title: Case T-101/00: Action brought on 21 April 2000 by Miguel Angel Martín de Pablos against Commission of the European Communities

text:
22.7.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 211/21
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                                   ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECOND
                            INSTANCE                                         CHAMBER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 15 May 2000
                           of 2 May 2000
                                                                         in Case T-101/00 R: Miguel Ángel Martı́n de Pablos v
in Case T-17/00 R: Willi Rothley and 70 Others v                                  Commission of the European Communities
                       European Parliament
                                                                         (Officials — Competition — Non-admission to the tests —
                                                                         Interim relief procedure — Suspension of the competition
(Proceedings for interim relief — Act of the Parliament —                                            procedure)
Immunity of Members of the Parliament — European Anti-
Fraud Office (OLAF) — Admissibility — Prima facie case                                           (2000/C 211/44)
             — Urgency — Balancing of interests)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
                          (2000/C 211/43)
                                                                         In Case T-101/00 R: Miguel Ángel Martı́n de Pablos, residing
                                                                         in Madrid (Spain), represented by J. Moreno Núñez, of the
                   (Language of the case: German)                        Madrid Bar, Calle Santa Cruz de Marcenado 7, Madrid, v
                                                                         Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Valse-
                                                                         sia, J. Currall and J. Guerra Fernandez) — application for
                                                                         suspension of the procedure in competition COM/A/11/98 —
In Case T-17/00 R: Willi Rothley and 70 Others, Members of               the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of First
the European Parliament, represented by H.-J. Rabe and                   Instance made an order on 15 May 2000, the operative part
G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwälte, Hamburg, of 35 Avenue de                     of which is as follows:
Tervuren, Brussels, v European Parliament (Agents: J. Schoo
and H. Krück), supported by the Council of the European
                                                                         1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Union (Agents: J. Aussant, M. Bauer and I. Dı́ez Parra) and by
the Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
C. Timmermans, H.-P. Hartvig and U. Wölker) — application                2. The costs are reserved.
for suspension of operation of the Parliament’s decision of
18 November 1999 amending its Rules of Procedure pursuant
to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 25 May 1999 concern-
ing internal investigations conducted by the European Anti-
Fraud Office, alternatively for interim relief — the President of
the Court of First Instance made an order on 2 May 2000, the
operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                         Action brought on 21 April 2000 by Miguel Angel
                                                                         Martı́n de Pablos against Commission of the European
1. Operation of Articles 1 and 2 of the Parliament’s decision                                       Communities
    concerning the conditions and procedure for internal investi-
    gations is suspended in so far as those articles require the
    applicants to cooperate with the European Anti-Fraud Office and                               (Case T-101/00)
    to provide information to the President of the Parliament or to
    the Anti-Fraud Office.                                                                       (2000/C 211/45)
2. The Parliament is to inform the applicants without delay of any                         (Language of the case: Spanish)
    measure imminently to be taken against them by the European
    Anti-Fraud Office and to refrain from granting agents of the
    Anti-Fraud Office access to the applicants’ offices unless the       An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
    latter consent thereto, pending delivery by the Court of First       ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on 21 April
    Instance of final judgment in the main proceedings.                  2000 by Miguel Angel Martı́n de Pablos, residing in Madrid,
                                                                         represented by Javier Moreno Núñez.
3. The costs are reserved.                                               The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
                                                                         — Annul the decision of the Selection Board denying Miguel
                                                                              Angel Martı́n de Pablos admission to the oral tests and,
                                                                              accordingly, require the Commission to admit him to those
                                                                              tests;
 ---pagebreak--- C 211/22              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      22.7.2000
— Regardless of the decision given on the claim made in the              — order the Court of Justice to pay the costs.
    foregoing paragraph, require the European Commission to
    pay compensation to Miguel Angel Martı́n de Pablos, in
    accordance with Article 288 of the Treaty establishing the           Pleas in law and main arguments
    European Community, of EUR 12 000 by way of damages
    for the unjustified delay of 10 months;                              By the present action, the applicant seeks a declaration that
                                                                         the Court of Justice failed to fulfil its obligation to comply
— Order the defendant to pay the costs.                                  with the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30
                                                                         September 1998 in Case T-154/96 Chvatal and Others v Court
                                                                         of Justice (1). That judgment annulled the decision of the Court
Contentions and principal arguments                                      of Justice rejecting the applicant’s request that her name be
                                                                         included in the list of persons who expressed an interest in
The applicant, a candidate in open competition COM/A/98                  being the subject of a decision terminating their service, as
organised by the Commission to draw up a reserve list of                 provided for by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom, ECSC) No
assistant administrators, objects to the decision of the selection       2688/95 of 17 November 1995 introducing special measures
board not admitting him to the oral tests in that competition            to terminate the service of officials of the European Communi-
because he was not one of the 160 best candidates in the                 ties as a result of the accession of Austria, Finland and
written tests. The applicant considers that the decision in              Sweden (2).
question is vitiated by the lack of a statement of reasons and
misuse of powers, in that it does not disclose either the                According to the applicant, the Court of Justice is obliged to
composition of the selection board or the identity of candidates         act, not only pursuant to Article 233 of the Treaty, but also
who passed and those who failed.                                         pursuant to Article 24 of the Staff Regulations (duty to give
                                                                         assistance). In her view, she could have brought proceedings
The applicant contends that the fact that the marks for the              before the Community judicature in respect of the Council’s
written tests were notified 10 months later than the date                decision not to adopt the proposal for a regulation providing
indicated in the timetable included in the convening notice for          for the Court to release staff, or seeking the inclusion of a
the competition is detrimental to him, since it prevented him            heading in the Court budget to cover the expense involved in
from holding a full-time post in the meantime and receiving              releasing staff.
the corresponding remuneration.
                                                                         (1) [1998] ECR-SC-IA-257 and ECR-SC-II-1579.
                                                                         (2) OJ No L 280 of 23.11.1995, p. 1.
Action brought on 2 May 2000 by Christiane Chvatal
against the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                         Action brought on 5 May 2000 by Joaquı́n López Madruga
                                                                              against Commission of the European Communities
                        (Case T-115/00)
                                                                                (Case T-125/00)
                        (2000/C 211/46)
                                                                                (2000/C 211/47)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
An action against the Court of Justice of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
of the European Communities on 2 May 2000 by Christiane                  ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Chvatal, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Alain Lorang,            European Communities on 5 May 2000 by Joaquı́n López
of the Luxembourg Bar.                                                   Madruga, residing in Brussels, represented by Juan Ramón
                                                                         Iturriagagoitia.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the decision of the Court of Justice of 26 January
    2000, notified on 2 February 2000, rejecting the appli-              — annul in part the decision taken at first tacitly and,
    cant’s complaint;                                                         subsequently, by failing to reply to his request, in so far as
                                                                              it does not grant the applicant the right to transfer in full
— order the Court of Justice to pay compensation to the                       35 % of his net monthly emoluments to his bank account
    applicant in respect of the material damage suffered, as                  in the United Kingdom in order to meet university
    defined in paragraph 3 of the application;                                education costs incurred by his sons Diego and Javier;


title: Case C-401/16 P: Appeal brought on 15 July 2016 by Market Watch Franchise & Consulting Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 13 May 2016 in Case T-62/15: Market Watch v EUIPO — El CORTE INGLÉS (MITOCHRON)

text:
               27.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/2

         Appeal brought on 15 July 2016 by Market Watch Franchise & Consulting Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 13 May 2016 in Case T-62/15: Market Watch v EUIPO — El CORTE INGLÉS (MITOCHRON)
   (Case C-401/16 P)
   (2017/C 095/04)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Market Watch Franchise & Consulting Inc. (represented by: J. Korab, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
   By order of 1 December 2016 the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Case F-67/15: Action brought on 24 April 2015 — ZZ v European Commission

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/50

         Action brought on 24 April 2015 — ZZ v European Commission
   (Case F-67/15)
   (2015/C 213/81)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: A. Salerno, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for the annulment of the decision not to extend the applicant’s contract beyond its termination date, when that occurred at the end of the applicant’s pregnancy.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul the decision taken by the AECC of the Commission not to extend the contract, which expired on 31 August 2014;

               —

               Order to the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceedings.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 13 December 1996 in Case T-128/96: Giorgio Lebedef v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Refusal by the Commission to distribute through its internal messenger services communications to the staff from an independent trade union - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - Admissibility - Claims for damages - Subject-matter of the dispute - Summary of the pleas in law - Admissibility)

text:
 No C 74/20             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     8 . 3 . 97
 Arlon ( Belgium ), represented by Alain Lorang, of the                  addressed to the Commission's staff in Luxembourg and,
 Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in                          second, for compensation for the damage suffered — the
 Luxembourg at his Chambers, 51 rue Albert ler, v.                       Court of First Instance ( Fourth Chamber), composed of K.
 Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                         Lenaerts, President, and P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges;
 initially, Joseph Griesmar and, subsequently, Ana Maria                 H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 13 December 1996,
 Alves Vieira and Julian Currall ) — application, first, for             the operative part of which is as follows:
 annulment of the implicit decision of the Commission
 rejecting the applicant's complaint in respect of her pay               I.   The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
 slip for January 1994, inasmuch as that pay slip shows
 that the administration applied to her the scales of                    2 . There is no need to give a ruling on the application for
 parental contributions in force in Luxembourg in respect                     leave to intervene.
 of the nursery services used by her as an official, and,
 second, for a declaration that the scales fixed by the Social           3 . The applicant is ordered to bear all his own costs and
 Activities Committee are illegal — the Court of First                        to pay the costs of the Commission. The Union
 Instance ( First Chamber ), composed of: A. Saggio,                          Syndicale — Luxembourg is ordered to bear its own
 President, and V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges;                       costs .
 H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 January
 1997, in which it:                                                      0 ) OJ No C 318 , 26 . 10 . 1996 .
 I. annuls the applicant's pay slip for January 1994
      inasmuch as it shows a deduction in respect of a
      parental contribution to the nursery service provided
      by the Luxembourg Childhood Centre, calculated on
      the basis of the scales applied by the Commission in               Action brought on 9 December 1996 by Andrea Von
      Luxembourg,                                                        Lowis against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
 2 . orders the Commission to pay all the costs.
                                                                                ( Case T-202/96 )
 (') OJ No C 316 , 12 . 11 . 1994 .                                                                  ( 97/C 74/44 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities was brought before the Court of First
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Instance of the European Communities on 9 December
                      of 13 December 1996                                1996 by Andrea Von Lowis, represented by Gerard van
                                                                        der Wal, member of the Bar of the Supreme Court of the
in Case T-128/96: Giorgio Lebedef v. Commission of the                  Netherlands, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                   European Communities (')                             at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 , Grand Rue .
 (Officials — Refusal by the Commission to distribute
 through its internal messenger services communications to              The applicant claims that the Court should:
the staff from an independent trade union — Legal
interest in bringing proceedings — Admissibility — Claims               — declare the application admissible,
for damages — Subject-matter of the dispute — Summary
              of the pleas in law — Admissibility)                      — declare the decision of 21 October 1996 void,
                             ( 97/C 74/43 )
                                                                        — declare the application of Community tax to the
                 (Language of the case: French)                              applicant, who works for the defendant as a freelance
                                                                             interpreter, unlawful and/or declare Article 8 of the
In Case T-128/96 : Giorgio Lebedef, an official of the                       Agreement with AIIC null and void,
Commission of the European Communities, residing at
Senningerberg ( Luxembourg ), represented by Gilles                     — order repayment of the Community tax withheld by
Bouneou, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for                          the defendant and/or paid by the applicant since
service in Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers, 15                           1 January 1989 until the date of the judgment to be
avenue du Bois, v. Commission of the European                                given in this case, together with an interest at a rate of
Communities (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Julian                           8 % or as prescribed by law,
Currall ) — application, first, for annulment of the
decision of the Head of the Unit dealing with relations                 — order the Commission to pay the costs of the
with official bodies representing the staff and with the                     applicant.
trade     unions    and        staff  associations   within    the
Commission 's Directorate-General for Personnel               and       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Administration ( DG IX ), refusing to arrange the
distribution through the Commission's internal messenger                The applicant explains that since 1973 she has worked as
services of communications from the independent trade                   a freelance interpreter for the Commission. Since 1989 the
union 'Action & Defense — Luxembourg' (A & D — L )                      Commission has deducted Community tax from the


title: Case F-43/14: Action brought on 14 April 2014  — ZZ v Commission

text:
               1.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/61

         Action brought on 14 April 2014 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-43/14)
   2014/C 292/79
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision to credit the applicant’s pension rights in the European Union pension scheme pursuant to the new GIPs relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations and the decision of 19 August 2013 which closes the file concerning the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights acquired from the Caisse Nationale d’Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs Salariés (CNAVTS) (National Old-Age Insurance Fund for Employees).

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare unlawful and therefore inapplicable Article 9 of the general implementing provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations;

               —

               Annul the decision of 18 September 2013 to credit the pension rights acquired by the applicant before taking up his duties, in the context of the transfer of those rights in the EU institutions’ pension scheme, pursuant to the general implementing provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011;

               —

               Annul the decision of 19 August 2013 to close the file concerning the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights acquired from the Caisse Nationale d’Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs Salariés (CNAVTS);

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case F-48/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (single Judge) of 18 July 2016 —SD (*) v EUIPO (Civil service — Officials — Staff reporting — 2013 appraisal — Appraisal report — Manifest error of assessment — Recovery plan — Act adversely affecting an official — Admissibility)

text:
                  3.10.2016

                  EN

                  Official Journal of the European Union

                  C 364/30

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (single Judge) of 18 July 2016 — SD (*1) v EUIPO
         (Case F-48/15) (1)

         ((Civil service - Officials - Staff reporting - 2013 appraisal - Appraisal report - Manifest error of assessment - Recovery plan - Act adversely affecting an official - Admissibility))
         (2016/C 364/34)
         Language of the case: French

            Parties

            Applicant: SD (*1) (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

            Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė, acting as Agent)

            Re:

         Annulment of the applicant’s appraisal report for 2013 and the recovery plan adopted on the basis of that report, together with a claim for damages in respect of the non-pecuniary loss allegedly suffered.

            Operative part of the judgment

         The Tribunal:

                     1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                     2.

                     Orders  SD (*1) to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office.

            (*1)  Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.

            (1)  OJ C 190, 8/6/2015.


title: Case C-573/11 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 September 2013 — ClientEarth v Council of the European Union, Kingdom of Denmark, Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Sweden (Appeals — Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union — Representation by a lawyer who is not a third party — Action for annulment manifestly inadmissible — Grounds of the appeal manifestly unfounded)

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/37

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 September 2013 — ClientEarth v Council of the European Union, Kingdom of Denmark, Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-573/11 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union - Representation by a lawyer who is not a third party - Action for annulment manifestly inadmissible - Grounds of the appeal manifestly unfounded)
   2013/C 344/64
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: ClientEarth (represented by: P. Kirch, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: C. Fekete and B. Driessen, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Denmark, Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Sweden

      Re:

   Appeal against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 September 2011 in Case T-452/10 ClientEarth v Council, by which the General Court dismissed as manifestly inadmissible an action seeking the annulment of the decision of the Council of 26 July 2010 refusing to allow the applicant full access to an opinion drafted by the Council Legal Service (document No 6865/09) regarding a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning public access to documents of the European Parliament, of the Council and of the Commission — Representation by a lawyer who is not a third party

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               ClientEarth shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 39, 11.2.2012.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 June 2005 in Case C-270/03: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Management of waste — Directive 75/442/EEC as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC — Transport and collection of waste — Article 12)

text:
               6.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/5

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 9 June 2005
   in Case C-270/03: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Management of waste - Directive 75/442/EEC as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC - Transport and collection of waste - Article 12)
   (2005/C 193/07)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-270/03, Commission of the European Communities (Agents: L. Visaggio and R. Amorosi) v Italian Republic (Agents: I.M. Braguglia and M. Fiorilli) brought on 23 June 2003 — failure to fulfil obligations under Article 226 EC — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, J. P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), S. von Bahr, J. Malenovský and U. Lõhmus, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 June 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by permitting undertakings, in accordance with Article 30(4) of Decree-Law No 22 of 5 February 1997 implementing Directive 91/156/EEC on waste, Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste and Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste, as amended by Article 1(19) of Law No 426 of 9 December 1998:

                           —

                           to collect and transport their own non-hazardous waste, as a normal and regular activity, without being required to be entered in the Albo nazionale delle imprese esercenti servizi di smaltimento rifiuti (national register of undertakings carrying out waste-disposal services) and

                           —

                           to transport their own hazardous waste in quantities not exceeding 30 kg and 30 l per day, without being required to be entered in that register,

                     the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 200 of 23.08.2003.


title: Case C-247/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany), lodged on 7 July 2009 — Alketa Xhymshiti v Bundesagentur für Arbeit — Familienkasse Lörrach

text:
               26.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 233/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany), lodged on 7 July 2009 — Alketa Xhymshiti v Bundesagentur für Arbeit — Familienkasse Lörrach
   (Case C-247/09)
   2009/C 233/08
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Claimant: Alketa Xhymshiti

      Defendant: Bundesagentur für Arbeit — Familienkasse Lörrach

      Questions referred

               1.

               In cases in which a national of a non-member country is lawfully resident in a Member State of the European Union and works in the Swiss Confederation, does Regulation (EC) No 859/2003 (1) apply to him and his spouse, who is also a national of a non-member country, in their Member State of residence, with the result that the Member State of residence is obliged to apply Regulations (EEC) No 1408/71 (2) and (EEC) No 574/72 (3) to that employed person and his spouse?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the negative: in the circumstances set out in the first question, are Articles 2, 13 and 76 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and Article 10(1)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 to be interpreted as meaning that a mother who is a national of a non-member country may be refused family benefits in her Member State of residence on the basis of the fact that she is a national of a non-member country, even though the child concerned is a Union citizen?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 859/2003 of 14 May 2003 extending the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 to nationals of third countries who are not already covered by those provisions solely on the ground of their nationality (OJ 2003 L 124, p. 1).

      (2)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416).

      (3)  Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of the Council of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1972 (I), p. 159).


title: Case F-143/12: Action brought on 21 November 2012 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/77

         Action brought on 21 November 2012 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-143/12)
   2013/C 26/162
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi, A. Tymen, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of EPSO not to include the applicant in the list of persons who have passed the tests at the end of the programme raining which is part of the certification procedure and a claim for damages.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of EPSO of 16 December 2011 excluding the applicant from the list of officials who have received certification under the 2010-2011 certification exercise;

               —

               as necessary, annul the decision of EPSO of 16 August 2012 rejecting the applicant’s complaint;

               —

               award damages of EUR 5 000;

               —

               order the Commission to pay all the costs.


title: Case C-284/13 P: Order of the President of the Court of 3 April 2014  — Henkel AG & Co. KGaA, Henkel France v European Commission

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/18

         Order of the President of the Court of 3 April 2014 — Henkel AG & Co. KGaA, Henkel France v European Commission
   (Case C-284/13 P) (1)

   2014/C 261/30
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 215, 27.7.2013.


title: Case T-419/03: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2011 — Altstoff Recycling Austria v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — System for collection and recycling of used packaging in Austria — Agreements for collection and sorting containing exclusivity clauses — Individual exemption decision — Charges imposed — Principle of proportionality)

text:
               7.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2011 — Altstoff Recycling Austria v Commission
   (Case T-419/03) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - System for collection and recycling of used packaging in Austria - Agreements for collection and sorting containing exclusivity clauses - Individual exemption decision - Charges imposed - Principle of proportionality)
   2011/C 139/28
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Altstoff Recycling Austria AG, formerly Altstoff Recycling Austria AG and ARGEV Verpackungsverwertungs-Gesellschaft mbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: H. Wollman, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, W. Mölls, then W. Mölls and H. Gading, and finally R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: EVA Erfassen und Verwerten von Altstoffen GmbH (Vienna) (represented by: A. Reidlinger and I. Hartung, lawyers); and Bundeskammer für Arbeiter und Angestellte (Vienna) (represented by K. Wessely, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Articles 2 and 3 of Commission Decision 2004/208/EC of 16 October 2003 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Cases COMP D3/35470 — ARA and COMP D3/35473 — ARGEV, ARO) (OJ 2004 L 75, p. 59).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Altstoff Recycling Austria AG to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission, EVA Erfassen und Verwerten von Altstoffen GmbH and the Bundeskammer für Arbeiter und Angestellte, including costs related to the interim proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 59, 6.3.2004.


title: Case T-227/02: Action brought on 26 July 2002 by Syndicat des Fonctionnaires Internationaux et Européens against Commission of the European Communities

text:
12.10.2002             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 247/19
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            Action brought on 26 July 2002 by Syndicat des Fonction-
                                                                       naires Internationaux et Européens against Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities
—     annul the decision of the appointing authority on
      27 March 2002 and notified to the applicant on 16 April
      2002, rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant on
      18 October 2001, adopting the decision of the Members                                     (Case T-227/02)
      of the Commission of 15 June 2001, ‘approving’ the
      alleged agreement of 4 April 2001 between Vice President
      Kinnock and the trade unions and staff associations
      concerning the resources available to the staff representa-                               (2002/C 247/30)
      tives and the rules regarding resources available to the
      staff representatives from 1 January 2002;
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
—     annul the abovementioned decision of 15 June 2001;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                       ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                       European Communities on 26 July 2002 by Syndicat des
                                                                       Fonctionnaires Internationaux et Européens (SFIE), whose
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        main offices are in Brussels, represented by Lucas Vogel and
                                                                       Dominique Amatulli, lawyers.
The applicant is the secretary general of the Syndicat des
Fonctionnaires Internationaux et Européens (SFIE). He is
contesting the decision laying down the rules regarding                The applicant claims that the Court should:
resources available to the staff representatives from 1 January
2002 approving an agreement between certain union organis-
ations and the Commission. Not being a signatory to that               —     annul the decision of the appointing authority on
agreement of 4 April 2001, the SFIE was informed that it                     27 March 2002 and notified to the applicant on 16 April
would not be able to benefit from the budgetary facilities                   2002, rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant on
under those provisions.                                                      18 October 2001, adopting the decision of the Members
                                                                             of the Commission of 15 June 2001, ‘approving’ the
                                                                             alleged agreement of 4 April 2001 between Vice President
                                                                             Kinnock and the trade unions and staff associations
                                                                             concerning the resources available to the staff representa-
In support of his application, the applicant pleads, first,
infringement of Articles 11 and 12 of the agreement entered                  tives and the rules regarding resources available to the
into by the Commission and the unions adopted on 20 Septem-                  staff representatives from 1 January 2002;
ber 1974. According to the applicant, the contested decision
merely approved the agreement of 4 April 2001, whereas the
said agreement had not been agreed to by all the unions and            —     annul the abovementioned decision of 15 June 2001;
could not therefore be regarded as effective.
                                                                       —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
Secondly, the applicant pleads infringement of Article 24a of
the Staff Regulations, Articles 18, 19 and 20 of the framework
agreement of 20 September 1974, manifest error of assessment
and breach of the principle of non-discrimination. According
to the applicant, the effect of the agreement of 4 April 2001 is       Pleas in law and main arguments
that of sharing the financial and human resources necessary to
the running of the unions in accordance with the criteria of
representativity. The applicant claims that those criteria are
erroneous and arbitrary, since they favour unfairly certain
                                                                       The pleas in law and main arguments put forward in this case
unions and no longer allow unions freely to choose their own
political action.                                                      are identical with those in Case T-226/02.


title: Case C-197/07 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 December 2008 — Aktieselskabet af 21. november 2001 v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), TDK Kabushiki Kaisha (TDK Corp.) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(5) — Reputation — Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier mark — Application for registration as a Community trade mark of the word mark TDK — Opposition by the proprietor of the Community and national word and figurative marks TDK — Refusal to register)

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/10

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 December 2008 — Aktieselskabet af 21. november 2001 v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), TDK Kabushiki Kaisha (TDK Corp.)
   (Case C-197/07 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(5) - Reputation - Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier mark - Application for registration as a Community trade mark of the word mark ‘TDK’ - Opposition by the proprietor of the Community and national word and figurative marks TDK - Refusal to register)
   (2009/C 69/16)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: Aktieselskabet af 21. november 2001 (represented by: C. Barrett Christiansen, advokat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent), TDK Kabushiki Kaisha (TDK Corp.) (represented by: A. Norris, Barrister)
   Re:
   Appeal brought against the judgment of the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 6 February 2007 in Case T-477/04 Aktieselskabet af 21. November 2001 v OHIM dismissing as unfounded an action brought by the applicant for the word mark ‘TDK’ for goods in Class 25 against Decision R 364/2003-1 of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 October 2004 rejecting the appeal brought against the Opposition Division refusing registration of that mark in the context of opposition proceeding brought by the proprietor of the Community and national word and figurative marks ‘TDK’
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Aktieselskabet af 21. november 2001 shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.


title: Case C-422/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 25 July 2013 — Landesamt für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und ländliche Räume des Landes Schleswig-Holstein v Uta Wree

text:
               19.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 304/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 25 July 2013 — Landesamt für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und ländliche Räume des Landes Schleswig-Holstein v Uta Wree
   (Case C-422/13)
   2013/C 304/08
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Landesamt für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und ländliche Räume des Landes Schleswig-Holstein

      Defendant: Uta Wree

      Question referred

   Is there also an agricultural area within the meaning of Article 34(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (1) of 19 January 2009 if that area, although also used for agricultural purposes (grazing for sheep farming purposes), forms the cover layer of a landfill site in after-care?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16).


title: Judgment of the Court of Justice (Second Chamber) of 13 January 2005 in Case C-84/03 Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directives 93/36/EEC and 93/37/EEC — Public contracts — Award procedure for public supply and public works contracts — Scope — Definition of contracting authority — Inter-administrative cooperation agreements — Definition of contract — Use of the negotiated procedure in cases not provided for by the directive)

text:
               2.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/2

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE

   (Second Chamber)
   of 13 January 2005
   in Case C-84/03 Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (1)

   (Failure to fulfil obligations - Directives 93/36/EEC and 93/37/EEC - Public contracts - Award procedure for public supply and public works contracts - Scope - Definition of contracting authority - Inter-administrative cooperation agreements - Definition of contract - Use of the negotiated procedure in cases not provided for by the directive)
   (2005/C 82/04)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   In Case C-84/03, concerning an action for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 226 EC, brought on 26 February 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: K. Wiedner and G. Valero Jordana) against the Kingdom of Spain (Agent: S. Ortiz Vaamonde), the Court of Justice (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, J. Makarczyk (Rapporteur), G. Arestis and J. Klučka, Judges; Advocate General, J. Kokott; Registrar, R. Grass, gave a judgment on 13 January 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that by failing to transpose correctly into its national legal system Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts and Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts and, in particular,

                           —

                           by excluding from the scope of the Ley de Contratos de las Administraciones Públicas (Law on contracts awarded by public authorities) of 16 June 2000, in the codified version approved by the Real Decreto Legislativo 2/2000 of 16 June 2000, more particularly in Article 1(3) thereof, the private law undertakings fulfilling the requirements laid down in the first, second and third indents of the second subparagraph of Article 1(b) of each of those directives;

                           —

                           by excluding absolutely from the scope of that law, in Article 3(1)(c) thereof, cooperation agreements concluded between public authorities and the other public undertakings and, therefore, also agreements which constitute public contracts for the purpose of those directives; and

                           —

                           by permitting, in Article 141(a) and Article 182(a) and (g) of that law, the negotiated procedure to be used in two cases which are not provided for in those directives,

                     the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 101 of 26.4.2003


title: Case C-252/13: Action brought on 7 May 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/25

         Action brought on 7 May 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-252/13)
   2013/C 207/40
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Martin and M. van Beek, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by maintaining in force provisions of Netherlands legislation contrary to Article 1(2)(a) and (b), Article 15 and Article 28(2) of Directive 2006/54/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast), the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission takes the view that Netherlands employment law does not establish sufficiently clearly that, if female workers returning after the end of the period of maternity leave are confronted with less favourable employment conditions, this is contrary to the prohibition on discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy, childbirth and motherhood.
   In its view, that prohibition is not established sufficiently clearly by the mere fact that an employer who unilaterally alters the duties and employment conditions agreed in the employment contract fails to fulfil his obligations.
   The Commission regards as insufficient the argument that, when a legal right to leave is recognised, that automatically implies that that any less favourable treatment is unlawful. Equally, the possibility of bringing an action on the basis of the general prohibition of discrimination and the principle of sound employer practice, which are contained in the Burgerlijk Wetboek (Civil Code), does not amount to a sufficiently clear and precise transposition of those provisions of the Directive. Those general principles of Netherlands law do not constitute sufficiently clear transposition of the provisions of the Directive.
   That state of affairs does not fulfil the requirements relating to transparency and legal certainty laid down by the Court of Justice for the transposition of a directive in the national legal order.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23.


title: Case C-514/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 January 2016 — Éditions Odile Jacob SAS v European Commission, Lagardère SCA, Wendel (Appeal — Merger of undertakings in the book publishing market — Decision adopted following the annulment of a decision approving the purchaser of certain assets for lack of independence of an agent — Article 266 TFEU — Enforcement of the judgment ordering annulment — Subject matter of proceedings — Legal basis for the decision at issue — Retroactive effect of that decision — Independence of the purchaser of the assets sold vis-à-vis the seller)

text:
               21.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/7

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 January 2016 — Éditions Odile Jacob SAS v European Commission, Lagardère SCA, Wendel
   (Case C-514/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Merger of undertakings in the book publishing market - Decision adopted following the annulment of a decision approving the purchaser of certain assets for lack of independence of an agent - Article 266 TFEU - Enforcement of the judgment ordering annulment - Subject matter of proceedings - Legal basis for the decision at issue - Retroactive effect of that decision - Independence of the purchaser of the assets sold vis-à-vis the seller))
   (2016/C 106/09)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Éditions Odile Jacob SAS (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, O. Fréget and L. Eskenazi, avocats)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito and B. Mongin, acting as Agents), Lagardère SCA (represented by: A. Winckler, F. de Bure, J.-B. Pinçon and L. Bary, avocats), Wendel (represented by: M. Trabucchi, F. Gordon, A. Gosset-Grainville, avocats, and C. Renner, Rechtsanwältin)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal.

               2.

               Orders Éditions Odile Jacob SAS to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission, Lagardère SCA and Wendel.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2015.


title: Case T-310/02: Action brought on 30 September 2002 by Athanassios Theodorakis against Council of the European Union

text:
C 305/28               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      7.12.2002
The applicant further takes issue with the supplementary fixing            applications was 18 March 2002. The Commission notified
of interest. The applicant invokes deferment of payment and                that vacancy notice to its staff on 14 March 2002. The
protection of legitimate expectations and raises the objection             deadline for the submission of applications, indicated in that
of misuse of powers. The Commission, it claims, did not make               publication, was 2 April 2002.
it clear during the period required by it for taking a decision
that it would be seeking increased interest for that period.
Instead, the Commission intimated that it would forego                     The applicant submitted his application after the deadline set
enforcement measures during its own decision-making period.                down in the Council’s vacancy notice expired, but before
The applicant regards the Commission’s decision as being at                the expiry of the deadline set down in the Commission’s
variance with this.                                                        publication. The applicant’s application was rejected by the
                                                                           Council as inadmissible.
( 1) The applicant has brought an action against that decision (Case
     T-239/01 SGL Carbon v Commission, OJ 2002 C 3, p. 34).                In support of his action, the applicant alleges breach of the
                                                                           principle of sound administration. According to the applicant,
                                                                           there cannot be contradictory decisions within a single admin-
                                                                           istrative authority and a single legal person, such as constituted
                                                                           by the European Communities. The applicant claims moreover
                                                                           that a more recent or more specific act, such as the Com-
                                                                           mission’s publication, prevails. In the applicant’s view, the
                                                                           principle of sound administration entails the application of the
Action brought on 30 September 2002 by Athanassios                         interpretation which is most plausible for the official.
     Theodorakis against Council of the European Union
                                                                           The applicant further alleges infringement of Article 29(1) of
                         (Case T-310/02)                                   the Staff Regulations and of Article 1(3) of Annex III to the
                                                                           Staff Regulations inasmuch as the same deadline did not apply
                                                                           to all the potential candidates, irrespective of which institution
                         (2002/C 305/59)
                                                                           they belonged to.
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           Moreover, the result of applying the deadline in the Council’s
                                                                           vacancy notice was that officials of the Commission and the
                                                                           other institutions were discriminated against by comparison
An action against the Council of the European Union was                    with those of the Council inasmuch as officials at the Council
                                                                           had more time. Finally, the applicant alleges misuse of powers.
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 30 September 2002 by Athanassios Theodo-
rakis, residing in Uccle (Belgium), represented by Spyros
A. Pappas, lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—      annul the decision of 10 July 2002 of the appointing                Action brought on 10 October 2002 by Vitaly Lissot-
       authority replying to his complaint of 24.05.2002;                  schenko and Joachim Hentze against the Office for
                                                                           Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade, Marks and
                                                                                Designs)
—      annul the decision of the appointing authority of the
       Council concerning the appointment of the RELEX
       Director General of the Council and recommence the                                          (Case T-311/02)
       selection procedure as initially requested by the applicant;
                                                                                (2002/C 305/60)
—      order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
The applicant is an official in the Commission. He submitted               Market (Trade, Marks and Designs) was brought before the
an application for the post of Director General at the Council.            Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
That post was published on 25 February 2002 in Vacancy                     10 October 2002 by Vitaly Lissotschenko, of Dortmund
Notice 412/02. The same day the Council sent that vacancy                  (Germany), and Joachim Hentze, of Werl (Germany), represent-
notice to the other institutions. The deadline for submitting              ed by B. Hein, Rechtsanwalt.


title: Case C-134/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sächsisches Oberverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Lidl GmbH & Co. KG v Freistaat Sachsen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 543/2008 — Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Marketing standards — Fresh pre-packaged poultrymeat — Obligation to indicate the total price and the price per weight unit on the pre-packaging or on a label attached thereto — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 16 — Freedom to conduct a business — Proportionality — Second subparagraph of Article 40(2) TFEU — Non-discrimination)

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/16

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sächsisches Oberverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Lidl GmbH & Co. KG v Freistaat Sachsen
   (Case C-134/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 543/2008 - Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Marketing standards - Fresh pre-packaged poultrymeat - Obligation to indicate the total price and the price per weight unit on the pre-packaging or on a label attached thereto - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 16 - Freedom to conduct a business - Proportionality - Second subparagraph of Article 40(2) TFEU - Non-discrimination))
   (2016/C 335/20)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Sächsisches Oberverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Lidl GmbH & Co. KG

      Defendant: Freistaat Sachsen

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Consideration of the first question referred has not disclosed any factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 5(4)(b) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 543/2008 of 16 June 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards the marketing standards for poultry meat, in the light of the freedom to conduct a business, as provided by Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

               2.

               Consideration of the second question referred has not disclosed any factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 5(4)(b) of Regulation No 543/2008 in the light of the principle of non-discrimination referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 40(2) TFEU.

      (1)  OJ C 205, 22.6.2015.


title: Case C-300/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 24 May 2017 — Hochtief AG v Budapest Főváros Önkormányzata

text:
               14.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 24 May 2017 — Hochtief AG v Budapest Főváros Önkormányzata
   (Case C-300/17)
   (2017/C 269/06)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Kúria

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hochtief AG

      Defendant: Budapest Főváros Önkormányzata

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does EU law preclude a procedural provision of a Member State which makes the possibility of asserting any civil right of action resulting from an infringement of a public procurement provision conditional on a final declaration by a public procurement arbitration committee or a court (hearing an appeal against an award of the public procurement arbitration committee) that the provision has been infringed?

               2.

               Can a provision of a Member State providing, as a condition for being able to assert a claim for compensation, that a public procurement arbitration committee or a court (hearing an appeal against an award of the public procurement arbitration committee) must have made a final declaration that a provision has been infringed be replaced by another provision in accordance with EU law? In other words, can the injured party prove the infringement of the provision by other means?

               3.

               In an action seeking compensation for damage, is a procedural provision of a Member State which allows judicial proceedings to be brought against an administrative decision only on the basis of the legal arguments submitted in proceedings before the public procurement arbitration committee — and the injured party can rely, as a ground for the alleged infringement, on the unlawfulness, according to the case-law of the Court of Justice, of his exclusion on the basis of a conflict of interest only in a manner which, in accordance with the actual rules of the negotiated procedure, result in his exclusion from the contract award procedure for another reason, as there has been a change in his application — contrary to EU law and, in particular, to the principles of effectiveness and equivalence, or capable of having an effect which runs counter to that law or those principles?


title: Action brought on 22 June 1995 by Dysan Magnetics Limited and Review Magnetics (Macao) Limited against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-134/95)

text:
2 . 9 . 95            I EN |                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 229/23
Action brought on 22 June 1995 by Dysan Magnetics                              complainants account for at least 25 % of total
Limited and Review Magnetics (Macao ) Limited against the                      production of 3,5" disks .
           Commission of the European Communities
                         ( Case T-134/95 )                               (') OJ No C 84, 6 . 4 . 1995, p . 4 .
                           ( 95/C 229/50 )
                  (Language of the case: English)                        Action brought on 29 June 1995 by Francisca Soto
                                                                         Revaliente against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
An action against the Commission of the European                                                  Case T-135 /95 )
Communities was brought before the Court of First                                                 ( 95/C 229/51 )
Instance of the European Communities on 22 June 1995 by
Dysan Magnetics Limited and Review Magnetics ( Macao )                                   (Language of the case: French)
Limited, represented by Mark Clough and Mark Brealey,
Barristers, instructed by Rosenblatt, Solicitors, with an                An action against the Commission of the European
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, L-1661 .                                       Instance of the European Communities on 29 June 1995 by
                                                                         Francisca Soto Revaliente, residing at Malaga ( Spain ),
                                                                         represented by Jean-Francois Neven, of the Brussels Bar,
The applicants claim that the Court should:                              with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
                                                                         of Catherine Dessoy, 31 Rue d'Eich.
— annul the decision of 6 April 1995 to initiate                         The applicant claims that the Court should :
      anti-dumping proceedings concerning imports of certain
      magnetic disks ( 3,5" micro disks ) originating in Canada,         — annul the decision of 6 September 1994, as confirmed by
      Indonesia, Macao and Thailand ( J ),                                    the decision of the Commission notified on 4 April 1995 ,
                                                                              as set out in the complaint,
— order the Commission to pay the applicants' costs in                   — order the Commission to pay the costs .
      these proceedings .
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                         The applicant challenges the Commission's decision to
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      consider her absence during the period running from
                                                                         6 March to 25 October 1994 to be irregular and not to pay
                                                                         to her the remuneration for that period pursuant to
The applicants submit that the contested decision is                     Article 60 of the Staff Regulations . She considers that that
unlawful for two reasons :                                               decision is vitiated by an insufficient statement of reasons
                                                                         and has been taken contrary to Articles 59 and 60 of the
                                                                         Staff Regulations .
( a ) The decision is in breach of Article 5 ( 7 ) of Regulation
        ( EC ) No 3283/94, which provides that 'a complaint              The applicant points out in that respect that the
       shall be rejected where there is insufficient evidence of          Commission's decision is based on an alleged medical
       either dumping or injury to justify proceeding with the           check-up which purportedly was carried out on 16 March
       case'. The complaint, which was made by a small group              1994, whereas no medical check-up intended to verify her
        of Community disc manufacturers, was based on                     fitness for work took place at that time . Although she in fact
        unsubstantiated allegations . Indeed, for the most part,          underwent on that date an examination by a board of
        it was an exact copy of an earlier complaint made by the          experts entrusted by the Commission to verify her fitness to
        same producers; the only difference was that the                  travel to Brussels with a view to being heard in the context of
        countries had been changed.                                       a disciplinary procedure, and although it considered that the
                                                                          disease from which the applicant suffered did not make it
                                                                          impossible for her to travel to Brussels, the board did not,
 ( b ) The decision is contrary to Article 5 ( 4 ) of Regulation          however, make a decision in respect of her fitness to
        ( EC ) No 3283/94, which provides that 'an investigation          work .
        shall not be initiated . . . unless it has been determined
        that the complaint has been made by or on behalf of the           In those circumstances, the applicant considers that the
        Community industry' and 'no investigation shall be                contested decision was taken in the absence of a prior
        initiated when Community producers expressly                      medical check-up regarding her fitness for work and that,
        supporting a complaint account for less than 25 % of              therefore, it is contrary to Article 60 of the Staff
        total production of the like product produced by the              Regulations, on the basis of the concept of ' unauthorized
         Community industry'. The Commission has not made a               absence which is duly established'.
         lawful determination that the complaint is made on
         behalf of the Community industry, nor that the


title: Case T-357/06: Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012 — Koninklijke Wegenbouw Stevin v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Netherlands market in road pavement bitumen — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Existence and classification of an agreement — Restriction of competition — Guidelines on the applicability of Article 81 EC to horizontal cooperation agreements — Rights of the defence — Fine — Aggravating circumstances — Role of instigator and leader — Absence of cooperation — Commission's powers of investigation — Right to the assistance of a lawyer — Misuse of powers — Calculation of the amount of the fines — Duration of the infringement — Unlimited jurisdiction)

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012 — Koninklijke Wegenbouw Stevin v Commission
   (Case T-357/06) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Netherlands market in road pavement bitumen - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Existence and classification of an agreement - Restriction of competition - Guidelines on the applicability of Article 81 EC to horizontal cooperation agreements - Rights of the defence - Fine - Aggravating circumstances - Role of instigator and leader - Absence of cooperation - Commission's powers of investigation - Right to the assistance of a lawyer - Misuse of powers - Calculation of the amount of the fines - Duration of the infringement - Unlimited jurisdiction)
   2012/C 355/33
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Koninklijke Wegenbouw Stevin BV (Utrecht (Netherlands)) (represented: initially by E. Pijnacker Hordijk and Y. de Vries, and subsequently by E. Pijnacker Hordijk and X. Reintjes, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet, A. Nijenhuis and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, Agents, assisted initially by de L. Gyselen, F. Tuytschaever and F. Wijckmans, and subsequently by L. de Gyselen, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application, principally, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4090 final of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.456 — Bitumen (Netherlands)), in so far as it concerns the applicant, and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Koninklijke Wegenbouw Stevin BV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.


title: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 May 2001 in Case C-311/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Roma): Criminal proceedings against Armando Caterino (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Directive 75/442/EEC — Waste — Transport, on a professional basis — Obligation to register — Possibility of relying on a directive as against an individual)

text:
C 275/4                    EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          29.9.2001
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    —     authorisation can be refused on the ground of lack of medical
                                                                                necessity only if the same or equally effective treatment can be
                                                                                obtained without undue delay at an establishment having a
                              of 12 July 2001
                                                                                contractual arrangement with the insured person’s sickness
                                                                                insurance fund.
in Case C-157/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the        Arrondissementsrechtbank               te    Roermond):
B.S.M. Geraets-Smits v Stichting Ziekenfonds VGZ and
H.T.M. Peerbooms v Stichting CZ Groep Zorgverzeker-                         (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
                                  ingen (1)
(Freedom to provide services — Articles 59 of the EC Treaty
(now, after amendment, Article 49 EC) and 60 of the EC
Treaty (now Article 50 EC) — Sickness insurance — System
providing benefits in kind — System of agreements —
Hospital treatment costs incurred in another Member State
       — Prior authorisation — Criteria — Justification)
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
                             (2001/C 275/06)
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
                       (Language of the case: Dutch)                                                   of 29 May 2001
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      in Case C-311/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                      in the European Court Reports)                        the Tribunale di Roma): Criminal proceedings against
                                                                                Armando Caterino (1)
In Case C-157/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of               (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Directive
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Arrondissements-                75/442/EEC — Waste — Transport, on a professional basis
rechtbank te Roermond (District Court, Roermond) Nether-                    — Obligation to register — Possibility of relying on a
lands for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending                                   directive as against an individual)
before that court between B.S.M. Geraets-Smits and Stichting
Ziekenfonds VGZ and between H.T.M. Peerbooms and Sticht-                                               (2001/C 275/07)
ing CZ Groep Zorgverzekeringen — on the interpretation of
Articles 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49                                   (Language of the case: Italian)
EC) and 60 of the EC Treaty (now Article 50 EC) — the Court;
composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann,               (Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published
A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), M. Wathelet and V. Skouris                                          in the European Court; Reports)
(Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet,
P. Jann, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen and F. Macken, Judges; D. Ruiz-            In Case C-311/99: reference to the Court under Article 234
Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,                EC from the Tribunale di Roma (Italy) for a preliminary ruling
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 July 2001, in                 the criminal proceedings pending before that court against
which it has ruled:                                                         Armando Caterino, on the interpretation of Article 12 of
                                                                            Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ
                                                                            1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended by Council Directive
Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC)           91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32) — the
and Article 60 of the EC Treaty (now Article 50 EC) do not preclude         Court (Second Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris (Rapporte-
legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main            ur), President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and N. Colneric,
proceedings, which makes the assumption of the costs of treatment           Judges; S. Alber; Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
provided in a hospital located in another Member State subject to           made an order on 29 May 2001, the operative part of which
prior authorisation from the insured person’s sickness insurance fund       is as follows:
and the grant of such authorisation subject to the condition that
(i) the treatment must be regarded as ‘normal in the professional
circles concerned’, a criterion also applied in determining whether         A directive cannot by itself, and independently of a national law of a
hospital treatment provided on national territory is covered, and           Member State adopted with a view to its application, have the effect
(ii) the insured person’s medical treatment must require that               of determining or aggravating the criminal liability of persons who
treatment. However, that applies only in so far as                          act in breach of its provisions.
—      the requirement that the treatment must be regarded as ‘normal’
       is construed to the effect that authorisation cannot be refused      (1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
       on that ground where it appears that the treatment concerned is
       sufficiently tried and tested by international medical science,
       and


title: Case C-153/05: Action brought on 5 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/26

         Action brought on 5 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria
   (Case C-153/05)
   (2005/C 143/39)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Gerald Braun, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2002/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 March 2002 on the establishment of rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Community airports (1) and, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and that directive;

               2.

               order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposition of the directive into national law expired on 28 September 2003.

      (1)  OJ L 85, 28.03.2002, p. 40.


title: Case C-407/08 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 1 July 2010 — Knauf Gips KG, formerly Gebrüder Knauf Westdeutsche Gipswerke KG v European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Plasterboard — Access to the file — Inculpatory and exculpatory evidence — Concept of ‘undertaking’ — Economic unit — Company responsible for the economic unit’s actions — Argument raised for the first time during the judicial proceedings)

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/6

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 1 July 2010 — Knauf Gips KG, formerly Gebrüder Knauf Westdeutsche Gipswerke KG v European Commission
   (Case C-407/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Plasterboard - Access to the file - Inculpatory and exculpatory evidence - Concept of ‘undertaking’ - Economic unit - Company responsible for the economic unit’s actions - Argument raised for the first time during the judicial proceedings)
   2010/C 234/09
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Knauf Gips KG, formerly Gebrüder Knauf Westdeutsche Gipswerke KG (represented by: M. Klusmann and S. Thomas, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and R. Sauer, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 8 July 2008 in Case T-52/03 Knauf Gips v Commission dismissing the action for annulment of Commission Decision 2005/471/EC of 27 November 2002 relating to proceedings under Article 81 of the EC Treaty against BPB PLC, Gebrüder Knauf Westdeutsche Gipswerke KG, Société Lafarge SA and Gyproc Benelux NV (Case COMP/E-1/37.152 — Plasterboard (OJ 2005 L 166, p. 8), or, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the appellant — Cartel on the plasterboard market — Failure to take into account a breach of the rights of the defence during the administrative procedure — Infringement of the ‘in dubio pro reo’ principle — Taking into account, for the purpose of calculating the amount of the fine, the turnover of undertakings that do not form part of the same economic unit as the appellant

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of 8 July 2008 of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-52/03 Knauf Gips v Commission in so far as it imputes to Knauf Gips KG liability for the infringements committed by the companies constituting the Knauf Group;

               2.

               Dismisses the rest of the appeal;

               3.

               Dismisses the action brought by Knauf Gips KG for annulment of Commission Decision 2005/471/EC of 27 November 2007 relating to proceedings under Article 81 of the EC Treaty against BPB PLC, Gebrüder Knauf Westdeutsche Gipswerke KG, Société Lafarge SA and Gyproc Benelux NV (Case No COMP/E-1/37.152 — Plasterboard);

               4.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs relating to the appeal and Knauf Gips KG to pay all the costs at first instance.

      (1)  OJ C 313, 6.12.2008.


title: Appeal brought on 4 March 1996 by C. Koelman against the judgment delivered on 9 January 1996 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-575/93 between C. Koelman and Commission of the European Communities (Case C-59/96 P)

text:
No C 133/ 14            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     4 . 5 . 96
2 , if Question 1 is answered in the negative, is a benefit                3 , the standard cable television agreement of 29 May
      granted under the Vergoedingsregeling ( 1 ) to be regarded                1985 and/or agreements deriving therefrom are
      as a social advantage within the meaning of Article 7 ( 2 )              incompatible with Article 7 of the EC Treaty;
      of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1612/68 ? If so, is the
      imposition of the requirement that the worker                        4 , the participation of BUMA in the cable radio
      concerned should have his residence in the Netherlands                   agreements, in the form adopted , are incompatible
      to be regarded as different treatment by reason of                       with Article 86 of the EC Treaty;
      nationality contrary to Article 7 of that Regulation ?
                                                                           5 , the role played by the Netherlands State in the
0 ) Administrative Décision No 403 of the Stichting                            establishment of the standard cable agreements
    Ontwikkelings- en Saneringsfonds voor de Landbouw                          and their practical implementation by means of
    ( Staatscourant 1988 , 114 ).                                              increases in invoices issued by public utility
                                                                               companies are incompatible with its obligations
                                                                               under Article 90;
                                                                           6 , Articles 2, 3 , 5 , 6 , 8 and 9 of BUMA's standard
                                                                               exploitation agreements are in breach of the
                                                                               Commission's decision of 2 June 1971 in GEMA I
                                                                               ( OJ No L 134 , 1971 , p . 15 ) and are incompatible
Appeal brought on 4 March 1996 by C. Koelman against                           with Article 86 of the EC Treaty, since they
the judgment delivered on 9 January 1996 by the Court of                       constitute an abuse of BUMA's dominant position
First Instance of the European Communities in Case                             in relation to copyright owners and are a restriction
T-575 /93 between C. Koelman and Commission of the                             of competition .
                     European Communities
                        ( Case C-59/96 P)
                                                                      B. annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                           ( 96/C 133/29 )                                 9 January 1996 in Case T-575/93 , and
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 9 January 1996                 1 , declare void on the ground of Articles 173 and 174
                                                                               the   Commission        decision not the   initiate    a
by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
in Case T-575/93 between C. Koelman and Commission of                          proceeding on the basis of Article 3 of Regulation
the European Communities, supported by BUMA, was                               No 17 after submission of a complaint by Koelman
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                            on 26 October 1990 regarding the two 'cable
Communities on 4 March 1996 by C. Koelman, represented                         agreements' of 29 May 1985 and the infringements
                                                                               referred to therein;
by R. V. H. Jonker, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of R. Pels, 12 Rue Léon
Thyes .                                                                    2 , order the Commission to pay compensation for the
                                                                               damage suffered by Koelman;
The appellant claims that the Court should :                               3 , order the Commission to pay the costs of the
                                                                               proceedings .
A.    rule that :
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments
      1 , authors should be guaranteed a free choice
          regarding the organization which they wish to               The appellant's grounds of appeal are that the Court of First
          appoint as intermediary in connection with their            Instance wrongly appraised his pleas based on Article 85 ( 3 )
          rights, and undertakings which act as intermediaries        of the EC Treaty and his plea that there had been a
          for rights should be guaranteed fair access to the          manifestly erroneous appraisal and breach of the obligation
          market and should be protected against abuse                to state the reasons upon which the decision was based.
          of dominant positions by musical copyright
          monopolies and similar organizations which, selling
          ' blanket  licences '   on  the  basis   of  dominant
          positions, in conjunction with indemnification
          clauses, infringe the Auteursrecht ( Law on
          copyright) in order thereby to dominate the market
          for intermediaries and exclude competition, which           Action brought on 5 March 1996 by the Commission of the
          results in an unnecessary restriction of the                   European Communities against the French Republic
          free-market economy;                                                                ( Case C-60/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 133/30 )
      2 , the two cable radio and television agreements of
          29 May 1985 and all the agreements deriving
          therefrom are incompatible with Article 85 ( 1 ) of         An action against the French Republic was brought before
          the EC Treaty and therefore void;                           the Court of Justice on 5 March 1 996 by the Commission


C 163/36              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   10.6.2000
Removal from the register of Case T-518/97 to T-564/97 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case T-186/99 (1)
                        (2000/C 163/73)                                                           (2000/C 163/76)
                 (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
By order of 14 December 1999, the President of the Third
Chamber, of the Court of First Instance of the European                  By order of 21 March 2000, the President of the Second
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of                 Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Case T-518/97 to T-564/97: Fernando Eugénio de Abreu and                 Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Others v Council of the European Union and Commission of                 Case T-186/99: Saehan Media Ireland Limited v Commission
the European Communities.                                                of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 166 of 30.5.1998.                                               (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
Removal from the register of Case T-565/97 to T-595/97 (1)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-356/99 (1)
                        (2000/C 163/74)
                                                                                (2000/C 163/77)
                 (Language of the case: Portuguese)
By order of 14 December 1999, the President of the Third                                    (Language of the case: English)
Chamber, of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of                 By order of 28 March 2000, the President of the First Chamber
Case T-565/97 to T-595/97: João Luı́s de Sousa de Abreu and             of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
Others v Council of the European Union and Commission of                 has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-356/99:
the European Communities.                                                Sonia Marion Elder and Robert Dale Elder v Commission of
                                                                         the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 166 of 30.5.1998.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
Removal from the register of Case T-615/97 to T-618/97 (1)
                        (2000/C 163/75)                                          Removal from the register of Case T-1/00 (1)
                   (Language of the case: French)                                                 (2000/C 163/78)
By order of 16 December 1999, the President of the Third
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                                      (Language of the case: German)
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Case T-615/97 to T-618/97: Albery Frères and Others v                    By order of 31 March 2000, the President of the First Chamber
Council of the European Union and Commission of the                      of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
European Communities.                                                    has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-1/00:
                                                                         Gustav Hölzl and Others v Commission of the European
(1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.                                                Communities.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.


title: Case T-228/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 December 2008 — Giorgio Beverly Hills v OHIM — WHG (GIORGIO BEVERLY HILLS) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark GIORGIO BEVERLY HILLS — Earlier national word mark GIORGIO — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/27

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 December 2008 — Giorgio Beverly Hills v OHIM — WHG (GIORGIO BEVERLY HILLS)
   (Case T-228/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark GIORGIO BEVERLY HILLS - Earlier national word mark GIORGIO - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2009/C 32/50)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Giorgio Beverly Hills, Inc. (Cincinnati, Ohio, United States) (represented by: M. Schaeffer, and subsequently by K. Sandberg, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Laitinen and G. Schneider, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: WHG Westdeutsche Handelsgesellschaft mbH (Hagen, Germany) (represented by: H. Prange, lawyer)
   Re:
   ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 June 2006 (Joined Cases R 107/2005-2 and R 187/2005-2), concerning opposition proceedings between WHG Westdeutsche Handelsgesellschaft mbH and Giorgio Beverly Hills, Inc.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 21 June 2006 (Cases R 107/2005-2 and R 187/2005-2) in so far as it dismissed the appeal in Case R 187/2005-2;

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Giorgio Beverly Hills, Inc. during the proceedings before the Court of First Instance;

               3.

               Orders WHG Westdeutsche Handelsgesellschaft mbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Giorgio Beverly Hills for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM.

      (1)  OJ C 249, 14.10.2006.