title: Case T-131/03: Action brought on 17 April 2003 by Gerolsteiner Brunnen GmbH & Co. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

text:
5.7.2003               EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 158/23
Action brought on 17 April 2003 by Alcon Inc. against                   Action brought on 17 April 2003 by Gerolsteiner Brun-
    the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market                 nen GmbH & Co. against the Office for Harmonisation in
                                                                                the Internal Market
                         (Case T-130/03)
                                                                                (Case T-131/03)
                         (2003/C 158/42)
                                                                                (2003/C 158/43)
(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
                        submitted: English)                             (Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
                                                                        of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
                                                                                submitted: English)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 17 April 2003 by Alcon Inc.,
Hünenberg, Switzerland, represented by Mr G. Breen, Solicitor,          An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
with an address for service in Luxembourg. A further party to           Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
the proceedings before the Board of Appeal was Biofarma                 European Communities on 17 April 2003 by Gerolsteiner
(plc).                                                                  Brunnen GmbH & Co., Gerolstein, Germanty, represented by
                                                                        Dr A. Ebert-Weidenfeller, lawyer. A further party to the
                                                                        proceedings before the Board of Appeal was Kerry Group p.l.c.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—      annul the contested decision                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
—      order OHIM to pay the costs
                                                                        —     annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
                                                                              Office for Harmonization in the International Market
                                                                              (Trade Marks and Designs) of February 13, 2003 (case
                                                                              R275/2002-1) and to order costs against the OHIM
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for Com-            The Applicant
munity trade mark:
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
Community trade mark          Word mark ‘TRAVATAN’ —
sought:                       Application No 847590, for
                              products in class 5 (ophthalmic           Applicant for Com-             Kerry Group PLC.
                              pharamaceutical poducts)                  munity trade mark:
Proprietor of mark or         BIOFARMA PLC                              Community trade mark           Figurative mark ‘KERRY Spring’
sign cited in the oppo-                                                 sought:                        — Application No 0000443135,
sition proceedings:                                                                                for products in class 32 (spring,
                                                                                mineral and aerated waters and
Mark or sign cited in         Italian word mark ‘TRIVASTAN’                                            other non-alcoholic drinks, fruit
                                                                                drinks and fruits juices, fruit fla-
opposition:                   for class 5 products.
                                                                                vored spring and mineral waters).
Decision of the Oppo-         Refusal of the application.
sition Division:                                                        Proprietor of mark or          The applicant.
                                                                        sign cited in the oppo-
                                                                        sition proceedings:
Decision of the Board of      Refusal of the appeal.
Appeal:
                                                                        Mark or sign cited in          German trademark registration
                                                                        opposition:                    No 1100746 for the word ‘GER-
                                                                                RI’., for products in class 5 and 32.
 ---pagebreak--- C 158/24              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            5.7.2003
Decision of the Oppo-         Refusal of the Opposition.                  majority being obtained and that therefore no opinion was
sition Division:                                                          delivered by the Committee, which precluded the defendant
                                                                          from itself taking a decision as it did. The applicant also alleges
Decision of the Board of      Rejection of the Appeal.                    infringement of Article 906 of Regulation No 2454/93 (4),
Appeal:                                                                   inasmuch as the defendant did not forward to the Member
                                                                          States a copy of the case documents received by the French
Pleas in Law:                 Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of          Customs Authorities, within 15 days following their receipt,
                              Regulation No. 40/94.                       as well as infringement of the rules of procedure of the
                                                                          Customs Code Committee, inasmuch as the applicant’s sub-
                                                                          missions were not sent to the permanent representations and
                                                                          to the members of the Committee within 14 days prior to the
                                                                          date of the meeting. It also alleges infringement of Article 3 of
                                                                          Regulation No 1/1958 (5), maintaining that certain representa-
                                                                          tives of the Member States did not receive a copy of the case
                                                                          documents in their own national language, as well as breach
Action brought on 18 April 2003 by Common Market                          of the right to a fair hearing in so far as the defendant refused
Fertilizers (CMF) against the Commission of the European                  the applicant the right to a hearing and did not give it access
                          Communities                                     to the documents required under Regulation No 1049/
                                                                          2001 (6). Finally, the applicant alleges failure to state reasons
                                                                          for the contested decision.
                        (Case T-134/03)
                        (2003/C 158/44)
                   (Language of the case: French)                         With regard to the substance, the applicant maintains that the
                                                                          defendant made a manifest error of assessment in considering
                                                                          that the requirements of Article 239 of Regulation No 2913
                                                                          were not satisfied. The applicant considers that it is in a special
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 situation by reason of the fault committed by its customs
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                agent, who employed a fictitious bonded warehouse without
European Communities on 18 April 2003 by Common                           the applicant’s knowledge, and the absence of circumvention
Market Fertilizers (CMF), a company established in Brussels,              of the provisions of Regulation No 3319/94. It also states that
represented by Alastair Sutton and Nathalie Flandin, lawyers.             no dishonest conduct can be imputed to it and that it has not
                                                                          displayed any manifest negligence.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul Commission Decision REM 02/02;
                                                                          (1 ) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
                                                                               establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 302,
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                                   19.10.1992, p. 1).
                                                                          (2 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 3319/94 of 22 December 1994
                                                                               imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of urea
                                                                               ammonium nitrate solution originating in Bulgaria and Poland,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                exported by companies not exempted from the duty, and col-
                                                                               lecting definitively the provisional duty imposed (OJ L 350,
                                                                               31.12.1994, p. 20).
The applicant is a wholesaler of chemical products and in                 (3 ) 1999/468/EC: Council Decision of 28 June 1999 laying down the
particular nitrogen solutions. It applied to the French customs                procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on
                                                                               the Commission (OJ L 184, 17.7.1999, p. 23).
authorities, under Article 239 of Regulation (EC) No 2913/
                                                                          (4 ) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying
92 (1), for remission of duties in accordance with Article 3(1)                down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation
of Regulation (EC) No 3319/94 ( 2). That application was                       (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code
forwarded by the French authorities to the defendant which,                    (OJ L 253, 11.10.1993, p. 1).
by its contested decision, refused remission.                             (5 ) EEC Council: Regulation No 1 determining the languages to be
                                                                               used by the European Economic Community (OJ, English Special
                                                                               Edition 1952-1958, p. 59).
In support of its action, the applicant relies on pleas in law            (6 ) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and
based both on alleged infringements of essential procedural                    of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to
requirements and on the substance. With regard to essential                    European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ
procedural requirements, the applicant first alleges infringe-                 L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43).
ment of Article 7 of the EC Treaty and of Article 5 of
Council Decision No 468/1999 (3). The applicant argues that
application of the principle of weighting of votes, provided for
by Article 205 EC, to the final vote within the Customs
Code Committee, repayment section, resulted in no qualified


title: Case T-283/16: Action brought on 30 May 2016 — Inpost v Commission

text:
               25.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/60

         Action brought on 30 May 2016 — Inpost v Commission
   (Case T-283/16)
   (2016/C 270/66)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Inpost S.A. (Cracow, Poland) (represented by: W. Knopkiewicz, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul European Commission Decision (EU) C(2015) 8236 of 26 November 2015 on State aid SA.38869 (2014/N), which Poland intends to grant to the Polish postal service as compensation for net costs arising in the years 2013-2015 in connection with the duty to provide universal services;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant raises seven pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 106(2) of the Treaty, incorrect assessment as to meeting the requirements of heading 19 (Clause 2.6) of the [European Union] framework [for State aid in the form of public service compensation (2011)], infringement of the Treaty principles on public procurement and incorrect application of Article 7(2) of Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service (OJ 1998 L 15, p. 14; ‘the Postal Services Directive’)

                           —

                           The methods of financing the provision of universal services applied by the Member States must be consistent with the principles of non-discrimination, transparency and equal treatment (including the choice of the provider of universal postal services by way of competition) arising from the provisions of the TFEU on the internal market freedoms and also with Article 106(2) TFEU, which was not the case in the present dispute.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 106(2) of the Treaty and incorrect assessment as to meeting the requirements of headings 14 (Clause 2.2) and 60 (Clause 2.10) of the [European Union] framework [for State aid in the form of public service compensation (2011)]

                           —

                           The European Commission proceeded on the incorrect assumption that the duty borne by the Polish postal service to provide public services is in fact consistent with the requirements laid down in the Postal Services Directive and that it is therefore not necessary, as proof of the exact assessment of public service needs, to carry out a public consultation or use some other appropriate means to take the interests of users and service providers into account.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 106(2) of the Treaty, incorrect assessment as to meeting the requirements of heading 52 (Clause 2.9) of the [European Union] framework [for State aid in the form of public service compensation (2011)] and infringement of Article 7(1), (3) and (5) of the Postal Services Directive

                           —

                           The European Commission proceeded on the incorrect assumption that the compensation fund fulfils the requirement of non-discrimination in relation to the uniform maximum contribution in the amount of 2 % of the revenue of the provider of universal services or substitutable services; this percentage of the contribution to be paid by providers applies uniformly to all market operators, which is discriminatory since the situation of providers of universal services and the situation of providers of substitutable services are not the same.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 7(1) of the Postal Services Directive, since the European Commission acknowledges that the costs of the universal service were financed through a multitude of exclusive and special rights which were granted to the Polish postal service

                           —

                           Article 7(1) of the Postal Services Directive provides that the Member States may not grant or maintain in force exclusive or special rights for the establishment and provision of postal services. At the same time, the Commission acknowledges that the Polish postal service was granted exclusive and special rights in connection with the universal services being provided by it.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 102, in conjunction with Article 106(1), of the Treaty

                           —

                           The disproportionately high contribution to the compensation fund leads to ‘anticompetitive foreclosure’ of the postal services market.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 16 and Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

                           —

                           By the contested decision, a State aid scheme (programme) was confirmed which results in a disproportionate interference with the applicant’s right to property and a disproportionate restriction of its freedom to conduct a business.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements and failure to comply with the obligation to state reasons under Article 296 of the Treaty

                           —

                           The Commission incorrectly determined the circumstances and frequently based its decision on incorrectly determined facts. In addition, the Commission thereby failed to state adequate reasons, since it did not — contrary to its own decision-making practice — take account, as regards the effect on competition, of the failure to launch a call for tenders as an incriminating factor.


title: Case C-309/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Norte — Portugal) — Maria Albertina Gomes Viana Novo and Others v Fundo de Garantia Salarial IP (Request for a preliminary ruling — Directive 80/987/EEC — Directive 2002/74/EC — Protection of employees in the event of employer’s insolvency — Guarantee institutions — Limitation on the payment obligation of the guarantee institution — Wage claims falling due more than six months before the commencement of legal proceedings seeking a declaration of the employer’s insolvency)

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/10

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Norte — Portugal) — Maria Albertina Gomes Viana Novo and Others v Fundo de Garantia Salarial IP
   (Case C-309/12) (1)

   (Request for a preliminary ruling - Directive 80/987/EEC - Directive 2002/74/EC - Protection of employees in the event of employer’s insolvency - Guarantee institutions - Limitation on the payment obligation of the guarantee institution - Wage claims falling due more than six months before the commencement of legal proceedings seeking a declaration of the employer’s insolvency)
   2014/C 45/18
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal Central Administrativo Norte

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Maria Albertina Gomes Viana Novo, Ezequiel Martins Dias, Gabriel Inácio da Silva Fontes, Marcelino Jorge dos Santos Simões, Manuel Dourado Eusébio, Alberto Martins Mineiro, Armindo Gomes de Faria, José Fontes Cambas, Alberto Martins do Alto, José Manuel Silva Correia, Marilde Marisa Moreira Marques Moita, José Rodrigues Salgado Almeida, Carlos Manuel Sousa Oliveira, Manuel da Costa Moreira, Paulo da Costa Moreira, José Manuel Serra da Fonseca, Ademar Daniel Lourenço Dias, Ana Mafalda Azevedo Martins Ferreira

      Defendant: Fundo de Garantia Salarial IP

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Central Administrativo do Norte — Interpretation of Arts. 4 and 10 of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ 1980 L 283, p. 23) — Limitation of the liability of guarantee institutions — National legislation limiting the obligation to pay claims to those falling due during the six-month period preceding the initiation of proceedings for a declaration of the employer’s insolvency — Application of that limitation in cases in which proceedings have been brought before the labour courts to determine the value of claims that have not been paid during the six months following the date on which they fell due.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, in its original version, as amended by Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national legislation which does not guarantee wage claims falling due more than six months before the commencement of an action seeking a declaration that the employer is insolvent, even where the workers initiated, prior to the start of that period, legal proceedings against their employer with a view to obtaining a determination of the amount of those claims and an enforcement order to recover those sums.

      (1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.


title: Case T-187/11: Judgment of the General Court of (Third Chamber) of 28 May 2013 — Trabelsi and Others v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia — Freezing of funds — Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Action for damages — Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Inadmissibility)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/68

         Judgment of the General Court of (Third Chamber) of 28 May 2013 — Trabelsi and Others v Council
   (Case T-187/11) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia - Freezing of funds - Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Action for damages - Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court - Inadmissibility)
   2013/C 225/150
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Mohamed Trabelsi, Ines Lejri, Moncef Trabelsi, Selima Trabelsi, Tarek Trabelsi (represented by: initially by A. Metzker, and subsequently by A. Tekari, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially by G. Étienne and A. Vitro, and subsequently by G. Étienne, M. Bishop and M. M. Joséphidès, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendants: European Commission (represented by: A. Bordes and M. Konstantinidis, Agents); and Republic of Tunisia (represented by: W. Bourdon, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of, first, Council Implementing Decision 2011/79/CFSP of 4 February 2011 implementing Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2011 L 31, p. 40), and, second, a claim for damages.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Council Implementing Decision 2011/79/CFSP of 4 February 2011 implementing Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia, in so far as it applies to Mr Mohamed Trabelsi.

               2.

               Declares that the effects of Implementing Decision 2011/79 with respect to Mr Mohamed Trabelsi shall be maintained until the expiry of the period for bringing an appeal against the present judgment or, if an appeal is lodged during that period, until its dismissal.

               3.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action.

               4.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs of Mr Mohamed Trabelsi, Mrs Ines Lejri, Mr Moncef Trabelsi, Miss Selima Trabelsi and Mr Tarek Trabelsi, including the costs relating to the application for interim measures.

               5.

               Orders the European Commission and the Republic of Tunisia to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 152, 21.5.2011.


title: Case C-530/07: Action brought on 29 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               9.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/14

         Action brought on 29 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-530/07)
   (2008/C 37/18)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by S. Pardo Quintillán and G. Braga da Cruz, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing

                           (a)

                           to provide the agglomerations of Angra do Heroismo, Bacia do Rio Uima (Fiães de S. Jorge), Costa de Aveiro, Covilhã, Espinho/Feira, Fátima, Ponta delgada, Ponte de Lima, Póvoa de Varzim/Vila do Conde, Santa Cita, Vila Real de Santo António, Viana do Castelo-Cidade and Vila Real with collecting systems, as provided for by Article 3 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC (1) of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment, and

                           (b)

                           to subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment urban waste water from the agglomerations of Alta Nabão, Alverca, Bacia do Rio Uima (Fiães de S. Jorge), Carvoeiro, Costa da Caparica/Trafaria, Costa de Aveiro, Costa Oeste, Covilhã, Espinho/Feira, Fátima, Fundão/Alçaria, Lisbon, Matosinhos, Milfontes, Moledo/Âncora/Afife, Nazaré/Famalicâo, Pedrógão Grande, Ponta delgada, Ponte de Lima, Póvoa de Varzim/Vila do Conde, Santa Cita, Vila Nova de Gaia/Douro Nordeste, Vila Real de Santo António, Viana do Castelo-Cidade, Vila Franca de Xira and Vila Real, as provided for by Article 4 of that directive,

                     the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment;

               —

               order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Member States were to ensure, at the latest by 31 December 2000, that all agglomerations with a population equivalent (p.e.) of more than 15 000 and, at the latest by 31 December 2005, that all agglomerations with a p.e. of between 2 000 and 15 000 were provided with collecting systems for urban waste water.
   Article 4 of the Directive provides as follows:

      ‘1.   Member States shall ensure that urban waste water entering collecting systems shall before discharge be subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment as follows:

                  —

                  at the latest by 31 December 2000 for all discharges from agglomerations of more than 15 000 p.e.,

                  —

                  at the latest by 31 December 2005 for all discharges from agglomerations of between 10 000 and 15 000 p.e.,

                  —

                  at the latest by 31 December 2005 for discharges to fresh water and estuaries from agglomerations of between 2 000 and 10 000 p.e.

            …’

      (1)  OJ L 135, p. 40.


title: Case F-8/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 23 November 2010 — Gheysens v Council (Public service — Auxiliary contract staff — Nonrenewal of contract — Duty to state reasons)

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/63

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 23 November 2010 — Gheysens v Council
   (Case F-8/10) (1)

   (Public service - Auxiliary contract staff - Nonrenewal of contract - Duty to state reasons)
   2011/C 30/122
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Johan Gheysens (Malines, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Balta and K. Zieleśkiewicz, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Council’s decision not to extend the applicant’s contract and, consequently, to terminate his employment relationship with the Council.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses Mr Gheysens’ action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Gheysens to pay all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010, p. 69.


title: Removal from the register of T-162/95

text:
25 . 1 . 97          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 26/ 11
consists in excluding the construction industry from the            Council of the European Union and Commission of the
scope of the regional scheme for the reduction of social            European Communities .
charges in the Mezzogiorno falls outside the scope of
Articles 92 and 93 of the EC Treaty.                                0 ) OJ No C 299 , 11 . 11 . 1995 .
By the present action, the applicant alleges that the
defendant has breached provisions of the EC Treaty and
general principles of law, in particular the principle of
non-discrimination, and that the statement of reasons of
the decision are defective .
                                                                          Partial removal from the register of T-154/96 (*)
                                                                                ( 97/C 26/20 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
           Removal from the register of T-162/95 ( ] )
                                                                    By order of 12 November 1996 the President of the Fifth
                        ( 97/C 26/19 )                              Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
               (Language of the case: German)                       Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                    Antoinette Losch's name from the list of applicants in
By order of 8 October 1996 the President of the First               Case T-154/96 : Christiane Chvatal and Others v. Court of
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European              Justice of the European Communities .
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Case T-162/95 : Hubertus Freiherr von Marschalck v.                 (!) OJ No C 354 , 23 . 11 . 1996 .


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 February 2001 in Case T-144/00: Daniela Tirelli v European Parliament (Officials — Upgrading — Secretarial allowances — Article 46 of the Staff Regulations — Transfer between institutions — Inadmissibility)

text:
19.5.2001               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 150/25
1.    dismisses the application;                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2.    orders each of the parties to bear its own costs.                                              of 13 March 2001
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.00.                                                     in Case T-116/00: Benthe Hørbye-Möller v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities (1)
                                                                            (Officials — Promotion — Examine of comparative merits
                                                                                — Action for annulment)
                                                                                (2001/C 150/49)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                        of 31 January 2001
                                                                            In Case T-116/00: Benthe Hørbye-Möller, an official of the
in Case T-24/00: The Sunrider Corporation v Office for                      Commission of the European Communities, residing in Igel
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                       (Germany), represented by Louis Tinti, avocat, with an address
                        Designs) (OHIM) (1)                                 for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the Euro-
                                                                            pean Communities (Agent: C. Berardis-Kayser) — application
(Community trade mark — Term VITALITE — Absolute                            for annulment of the appointing authority’s decision not to
ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No                  promote the applicant to Grade B2 in the 1999 promotions
                                40/94)                                      procedure — the Court of First Instance (Single Judge:
                                                                            J.D. Cooke); D. Christensen, for the Registrar, gave a judgment
                          (2001/C 150/48)                                   on 13 March 2001, in which it:
                                                                            1.    dismisses the application;
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                            2.    orders each of the parties to bear its own costs.
In Case T-24/00: The Sunrider Corporation, having its regis-
tered office in Torrance, California, United States of America,             (1) OJ C 192 of 8.7.00.
represented by A. Kockläuner, Rechtsanwalt, Munich, with
an address for service in Luxembourg, against Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: C. Rusconi and G. Humphreys) —
application brought against the decision of the Second Board
of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 November 1999
(Case R 137/1999-2) concerning the registration of the term                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
VITALITE as a Community trade mark — the Court of First
Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: J. Pirrung, President,                                     of 22 February 2001
A. Potocki and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Palacio González,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
31 January 2001, in which it:                                               in Case T-144/00: Daniela Tirelli v European Parliament (1)
1.    Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office       (Officials — Upgrading — Secretarial allowances —
      for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and             Article 46 of the Staff Regulations — Transfer between
      Designs) of 26 November 1999 (Case R 137/1999-2) in                                    institutions — Inadmissibility)
      respect of the following goods: ‘food for babies’ and ‘mineral
      and aerated waters’;                                                                            (2001/C 150/50)
2.    Dismisses the application as to the remainder;
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
3.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay one half
      of the defendant’s costs; orders the defendant to bear the other
      half of its own costs.                                                In Case T-144/00: Daniela Tirelli, official of the European
                                                                            Parliament, residing in Dahlem (Luxembourg), represented by
                                                                            G. Vogel and F. Burg, avocats, with an address for service in
(1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.00.                                                    Luxembourg, against European Parliament (Agents: H. von
                                                                            Hertzen and Y. Pantalis) — application, first, for the annulment
                                                                            of the decision of the Parliament refusing to grant the
                                                                            secretarial allowance to the applicant and, secondly, seeking
 ---pagebreak--- C 150/26                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         19.5.2001
compensation for alleged non-material damage — the Court                    1.    dismisses the application.
of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Lindh,
President, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke, Judges; G. Her-            2.    orders each of the parties to bear their own costs.
zig, administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
22 February 2001, in which it:
                                                                            (1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.00.
1.    dismisses the claims for annulment relating to the promotion of
      the applicant to Grade B 4 as inadmissible;
2.    dismisses the claim for compensation for the non-material
      damage allegedly caused by the discriminatory conduct of the
      Parliament with regard to the promotion of the applicant to
      Grade B 4;
                                                                            Partial removal from the register in Joined Cases T-530/93
                                                                            to T-533/93, T-1/94 to T-4/94, T-11/94, T-53/94, T-71/94,
3.    dismisses the remainder of the application as unfounded;              T-73/94 to T-76/94, T-86/94, T-87/94, T-91/94, T-94/94,
                                                                            T-96/94, T-101/94 to T-106/94, T-118/94 to T-124/94,
4.    orders each of the parties to bear its own costs.                            T-130/94, T-253/94, T-372/94 and T-373/94 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 150/52)
(1) OJ C 211 of 22.7.00.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                            By order of 15 March 2001, the President of the Fourth
                                                                            Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance
                                                                            of the European Communities has ordered the removal of the
                                                                            list of applicants in Joined Cases T-530/93 to T-533/93,
                                                                            T-1/94 to T-4/94, T-11/94, T-53/94, T-71/94, T-73/94 to
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 T-76/94, T-86/94, T-87/94, T-91/94, T-94/94, T-96/94,
                                                                            T-101/94 to T-106/94, T-118/94 to T-124/94, T-130/94,
                       of 13 February 2001                                  T-253/94, T-372/94 and T-373/94 R. Bathoorn and Others v
                                                                            Council of the European Union and Commission of the
                                                                            European Communities:
in Case T-166/00: Peter Hirschfeldt v European Environ-
                      ment Agency (EEA) (1)                                 —     in Case T-530/93: R. Bathoorn, D.J. and N.W.C. Augusti-
                                                                                nus, H.J. Beltman, G. Beukers, M. Brouwer, H. van
                                                                                Deurzen, W. van Ginkel, A.F. de Groot, X.J. van Haren,
(Officials — Internal competition — Annulment — Transfer
     — Promotion — Article 8 of the Staff Regulations)                            F. v.d. Hoek, J. Houtsma, A.M. Idema, W. de Jager,
                                                                                W.G.M. Kleinlangevelsloo, W.H. Klein Poelhuis, J. Knoll,
                                                                                T.W. Kruizinga, M.J. Lemmen, H.B. Lenferink, W. Male-
                          (2001/C 150/51)                                         stein, W.A.J. Nederend, G.J. and A. Nijboer, J.S.M. Nijland-
                                                                                v.d. Berg, T. Rovers-van Schijndel, N.P. van Stralen,
                                                                                P.H. Twisk, B. van Veen, J.A. Wichink, W. Zuideveld;
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            —     in Case T-531/93: H. Aamink, J. ter Avest, J.H.B.J. ter
                                                                                Bekke, G.J. and D. van de Berg, E.J. Bosboom,
In Case T-166/00: Peter Hirschfeldt, an official of the European                  A.J.M.F. Bouwman, N.S. Bouwhuis, G.J. Edeleijn, G. Geer-
Environment Agency, residing in Copenhagen, represented by                        dink, J. Gemmink, B.J.M. Gielink, P. van de Groes, G. van
J.-N. Louis and V. Peere, avocats, with an address for service in                 der Groot, J.P.H. Groothuis, G. Helder, W. Houtsma,
Luxembourg, against The European Environment Agency                               A.H.B.M. Jansen, B. Kemna, A.G. Keuper, F.E. Keuper,
(EEA) (Agents: J.-L. Salazar, J. Rivière and D. Waelbroeck) —                     T.M.F. Klazinga, F.B. Kuiper, H. Lammers, B.H. Luijerink,
application for the annulment, first, of the decision of the                      L.H.W. van Marwijk, B.J.P. Meekenkamp, H.S. van de
EEA of 24 September 1999 to annul internal competition                            Meulen, J.H. Nagel, G.J.H. Nijhof, H.G.J. Ottenschot,
EEA/T/99/1 for the post of head of the ‘Finance’ department                       G.A. Oude Voshaar, W.A. Overbeek, H. Peltjes, P.P. Reim-
and, secondly, the decision of the EEA of 13 December 1999                        er, W. Rensen, G.J. Rikhof, J. Ruesink, J.G.A. Schrijver
to transfer the applicant from the Commission to the EEA                          Groote Stroek, J.H. Th. Siemens, L. Spijkers (Hardenveld),
inasmuch as it classifies him in Grade A 5, step 3, with effect                   L. Spijkers (previously Baneheide, now Simpelveld),
from 1 November 1999 — the Court of First Instance                                A. Steur, G. Talma, G.M.J. Vergeldt, L. Vos;
(Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Lindh, President, R. Garcı́a-
Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke, Judges; Blanca Pastor, Principal                 —     in Case T-533/93: J.B. Averink, D. Bekkemens-Boode,
Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 13 Febru-                    W. Brouwer, W. Grijpstra, A.J. Hebben, J.M.R. Huver,
ary 2001, in which it:                                                            T.W.J. Kraayvanger, H.G.J. Scholten


title: Case T-184/12: Action brought on 26 April 2012 — Moonich Produktkonzepte & Realisierung v OHIM — Thermofilm Australia (HEATSTRIP)

text:
               7.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/18

         Action brought on 26 April 2012 — Moonich Produktkonzepte & Realisierung v OHIM — Thermofilm Australia (HEATSTRIP)
   (Case T-184/12)
   2012/C 200/37
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Moonich Produktkonzepte & Realisierung GmbH (Sauerlach/Lochhofen, Germany) (represented by: H. Pannen, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Thermofilm Australia Pty Ltd (Springvale, Australia)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 January 2012 in Case R 1956/2010-1;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘HEATSTRIP’ for goods in Classes 9, 11 and 35 — application No 7 296 676

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Thermofilm Australia Pty Ltd

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the unregistered word mark ‘HEATSTRIP’, which is protected in Australia, Canada, the United States of America and the United Kingdom for inter alia heaters

      Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was upheld and the application was rejected

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 and of Article 75 and the second part of Article 76(1) of that regulation


title: Case T-790/14: Action brought on 4 December 2014  — Hassan v Council

text:
               2.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 34/42

         Action brought on 4 December 2014 — Hassan v Council
   (Case T-790/14)
   (2015/C 034/50)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Samir Hassan (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: L. Pettiti, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul, on the basis of Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU):

                           —

                           Council Implementing Decision 2014/678/CFSP of 26 September 2014 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, insofar as it adds Mr Samir Hassan to the list included in the annex to Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria;

                           —

                           Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1013/2014 of 26 September 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, insofar as it adds Mr Samir Hasan to the list included in Annex II to Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria;

               —

               declare that the effects of the effects of the acts annulled will be definitive;

               —

               Compensate Mr Hassan, on the basis of Articles 268 and 340 TFEU, for the loss caused to him by the adoption against him of the restrictive measures referred to above, as follows:

                           —

                           hold that the Council of the European Union is non-contractually liable for the pecuniary harm suffered and which will be suffered in the future and for the non-pecuniary harm;

                           —

                           award Mr Hassan the sum of EUR 250000 per month, with effect from 1 September 2011, in order to compensate him for the pecuniary loss suffered;

                           —

                           award Mr Hassan the symbolic sum of EUR 1 in respect of the non-pecuniary loss suffered,

                           —

                           and order the Council of the European Union to pay compensation for future non-pecuniary loss;

               —

               In any event, order the Council of the European Union to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a manifest error by the Council in its assessment of the facts and an error in law resulting therefrom, since the Council included the applicant’s name on the list of persons and entities to which restrictive measures apply on the basis of grounds which are not substantiated to the requisite legal standard.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to property and the principle of proportionality.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the presumption of the applicant’s innocence.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law concerning the compensation for the damage that the applicant suffered as a result of the unlawful measures taken against him by the Council.


title: Case C-218/14: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Ireland — Ireland) — Kuldip Singh, Denzel Njume, Khaled Aly v Minister for Justice and Equality (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2004/38/EC — Article 13(2)(a) — Right of residence of family members of a Union citizen — Marriage between a Union citizen and a third-country national — Retention of the right of residence of a third-country national after the departure of the Union citizen from the host Member State, followed by divorce — Article 7(1)(b) — Sufficient resources — Taking into account the resources of the spouse who is a third-country national — Right of third-country nationals to work in the host Member State in order to contribute to obtaining sufficient resources)

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/9

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Ireland — Ireland) — Kuldip Singh, Denzel Njume, Khaled Aly v Minister for Justice and Equality
   (Case C-218/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2004/38/EC - Article 13(2)(a) - Right of residence of family members of a Union citizen - Marriage between a Union citizen and a third-country national - Retention of the right of residence of a third-country national after the departure of the Union citizen from the host Member State, followed by divorce - Article 7(1)(b) - Sufficient resources - Taking into account the resources of the spouse who is a third-country national - Right of third-country nationals to work in the host Member State in order to contribute to obtaining sufficient resources))
   (2015/C 302/11)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Ireland

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Kuldip Singh, Denzel Njume, Khaled Aly

      Defendant: Minister for Justice and Equality

      Intervener: Immigrant Council of Ireland

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 13(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that a third-country national, divorced from an Union citizen, whose marriage lasted for at least three years before the commencement of divorce proceedings, including at least one year in the host Member State, cannot retain a right of residence in that Member State on the basis of that provision where the commencement of the divorce proceedings is preceded by the departure from that Member State of the spouse who is an Union citizen.

               2.

               Article 7(1)(b) of Directive 2004/38 must be interpreted as meaning that an Union citizen has sufficient resources for himself and his family members not to become a burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State during his period of residence even where those resources derive in part from those of his spouse who is a third-country national.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.


title: Case C-518/04: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of  16 March 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Protection of Species)

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/22

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 March 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-518/04) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Protection of Species)
   (2006/C 131/39)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Konstantinidis and M. van Beek, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E. Skandalou, acting as Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Article 12(1)(b) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7) — Protection of vipers Vipera Schweizeri on the island of Milos — Failure to adopt the measures necessary to prohibit disturbance of that species during the period of breeding and the deterioration or destruction of breeding sites
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to establish and implement an effective system of strict protection for the viper Vipera schweizeri on the island of Milos prohibiting deliberate disturbance of that species, particularly during the period of breeding, rearing and hibernation and deterioration or destruction of breeding sites or resting places of that species, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12(1)(b) and (d) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 57 of 05.03.2005.


title: Case T-439/08: Judgment of the General Court of 21 October 2010 — Agapiou Joséphidès v Commission and EACEA (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to the award of a Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence to the University of Cyprus — Documents emanating from a third party — Partial refusal of access — Action for annulment — Time-limit for action — Inadmissibility — Objection of illegality — Exception relating to the protection of the privacy and integrity of the individual — Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests — Duty to give reasons)

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 October 2010 — Agapiou Joséphidès v Commission and EACEA
   (Case T-439/08) (1)

   (Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to the award of a Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence to the University of Cyprus - Documents emanating from a third party - Partial refusal of access - Action for annulment - Time-limit for action - Inadmissibility - Objection of illegality - Exception relating to the protection of the privacy and integrity of the individual - Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests - Duty to give reasons)
   2010/C 328/48
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Kalliope Agapiou Joséphidès (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: C. Josephides, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Owsiany-Hornung and G. Rozet, acting as Agents); and Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) (represented by: H. Monet, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Annulment, firstly, of the decision of the EACEA of 1 August 2008, concerning a request for access to certain documents relating to the award of a Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence to the University of Cyprus and, secondly, of Commission Decision C(2007) 3749 of 8 August 2008 relating to an individual decision to award a subsidy within the framework of the Lifelong Learning Programme, Jean Monnet sub-programme

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ms Kalliope Agapiou Joséphidès to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 237, 20.12.2008.


title: Case C-527/07: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 June 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom)) — The Queen, on the application of Generics (UK) Ltd v Licensing Authority (acting through the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2001/83/EC — Medicinal products for human use — Marketing authorisation — Grounds of refusal — Generic medicinal products — Concept of reference medicinal product )

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/7

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 June 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom)) — The Queen, on the application of Generics (UK) Ltd v Licensing Authority (acting through the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency)
   (Case C-527/07) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2001/83/EC - Medicinal products for human use - Marketing authorisation - Grounds of refusal - Generic medicinal products - Concept of ‘reference medicinal product’)
   2009/C 180/11
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: The Queen, on the application of Generics (UK) Ltd

      Defendant: Licensing Authority, acting through the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency

      Supported by: Shire Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Janssen-Cilag AB

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — Interpretation of Article 10(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67) — Marketing authorisation — Abridged procedure — Application for authorisation of a generic of a reference medicinal product — Concept of reference medicinal product when examining the application

      Operative part of the judgment

   A medicinal product, such as Nivalin at issue in the main proceedings, which falls outside the scope of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency, and the placing of which on the market in a Member State was not authorised in accordance with the applicable Community law, cannot be considered to be a reference medicinal product within the meaning of Article 10(2)(a) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.


title: Case C-628/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 2 December 2013 — Jean-Bernard Lafonta v Autorité des marchés financiers

text:
               8.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 2 December 2013 — Jean-Bernard Lafonta v Autorité des marchés financiers
   (Case C-628/13)
   2014/C 39/20
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Jean-Bernard Lafonta

      Respondent: Autorité des marchés financiers

      Question referred

   Must Article 1(1) of Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse) (1) and Article 1(1) and (2) of Commission Directive 2003/124/EC of 22 December 2003 implementing Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the definition and public disclosure of inside information and the definition of market manipulation (2) be interpreted as meaning that only information in respect of which it may be determined, with a sufficient degree of probability, that, once it is made public, its potential effect on the prices of the financial instruments concerned will be in a particular direction may constitute inside information?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 96, p. 16.

      (2)  OJ 2003 L 339, p. 70.


title: Designation of Presidents of Chambers and assignment of Judges to Chambers

text:
C 271 / 14           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      6 . 9 . 97
                                                    COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Designation of Presidents of Chambers and assignment of                   to the Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition:
Judges to Chambers
                                                                          Ms Lindh ( President of Chamber), Mr García-
                       ( 97/C 271/23 )                                    Valdecasas, Mr Lenaerts, Mr Cooke and Mr Jaeger,
                                                                         Judges;
At its meeting on 2 July 1997 the Court of First Instance                 to the Fifth Chamber:
decided, pursuant to Article 2 ( 4 ) of the Council Decision
of 24 October 1988 and Articles 10 and 15 of the Rules
                                                                          Mr     Azizi   ( President of Chamber ),    Mr    García-
of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, for the period
between 1 October 1997 and 31 August 1998 :                              Valdecasas and Mr Jaeger, Judges;
A. to designate as Presidents of Chamber:                                 to the Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition:
    — Mr Kalogeropoulos,                                                  Mr Azizi ( President of Chamber), Mr Vesterdorf, Mr
                                                                          García-Valdecasas, Mr Moura Ramos and Mr Jaeger,
    — Ms Tiili ,                                                         Judges.
    — Ms Lindh,                                                      For cases in which the written procedure was completed
                                                                     and a hearing in the oral procedure was held or fixed
    — Mr Azizi .                                                     before 1 October 1997, the Chamber shall continue to sit
                                                                     with the same composition as before for the oral
B. to assign the Members of the Court of First Instance              procedure, the deliberation and the judgment.
    to the Chambers as follows:
                                                                     Criteria for assigning cases to the Chambers
    to the First Chamber:
                                                                     At its meeting on 2 July 1997, the Court of First Instance
    Mr Saggio ( President ), Mr Vesterdorf and Mr Moura              established the following criteria for the assignment of
    Ramos, Judges;                                                   cases to the Chambers for the period between 1 October
                                                                     1997 and 31 August 1998 pursuant to Article 12 of the
    to the First Chamber, Extended Composition:                      Rules of Procedure :
    Mr Saggio ( President), Mr Vesterdorf, Mr Bellamy, Mr            1 . ( a ) Actions which concern the implementation of the
    Moura Ramos and Mr Pirrung, Judges;                                        rules concerning State aid and the rules on trade
                                                                               protection measures are to be assigned, with effect
    to the Second Chamber:                                                     from the lodging of the application and without
                                                                               prejudice to any subsequent application of
                                                                               Articles 14 and 51 of the Rules of Procedure, to
    Mr Kalogeropoulos ( President of Chamber), Mr
                                                                               Chambers with an extended composition of five
    Bellamy and Mr Pirrung, Judges;
                                                                               Judges .
    to the Second Chamber, Extended Composition:                         ( b ) All other cases are to be assigned, with effect from
                                                                               the lodging of the application and without
    Mr Kalogeropoulos ( President of Chamber ), Mr Briët,                      prejudice to any subsequent application of
    Mr Bellamy, Mr Potocki , and Mr Pirrung, Judges;                           Articles 14 and 51 of the Rules of Procedure, to
                                                                               Chambers of three Judges.
    to the Third Chamber:
                                                                     2 . Cases referred to in paragraphs 1 ( a ) and 1 ( b ) are to
    Ms Tiili ( President of Chamber), Mr Briët and Mr                    be assigned to Chambers as follows :
    Potocki, Judges;
                                                                         ( a ) cases referred to in paragraph 1 ( a ) are to be
    to the Third Chamber, Extended Composition:                                assigned in turn, according to the order in which
                                                                               they are registered at the Court Registry, to the
                                                                               First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Chambers,
   Ms Tiili ( President of Chamber), Mr Briët, Mr
                                                                               Extended Composition;
    Lenaerts, Mr Potocki and Mr Cooke, Judges;
                                                                         ( b ) cases referred to in paragraph 1 ( b ) are to be
   to the Fourth Chamber:                                                      assigned to the First, Second, Third, Fourth and
                                                                               Fifth Chambers. Such assignment is to be effected
   Ms Lindh ( President of Chamber), Mr García-                                on the basis of three separate rotas, according to
   Valdecasas, Mr Lenaerts, Mr Cooke and Mr Jaeger,                            the order in which they are registered at the Court
   Judges;                                                                     Registry:
 ---pagebreak--- 6 . 9 . 97            I EN |                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 271 / 15
          — cases referred to in Article 179 of the EC                 Wilms ) — Application for the annulment of Commission
               Treaty and Article 152 of the ECSC Treaty,              Decision C(94 ) 1410/11 of 12 July 1994, notified to the
                                                                       applicant on 27 December 1994, concerning financing
          — cases concerning the implementation of the                 from the European Social Fund for vocational training
               rules    on     competition      applicable    to       measures, — the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber),
               undertakings,                                           composed of: A. Saggio, President, V. Tiili and R. M.
                                                                       Moura Ramos, Judges, Registrar, J. Palacio Gonzalez,
          — the other cases covered by paragraph 1 ( b ).              Administrator has given a judgment on 14 July 1997, in
                                                                       which it :
The First Chamber and the First Chamber, Extended
Composition, presided by the President of the Court of                  1 . Annuls Commission Decision C(94) 1410/11 of 12 July
First Instance, shall not be included in those lists every                  1994, notified to the applicant on 27 December 1994,
third time the end of a rota is reached .                                   in Case No 870840/P1 , concerning financial assistance
                                                                            from the European Social Fund in respect of training
                                                                            measures, to the extent to which it reduces the
The President of the Court of First Instance may derogate                   amounts claimed by the applicant in its final payment
from that order on the ground that cases are related or                     claim solely because the costs in question had not been
with a view to ensuring an even spread of the workload.                     allowed in the decision of approval;
Plenary session                                                        2 . For the rest, dismisses the application;
At its meeting on 2 July 1997, the Court of First Instance
                                                                       3 . Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and pay
                                                                            all the costs incurred by the applicant.
decided pursuant to the second sub-paragraph of
Article 32 ( 1 ) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of
First Instance that where, following the designation of an             (') OJ C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .
Advocate General pursuant to Article 17 of the Rules of
Procedure, there is an even number of Judges in the Court
of First Instance sitting in plenary session, the rota
established in advance in accordance with which the
President of the Court is to designate the Judge who will
not take part in the judgment of the case shall be in                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
reserve order to that in which the Judges rank according                                         of 15 July 1997
to their seniority in office under Article 6 of the Rules of
Procedure unless the Judge who would thus be designated                in Case T-187/95 : R v. Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities ( l )
is the Judge-Rapporteur. In that event, it shall be the judge
ranking immediately above him who shall be designated .                (Officials — Sickness insurance scheme — Occupational
                                                                       disease — Definition of the risk — Irregularity of the
                                                                                opinion of the Medical Committee)
                                                                                ( 97/C 271 /25 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                       In Case T-187/95 : R, the widow of an official of the
                         of 14 July 1997
                                                                       Commission of the European Communities, represented
in   Case     T-81/95 :  Interhotel   v.   Commission    of the        by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of the Brussels
                    European Communities (')                           Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                       offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange, v.
(Social policy — European Social Fund — Assistance for                 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Julian
the financing of vocational training measures — Action
                                                                       Currall, Jean-Luc Fagnart and Francois Tulkens ) —
for annulment — Notification of decision of approval —
                                                                       application, first, for the annulment of the decision of the
Decision on the final payment claim — Legal certainty —
                                                                       Commission of 14 December 1994 rejecting the
        Legitimate expectations — Statement of reasons)                applicant's request that the illness of which her husband
                          ( 97/C 271 /24 )                             died be recognized as an occupational disease; secondly,
                                                                       for default interest; and, thirdly, for compensation — the
                                                                       Court of First Instance ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: R.
                (Language of the case: Portuguese)                     Garcia-Valdecasas, President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger,
                                                                      Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the
In Case T-81 /95 : Interhotel, Sociedade Internacional de              Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 July 1997, in which
Hoteis, SARL, established in Lisbon, represented by Jose               it :
Miguel Alarcao Judice, Nuno Morais Sarmento and
Gabriela Rodrigues Martins, of the Lisbon Bar, with an                 1 . annuls the decision of the Commission of 14 December
address for service at the chambers of Victor Gillen, 16                    1994 rejecting the request that the illness of the
Boulevard de la Foire v. Commission of the European                         applicant 's deceased husband be recognized as an
Communities, ( Agents : Antonio Caeiro and Giinter                          occupational disease;


title: Case C-97/15: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 14 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Sprengen/Pakweg Douane BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Headings 8471 and 8521 — Explanatory notes — Agreement on trade in information technology products — ‘Screenplays’)

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/13

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 14 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Sprengen/Pakweg Douane BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-97/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Headings 8471 and 8521 - Explanatory notes - Agreement on trade in information technology products - ‘Screenplays’))
   (2016/C 335/16)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sprengen/Pakweg Douane BV

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the versions resulting, successively, from Commission Regulation (EC) No 1549/2006 of 17 October 2006 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1214/2007 of 20 September 2007, must be interpreted as meaning that devices such as the screenplays at issue in the main proceedings, whose function is both to store multimedia files and to reproduce them on a television or video monitor, come under heading 8521 of that nomenclature.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.


title: Joined Cases C-250/14 and C-289/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 23 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Air France-KLM, formerly Air France (C-250/14), Hop!-Brit Air SAS, formerly Brit Air (C-289/14) v Ministère des Finances et des Comptes publics (VAT — Chargeable event and chargeability — Air transport — Ticket purchased but not used — Provision of the transport service — Issue of the ticket — Time of payment of the tax)

text:
               22.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 68/7

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 23 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Air France-KLM, formerly Air France (C-250/14), Hop!-Brit Air SAS, formerly Brit Air (C-289/14) v Ministère des Finances et des Comptes publics
   (Joined Cases C-250/14 and C-289/14) (1)

   ((VAT - Chargeable event and chargeability - Air transport - Ticket purchased but not used - Provision of the transport service - Issue of the ticket - Time of payment of the tax))
   (2016/C 068/09)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Air France-KLM, formerly Air France (C-250/14), Hop!-Brit Air SAS, formerly Brit Air (C-289/14)

      Defendant: Ministère des Finances et des Comptes publics

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 2(1) and 10(2) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 1999/59/EC of 17 June 1999, then by Council Directive 2001/115/EC of 20 December 2001, must be interpreted as meaning that the issue by an airline company of tickets is subject to value added tax where the tickets issued have not been used by passengers and the latter are unable to obtain a refund for those tickets.

               2.

               Article 2(1) and the first and second subparagraphs of Article 10(2) of the Sixth Directive 77/388, as amended by Directive 1999/59, then by Directive 2001/115, must be interpreted as meaning that the value added tax paid when the air ticket was purchased by a passenger who has not used it becomes chargeable on receipt of payment of the ticket price, whether by the airline company itself, by a third party acting in its name and on its behalf, or by a third party acting in its own name but on behalf of the airline company.

               3.

               Articles 2(1) and 10(2) of the Sixth Directive 77/388, as amended by Directive 1999/59, then by Directive 2001/115, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event that a third party sells an airline company’s tickets on behalf of that company in the context of a franchise agreement and pays that company, in respect of tickets issued and no longer valid, a lump sum calculated as a percentage of the annual turnover from the corresponding flight routes, that sum constitutes a sum that is taxable as consideration for those tickets.

      (1)  OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.

      OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 2002 in Case T-263/01: Petros Mavromichalis v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Prior complaint through official channels — Implied rejection — Classification in grade and step — Statement of reasons)

text:
14.9.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 219/19
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               sels, represented by N. Korogiannakis, lawyer, against Com-
                                                                           mission of the European Communities (Agents: X. Yataganas
                           of 11 July 2002                                 and C. Berardis-Kayser) — application for the annulment of
                                                                           the decision of the Commission of 15 December 2000
                                                                           appointing the applicant and classifying him in Grade A 5,
in Case T-163/01: Juan Pedro Perez Escanilla v Com-                        step 1, with effect from 16 December 2000 — the Court of
           mission of the European Communities (1)                         First Instance (Single Judge: M. Vilaras); J. Palacio González,
                                                                           Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 11 July
(Officials — Promotion — Consideration of comparative                      2002, in which it:
                 merits — Action for annulment)
                                                                           1.    annuls the decision of the Commission of 15 December 2000
                          (2002/C 219/47)                                        classifying the applicant in Grade A 5, step 1, with effect from
                                                                                16 December 2000.
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           2.    orders the Commission to pay the costs.
In Case T-163/01: Juan Pedro Perez Escanilla, an official of
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 3 of 5.1.2002.
the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
Brussels, represented by J.-N. Louis and V. Peere, lawyers, with
an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of
the European Communities (Agent: C. Berardis-Kayser) —
application for annulment of the decision of the Commission
not to promote the applicant to Grade A 4 in the 1999
promotions procedure — the Court of First Instance (Fifth
Chamber), composed of J.D. Cooke, President, R. García-
Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; J. Palacio González, Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 11 July 2002, in             Action brought on 2 June 2002 by Pierre Tomarchio
which it:                                                                       against Commission of the European Communities
1.     Annuls the decision of the Commission not to promote the                                      (Case T-173/02)
       applicant to Grade A 4 in the 1999 promotions procedure.
2.     Orders the Commission to pay the costs.                                                       (2002/C 219/49)
( 1) OJ C 275 of 29.9.2001.                                                                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 2 June 2002 by Pierre Tomarchio,
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               residing in Nancy (France), represented by Nicolas Lhoëst,
                                                                           lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                           of 11 July 2002
in Case T-263/01: Petros Mavromichalis v Commission of                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
                  the European Communities (1)
                                                                           —     annul the decision of the Commission of 27 July 2001
                                                                                refusing to appoint the applicant to a higher grade in the
(Officials — Prior complaint through official channels —
                                                                                category in accordance with Article 31(2) of the Staff
Implied rejection — Classification in grade and step —
                                                                                Regulations;
                       Statement of reasons)
                                                                           —     annul all other connected and/or subsequent decisions;
                          (2002/C 219/48)
                                                                           —     in so far as necessary, annul the express decision which
                     (Language of the case: Greek)                               the Commission adopted on 12 February 2002 rejecting
                                                                                the complaint lodged by the applicant under Article 90(2)
                                                                                of the Staff Regulations;
In Case T-263/01: Petros Mavromichalis, an official of the
Commission of the European Communities, residing in Brus-                  —     order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case T-58/08 P: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 October 2009 — Commission v Roodhuijzen (Appeal — Staff case — Officials — Social security — Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme — Insurance cover for the unmarried partner of an official)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/43

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 October 2009 — Commission v Roodhuijzen
   (Case T-58/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Staff case - Officials - Social security - Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme - Insurance cover for the unmarried partner of an official)
   2009/C 282/80
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Anton Pieter Roodhuijzen (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 27 November 2007 in Case F-122/06 Roodhuijzen v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, seeking annulment of that judgment.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Anton Pieter Roodhuijzen in connection with the present instance.

      (1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.


title: Case C-645/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 15 December 2016 — Conseils et mise en relations (CMR) SARL v Demeures terre et tradition SARL

text:
               6.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 70/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 15 December 2016 — Conseils et mise en relations (CMR) SARL v Demeures terre et tradition SARL
   (Case C-645/16)
   (2017/C 070/16)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Conseils et mise en relations (CMR) SARL

      Defendant: Demeures terre et tradition SARL

      Question referred

   Does Article 17 of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents (1) apply where termination of the commercial agency contract occurs during the trial period provided for in that contract?

      (1)  OJ 1986 L 382, p. 17.


title: Case T-195/02: Action brought on 1 July 2002 by Anselmo Briganti against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 191/32               EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10.8.2002
Action brought on 1 July 2002 by Anselmo Briganti                           change the minimum number of points required from that
    against Commission of the European Communities                          notified in the competition notice.
                         (Case T-195/02)                                    In support of his arguments, the applicant claims:
                         (2002/C 191/54)                                    —     the selection board’s errors were such as to distort the
                                                                                outcome of the two tests.
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                         —     failure to make an accurate, fair and equitable assessment
                                                                                of the abilities of the candidates and breach of the
                                                                                principles of equality and equal treatment.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                  —     breach of contractual obligations by the selection board.
European Communities on 1 July 2002 by Anselmo Briganti,
represented by Giovanni Sciusco, avvocato.                                  —     breach of the principle of legitimate expectations.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the selection board excluding the
      applicant from the subsequent stage of competition                           Removal from the register of Case T-152/98 (1)
      COM/A/11/01 for failing to obtain the minimum number
      of points required for Test A;                                                                (2002/C 191/55)
—     annul the evaluation criterion established by the selection                              (Language of the case: Italian)
      board following the discovery of errors committed by the
      board itself with regard to question 38 of Test A under
      ‘Justice and Internal Affairs’ and Question 3 in Test C;              By order of 16 May 2002 the President of the Fourth Chamber
                                                                            of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
—     annul the section on ‘Justice and Internal Affairs’ of Test A         ordered the removal from the register of Case T-152/98:
      of competition COM/A/11/01;                                           Azienda Agricola ‘Ponte S. Pietro’ di Zardi Vincenzo e Clara v
                                                                            Council of the European Union.
—     annul all the acts of the selection board relating to the
      section on ‘Justice and Internal Affairs’ of competition
      COM/A/11/01 after the test had taken place;                           (1) OJ C 358 of 21.11.1998.
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                    Removal from the register of Case T-165/99 (1)
The applicant in the present case, who took part in the pre-                                        (2002/C 191/56)
selection test for COM/A/11/01 (Principal administrators —
Justice and internal affairs section), contests the selection                                 (Language of the case: English)
board’s decision to exclude him from the subsequent stage of
the competition for failing to pass Test A.
                                                                            By order of 16 May 2002 the President of the Fourth Chamber
The applicant claims that he received at the same time a letter             of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
from the selection board after the test had taken place stating             ordered the removal from the register of Case T-165/99:
that it had discovered mistakes in Question 38 of the section               Omega Air Limited and Seven Q Seven Inc. v Council of the
on ‘Justice and Internal Affairs’ of Test A and Question 3 of               European Union.
Test C; the board then cancelled those questions and calculated
the marks on the basis of the remaining questions but did not               (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.