is not such as to fall under any of the
the Højesteret): Henning Veedfald v Århus Amtskommu-                              foregoing heads.
                                  ne (1)
                                                                            (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
(Approximation of laws — Directive 85/374/EEC — Liab-
ility for defective products — Exemption from liability —
                               Conditions)
                            (2001/C 200/23)
                     (Language of the case: Danish)                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                                  (Fifth Chamber)
                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                of 10 May 2001
In Case C-203/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Højesteret                      in Joined Cases C-223/99 and C-260/99 (reference for a
(Supreme Court) (Denmark) for a preliminary ruling in the                   preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo
proceedings pending before that court between Henning                       regionale per la Lombardia): Agorà Srl v Ente Autonomo
Veedfald and Århus Amtskommune — on the interpretation                      Fiera Internazionale di Milano, and between Excelsior
of Article 7(a) and (c) and points (a) and (b) of the first                 Snc di Pedrotti Bruna & C. and Ente Autonomo Fiera
paragraph of Article 9 of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of                         Internazionale di Milano, Ciftat soc. coop. arl (1)
25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning               (Public service contracts — Definition of contracting auth-
liability for defective products (OJ 1985 L 210, p. 29) — the                            orities — Body governed by public law)
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President
of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann (Rappor-
teur) and L. Sevón, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate                                           (2001/C 200/24)
General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 10 May 2001, in which it has ruled:
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
1.    Article 7(a) of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July
      1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and
      administrative provisions of the Member States concerning             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
      liability for defective products is to be interpreted as meaning                           in the European Court Reports)
      that a defective product is put into circulation when it is used
      during the provision of a specific medical service, consisting in     In Joined Cases C-223/99 and C-260/99: reference to the
      preparing a human organ for transplantation, and the damage           Court under Article 234 EC from the Tribunale amministrativo
      caused to the organ results from that preparatory treatment.          regionale (Regional Administrative Court) per la Lombardia
 ---pagebreak--- C 200/14                  EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          14.7.2001
(Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending                   ’s-Gravenhage (District Court, The Hague) (Netherlands) for a
before that court between Agorà Srl and Ente Autonomo Fiera                   preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
Internazionale di Milano, and between Excelsior Snc di Pedrotti               court between BASF AG and Bureau voor de Industriële
Bruna & C. and Ente Autonomo Fiera Internazionale di Milano,                  Eigendom (BIE) — on the interpretation of Articles 1 and 3 of
Ciftat soc. coop. arl — on the interpretation of Article 1(b) of              Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 of the European Parliament and
Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the                   of the Council of 23 July 1996 concerning the creation of
coordination of procedures for the award of public service                    a supplementary protection certificate for plant protection
contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1) — the Court (Fifth Chamber),                  products (OJ 1996 L 198, p. 30) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),
composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber,                         composed of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of the
M. Wathelet, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and                          Chamber, V. Skouris, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and
L. Sevón, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,                     F. Macken, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; D. Louter-
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment              man-Hubeau, Head of Division, for the Registrar, has given a
on 10 May 2001, in which it has ruled:                                        judgment on 10 May 2001, in which it has ruled:
A body
—     whose object is to carry on activities relating to the organisation     1.   The concept of a product within the meaning of Article 3 of
      of fairs, exhibitions and other similar initiatives;                         Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 of the European Parliament and
                                                                                of the Council of 23 July 1996 concerning the creation of a
—     which is non-profit-making but is administered according to                  supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products
      the criteria of performance, efficiency and cost-effectiveness; and          covers chemical elements and their compounds, as they occur
                                                                                naturally or by manufacture, including any impurity inevitably
—     which operates in a competitive environment
                                                                                resulting from the manufacturing process, which have general
does not constitute a body governed by public law for the purposes of              or specific action against harmful organisms or on plants, parts
the second subparagraph of Article 1(b) of Council Directive                       of plants or plant products.
92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of
procedures for the award of public service contracts.
                                                                              2.   Two products which differ only in the proportion of the active
                                                                                chemical compound to the impurity they contain, one having a
(1) OJ C 246 of 28.9.1999.                                                         greater percentage of the impurity than the other, must be
                                                                                regarded as the same product within the meaning of Article 3
                                                                                of Regulation No 1610/96.
                                                                              3.   The fact that a marketing authorisation must be obtained for
                                                                                the new plant protection product which has a different
                                                                                proportion of active chemical compound to impurity from that
                                                                                of the former plant protection product is not relevant for the
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                           purposes of establishing whether or not the constituent products
                                                                                of those plant protection products are the same.
                           (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                              4.   The conditions laid down in Article 3(1)(a) and (d) of
                            of 10 May 2001                                         Regulation No 1610/96 are, in any event, not all satisfied
                                                                                where a product, as a plant protection product, manufactured
in Case C-258/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                          according to a patented process and the subject of a marketing
the Arrondissementsrechtbank ’s-Gravenhage): BASF AG                               authorisation, differs from a previously authorised product, as a
       v Bureau voor de Industriële Eigendom (BIE) (1)                             plant protection product, only in the proportion of the active
                                                                                chemical compound to the impurity it contains, the percentage
                                                                                of impurity being greater in the older product than in the new
[Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 — Plant protection products                            one, and where that process patent has been designated as the
             — Supplementary protection certificate]                               basic patent.
                            (2001/C 200/25)
                      (Language of the case: Dutch)                           (1) OJ C 265 of 18.9.1999.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-258/99: reference to the Court under Article 234
of the EC Treaty from the Arrondissementsrechtbank


title: Case C-637/15 P: Appeal brought on 01 December 2015 by VSM Geneesmiddelen BV against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2015 in Case T-578/14: VSM Geneesmiddelen BV v European Commission

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/20

         Appeal brought on 01 December 2015 by VSM Geneesmiddelen BV against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2015 in Case T-578/14: VSM Geneesmiddelen BV v European Commission
   (Case C-637/15 P)
   (2016/C 048/27)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: VSM Geneesmiddelen BV (represented by: U. Grundmann, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) in the case T-578/14, dated 16 September 2015, served by telefax on 21 September 2015.

               —

               set aside the decision of the President of the Chamber not to place the letters lodged on 22/07/2015 and 24/07/2015 on the case file in case T-578/14, served on 21 September 2015.

               —

               declare that the Commission has unlawfully failed to initiate the assessment of health claims on botanical substances by the European Food Safety Authority pursuant to Article 13 Section 3 of Regulation (EC) 1924/2006 since 01/08/2014, and, in the alternative, annul the decision, allegedly contained in the Commission's Letter of 29/06/2014, not to initiate the assessment of health claims on botanical substances by EFSA, pursuant to Article 13 before 01/08/2014.

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   According to Article 13 chapter 3 of the Regulation (EC) 1924/2006 — the Health Claims Regulation — (‘HCR’) the European Commission was under an obligation to adopt a list of permitted claims for substances used in food at the latest by 31/01/2010. In preparation for the adoption of such a list the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was commissioned to evaluate claims that had been submitted by the Member States. However, in September 2010 the Commission announced the suspension and review of the assessment procedure as regards claims for botanical substances, whereupon EFSA ceased to process those claims. The Commission suspended only the assessment procedure on botanical substances, but not the procedure on other, similar chemical substances.
   VSM Geneesmiddelen B.V. called upon the European Commission, with a letter dated 23/04/2014, to instruct EFSA to resume, without delay, the assessment of health claims for botanical substances used in food.
   VSM Geneesmiddelen B.V. is strongly affected by the present legal backlog and the uncertainty in the field of health claims on botanical substances used in food. A number of the health claims that have been submitted to the European Commission refer to botanical substances used in the product range of VSM Geneesmiddelen B.V. Among these are claims for stinging nettle/urtica (claims 2346, 2498 and 2787), St. John's wort/hypericum perforatum (claims 2272 and 2273), melissa (claims 3712, 3713, 2087, 2303 and 2848) and witch hazel/lhamamelis virginiana (claim 3383). None of these claims has so far been assessed by the EFSA and has accordingly not been included in the Commission's list according to Article 13 III HCR.
   The responsible Commissioner informed the Appellant in a letter dated 19/06/2014 that the Commission has received expressions of concern from various Member States and stakeholders with regard to the differentiated treatment of products containing such substances under the legislation on health claims for food on the one hand, and on the traditional herbal medicinal products on the other. The Commissioner informed the Appellant, that the Commission will not initiate the assessment of health claims on botanicals at this stage. The Commission needs some time to identify the best course of action needed.
   The answer of the Commissioner is not acceptable to the Appellant. For this reason, the legal representative of the Appellant in this procedure, sent a further letter to the Commissioner, dated 08/07/2014, setting a deadline for the initiation of the assessment of health claims on botanicals by EFSA ending 31/07/2014. No reply has been received to that letter.
   The Appellant brought a complaint before the General Court asking the Court to declare that the Commission has unlawfully failed to initiate the assessment of health claims on botanical substances by EFSA, and, in the alternative, for annulment of the decision not to initiate the assessment of health claims on botanical substances by EFSA. The General Court dismissed the complaint as inadmissible in case T-578/14 by an order dated 16 September 2015. With this appeal the Appellant claims that the Court should set aside the aforementioned order of the General Court and take the decision sought in the complaint before the General Court.
   The contested judgment contains breaches of procedure which adversely affect the interests of the Appellant, and, in addition, the General Court infringed Union law in aforementioned court order. The General Court found the complaint to be inadmissible because (i) the Appellant missed time limits set by law; (ii) the Appellant did not properly demonstrate that it has an interest, in bringing the proceedings; (iii) the transitional measures in Art. 28 of Regulation No. 1924/2006 are sufficient to protect food business operators and there would not be a definite advantage in the adoption of a definitive list of permitted health claims for food business operators, and (iv) the provisions of the health claims regulation leave it to the discretion of the Commission to define the timeframe in which the list of permitted claims should be adopted and that the Commission enjoys a wide discretion in doing so. These findings of the General Court violate the TFEU, the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union and other EU law.
   The Commission does not enjoy a wide discretion as to when to act and how to act. It is stated in Art. 13 Sec. 3 of Regulation No. 1924/2006 that the Commission has to consult with EFSA prior to taking any decision, and that the Commission has to finalize the list by 31 January 2010 at the latest. Both in consulting with EFSA and adopting the list by 31 January 2010 the latest the Commission has no discretion. The General Court failed in its arguments. Since Member States have to adopt the content of EU Directives within the time limit set by the Directive and, therefore, are bound by EU law, the same applies to the European Commission, which is also bound by time limits given in the Regulation. If missing time limits by the Member States is considered as a clear violation of EU law, the same applies to the Commission’s missing time limits in the Health Claims Regulation.
   The General Court failed when arguing that food business operators, such as the Appellant, are protected by transitional measures. Art. 28 Sec. 5 of the Regulation refers directly to Art. 13 Sec. 3 of the Regulation which means that the transitional measures ended on 31 January 2010 the latest. It may be acceptable that this time limit may not be met and that the transitional measures shall apply after 31 January 2010 for a couple of months, but missing the time limits set by law by six years is not fulfilling the goals of the health claim regulation itself.
   Since the Appellant brought Claims which are now under observation by EFSA the Appellant is directly affected and, therefore, in a position to bring an action against the Commission. The arguments of the General Court in the case T-296/12 apply to this case.
   The Appellant has met all time limits provided in Art. 265 and 263 TFEU. The General Court violated the Appellant's rights of effective protection by a tribunal in accordance with the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union.


title: Case C-362/05 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 June 2007 — Jacques Wunenburger v Commission of the European Communities (Appeals — Staff cases — Promotion — Selection procedure — Rejection of the appellant's candidature — Retirement in the interests of the service — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Error of law — Cross-appeal — Subject-matter of the dispute — Interest in bringing proceedings)

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/6

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 June 2007 — Jacques Wunenburger v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-362/05 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Staff cases - Promotion - Selection procedure - Rejection of the appellant's candidature - Retirement in the interests of the service - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Error of law - Cross-appeal - Subject-matter of the dispute - Interest in bringing proceedings)
   (2007/C 170/09)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Jacques Wunenburger (represented by: E. Boigelot, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and G. Berscheid, Agents and V. Dehin, avocat)
   Re:
   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 5 July 2005 in Case T-370/03 Wunenburger v Commission which dismissed the appellant's application for annulment of the Commission's decision not to proceed with his candidature for the post of Director of Directorate ‘Africa, Caribbean, Pacific’ (AIDCO.C) and appointed another candidate to that post.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Dismisses the main appeal and the cross-appeal.

               2.

               Orders Mr Wunenburger to pay the costs of the main appeal.

               3.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs of the cross-appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 281, 12.11.2005.


title: Case T-390/08: Action brought on 18 September 2008 — Bank Melli Iran v Council

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/49

         Action brought on 18 September 2008 — Bank Melli Iran v Council
   (Case T-390/08)
   (2008/C 272/94)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Bank Melli Iran (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: L. Defalque, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul paragraph 4, section B, of the Annex to Council Decision 2008/475/EC of 23 June 2008 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as it relates to Bank Melli Iran, its subsidiaries and branches;

               —

               in the alternative, declare the present action to be inapplicable under Article 241 EC and Articles 15(2) and 7(2) of Council Regulation No 423/2007 of 19 April 2007;

               —

               in any event, order the Council to pay all of the costs in accordance with Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In this case, the applicant seeks the annulment of Council Decision 2008/475/EC of 23 June 2008 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (1) in so far as it is included in the list of natural and legal persons, entities and bodies whose funds and economic resources are frozen pursuant to that provision.
   In support of its action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law alleging:

               —

               infringement of the essential procedural requirements of the EC Treaty and the rules of law relating to its application, misuse of powers and failure to comply with Article 7(2) of Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (2), as the contested decision was adopted in disregard of the rule of unanimity set out in Article 7(2) of Common Position 2007/140/CFSP;

               —

               in the alternative, that Article 15(2) of Regulation No 423/2007 (3) providing for qualified majority voting is unlawful;

               —

               infringement of the principle of equal treatment in so far as the Council imposed the freeze on the applicant's funds and economic resources without having applied that measure to other Iranian banks in the same situation;

               —

               infringement of the principle of proportionality as the Council imposed the freeze on the applicant's funds and economic resources although Resolution 1803 (2008) of the United Nations Security Council merely called upon States to exercise vigilance over the activities of financial institutions in their territories with all banks domiciled in Iran, including the applicant;

               —

               infringement of the rights of defence, the right to a fair hearing and the right to an effective legal remedy in so far as (i) States were merely called upon, in Resolution 1803 (2008), to exercise vigilance and (ii) the applicant had not been mentioned by the previous resolutions of the United Nations Security Council (Resolutions 1737 (2006) and 1747 (2007)); furthermore, the applicant was not informed of the evidence adduced against it;

               —

               infringement of the fundamental right to respect for property;

               —

               infringement of Article 15(3) of Regulation No 423/2007 in so far as the Council should have stated individual and specific reasons for its decision in view of the mere obligation of vigilance in Resolution 1803 (2008) and the treatment reserved for other Iranian banks;

               —

               infringement of the competences of the Community as the freeze on the applicant's funds and economic resources constitutes a quasi-penal sanction, particularly since the present case does not involve the transposition of a resolution of the United Nations Security Council inasmuch as Resolution 1803 (2008) does not envisage that freeze measure.

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 163, p. 29.

      (2)  Council Common Position 2007/140/CFSP of 27 February 2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2007 L 61, p. 49).

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 of 19 April 2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2007 L 103, p. 1).