title: Case C-134/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Trento (District Court of Trento) — Insolvency Section — by order of that court of 8 February 2000 in the case of Ministry of Finance v Merkur Chemical s.r.l.

text:
24.6.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 176/9
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         — Since that charge is due even where there is no registration
                                                                             to be made in practice and at the same rate regardless of
                                                                             the number of registrations to be made, the basis for its
In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC (ex                 payment is not the performance of a single operation
Article 189 of the EC Treaty), directives are binding, as to the             (registration of a single instrument) but a series of activities
result to be achieved, upon each Member State to which they                  (involved in keeping the register of companies) intended
are addressed. Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC (ex                to enable companies to register instruments whose regis-
Article 5 of the EC Treaty), Member States are to take all                   tration is required by the Civil Code following registration
appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure               of the constituent instrument;
fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty or
resulting from action taken by the institutions of the Com-             — Moreover, whilst, on the one hand, the amount of the
munity.                                                                      charge appears to be determined on a flat-rate basis
                                                                             according to criteria of reasonableness in the light of its
                                                                             low level (between ITL 750 000 and ITL 90 000 according
It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt               to the type of operation), on the other hand, considering
measures to comply with the abovementioned directives by                     that registry fees are also payable and given the basis for
drawing up the required waste management plans.                              its payment, it is certainly determined with reference to
                                                                             the cost not of a single registration (of which there may be
                                                                             none) but of keeping the register of companies in general.
The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
has not adopted the appropriate measures for full implemen-
tation of the directives at issue in Greek law, nor has it notified     (1) OJ, English Special Edition, 1969, (II), p. 412.
such measures to the Commission.                                        (2) [1993] ECR I-1915.
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Fourth Chamber
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di                of the Consiglio di Stato, sitting in its judicial capacity, by
Trento (District Court of Trento) — Insolvency Section                  order of that court of 12 November 1999 in the case of
— by order of that court of 8 February 2000 in the case                 ANAS — Ente Nazionale per le Strade and Lauro Cantieri
       of Ministry of Finance v Merkur Chemical s.r.l.                   Valsesia SpA against Consorzio Cooperative Costruzioni
                        (Case C-134/00)                                                           (Case C-135/00)
                        (2000/C 176/15)                                                           (2000/C 176/16)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Tribunale di                    European Communities by order of the Fourth Chamber of
Trento (District Court of Trento) — Insolvency Section — of             the Consiglio di Stato, sitting in its judicial capacity, of
8 February 2000, which was received at the Court Registry on            12 November 1999, received at the Court Registry on 10 April
10 April 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ministry         2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of ANAS — Ente
of Finance v Merkur Chemical s.r.l. on the following question:          Nazionale per le Strade and Lauro Cantieri Valsesia SpA against
                                                                        Consorzio Cooperative Costruzioni on the following questions:
In an action brought by a capital company before the Italian            (1) In calls for tenders for public works contracts, do clauses
courts for reimbursement of the annual administrative charge                 excluding undertakings which have not submitted with
paid from 1985 to 1992 pursuant to laws incompatible with                    their tenders explanations concerning components of the
Article 10 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC (1) (Joined Cases                 price indicated, amounting to at least 75 % of the figure
C-71/91 and C-178/91 Ponente Carni v Ministry of Finance                     specified in the tender conditions, represent an obstacle to
and Cispadana Costruzioni v Ministry of Finance) (2), is the                 the application of Article 30(4) of Directive 93/37 (1)?
provision in Article 11(1) of Law No 448 of 23.12.1998
introducing the flat-rate charge retrospectively (in amounts            (2) Does the establishment of a mechanism for determining
varying between ITL 750 000 and ITL 90 000 according to                      the threshold indicative of irregularity, below which the
the type of company), for the entry in the register of companies,            validity of tenders falls to be verified, on the basis of an ad
pursuant to the Civil Code, of company instruments other                     hoc criterion and an arithmetical mean, automatically so
than the constituent instrument compatible with Article 10 of                that undertakings are unable to ascertain the threshold in
that directive and with the interpretation of it by the Court of             advance, represent an obstacle to the application of Article
Justice (Ponente Carni), given that:                                         30(4) of Directive 93/37?


title: Case F-72/08: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 11 June 2009 — Ketselidis v Commission (Staff cases — Officials — Action — Prior administrative complaint — Tacit reply — Excusable error — None — Implicit rejection decision — Complaint out of time — Inadmissibility — Judgment of a Community court — Substantial new fact — None)

text:
               15.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/35

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 11 June 2009 — Ketselidis v Commission
   (Case F-72/08) (1)

   (Staff cases - Officials - Action - Prior administrative complaint - Tacit reply - Excusable error - None - Implicit rejection decision - Complaint out of time - Inadmissibility - Judgment of a Community court - Substantial new fact - None)
   2009/C 193/58
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Michalis Ketselidis (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. A. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Martin and K. Herrmann, Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the implicit decision rejecting the applicant's request for revision of the calculation of the pension annuities to be taken into account for the transfer of pension rights acquired in Greece to the Community scheme.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible;

               2.

               Mr Ketselidou is ordered to pay the costs in their entirety.

      (1)  OJ C 272 of 25.10.2008, p. 51


title: Case C-144/15: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 3 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Customs Support Holland BV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Headings 2304, 2308 and 2309 — Classification of a soya protein concentrate)

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/17

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 3 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Customs Support Holland BV
   (Case C-144/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Headings 2304, 2308 and 2309 - Classification of a soya protein concentrate))
   (2016/C 156/23)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Defendant: Customs Support Holland BV

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 948/2009 of 30 September 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that a soya protein concentrate, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, comes under heading 2309 of that nomenclature.

      (1)  OJ C 198, 15.6.2015.


title: Case C-474/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Schiebel Aircraft GmbH v Bundesminister für Wirtschaft, Familie und Jugend (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of establishment — Freedom of movement for workers — Non-discrimination — Article 346(1)(b) TFEU — Protection of a Member State’s essential security interests — Legislation of a Member State under which the statutory representatives of a business engaged within the national territory in the trading of arms, munitions and war material must hold the nationality of that Member State)

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/5

      Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Schiebel Aircraft GmbH v Bundesminister für Wirtschaft, Familie und Jugend
      (Case C-474/12) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of establishment - Freedom of movement for workers - Non-discrimination - Article 346(1)(b) TFEU - Protection of a Member State’s essential security interests - Legislation of a Member State under which the statutory representatives of a business engaged within the national territory in the trading of arms, munitions and war material must hold the nationality of that Member State))
      (2014/C 395/06)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Verwaltungsgerichtshof

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Schiebel Aircraft GmbH

         Defendant: Bundesminister für Wirtschaft, Familie und Jugend

         Operative part of the judgment

      Articles 45 TFEU and 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, in the case of businesses wishing to trade in military weapons and munitions and broker the sale and purchase of such goods, members of their statutory representation bodies, or their managing partner, must hold the nationality of that Member State. It is for the national court, however, to verify whether the Member State which, in order to justify that legislation, relies on the derogation allowed under Article 346(1)(b) TFEU is able to show that such derogation is necessary in order to protect its essential security interests.

         (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.


title: Case T-83/12: Order of the General Court of 12 July 2012 — Chico’s Brands Investments v OHIM — Artsana (CHICO’S) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               8.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/10

         Order of the General Court of 12 July 2012 — Chico’s Brands Investments v OHIM — Artsana (CHICO’S)
   (Case T-83/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)
   2012/C 273/17
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Chico’s Brands Investments, Inc. (Fort Myers, United States) (represented by: T. Holman, solicitor)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Geroulakos, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Artsana SpA (Grandate, Italy)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 October 2011 (Case R 2084/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Artsana SpA and Chico’s Brands Investments, Inc.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               Each party is to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.


title: Case C-320/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Varnenski Administrativen Sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 27 June 2011 — Digitalnet OOD v Nachalnik na Mitnicheski punkt Varna Zapad pri Mitnitsi Varna

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/24

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Varnenski Administrativen Sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 27 June 2011 — Digitalnet OOD v Nachalnik na Mitnicheski punkt Varna Zapad pri Mitnitsi Varna
   (Case C-320/11)
   2011/C 252/45
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Varnenski Administrativen Sad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Digitalnet OOD

      Defendant: Nachalnik na Mitnicheski punkt Varna Zapad pri Mitnitsi Varna

      Questions referred

               1.

               What is to be understood by the term ‘Internet’ within the meaning of the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Community for 2009 (Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008), (1) which were published in the Official Journal of 30 May 2008 (OJ 2008 C 133, p. 1) (amendment in relation to subheadings 8528 90 00, 8528 71 13 and 8528 71 90), if it is used in relation to the classification of goods under TARIC code 8528711300?

               2.

               What is to be understood by the term ‘modem’ within the meaning of the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Community for 2009 (Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008), which were published in the Official Journal of 30 May 2008 (OJ 2008 C 133, p. 1) (amendment in relation to subheadings 8528 90 00, 8528 71 13 and 8528 71 90), if it is used in relation to the classification of goods under TARIC code 8528711300?

               3.

               What is to be understood by the terms ‘modulation’ and ‘demodulation’ within the meaning of the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Community for 2009 (Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008), which were published in the Official Journal of 30 May 2008 (OJ 2008 C 133, p. 1) (amendment in relation to subheadings 8528 90 00, 8528 71 13 and 8528 71 90), if they are used in relation to the classification of goods under TARIC code 8528711300?

               4.

               What is the relevant function (main function) of the set-top box TF6100DCC apparatus, pursuant to which the tariff classification must be carried out: receiving television signals or the use of a modem which facilitates interactive information exchange for the purposes of gaining access to the internet?

               5.

               If the relevant function (main function) of the set-top box TF6100DCC apparatus is the use of a modem which facilitates interactive information exchange for the purposes of gaining access to the internet, is the type of modulation and demodulation which the modem brings about or the type of modem used relevant to the tariff classification, or does it suffice that access to the internet is provided by means of the modem?

               6.

               Under which subheading and which code should apparatus corresponding to the description of the apparatus TF6100DCC be classified?

               7.

               In the event that the set-top box TF6100DCC is to be classified under subheading 8521 90 00 of the combined nomenclature, is the application of a positive rate of customs duty lawful as a matter of Community law, if such classification would constitute a violation of the Community’s obligations under the Information Technology Agreement and Article II:l(b) of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, or does classification under heading 8521 entail a conclusion that the set-top box TF6100DCC falls outside the scope of the relevant part of the Information Technology Agreement?

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 291, p. 1.


title: Case T-159/08: Action brought on 2 May 2008 — Procter & Gamble v OHIM — Bayer (LIVENSA)

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/40

         Action brought on 2 May 2008 — Procter & Gamble v OHIM — Bayer (LIVENSA)
   (Case T-159/08)
   (2008/C 171/77)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: The Procter & Gamble Company (Cincinnati, United States) (represented by: K. Sandberg, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bayer AG (Leverkusen, Germany)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 February 2008 in case R 960/2007-2;

               —

               reject the opposition No B 873 978 dated 3 May 2007;

               —

               order OHIM to bear the costs of the proceedings: and

               —

               order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs of the proceedings before OHIM.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘LIVENSA’ for goods in class 5 — application No 004 062 725

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited: The Community trade mark ‘LYVELSA’ for goods in class 5

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the trade mark application in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as there is no likelihood of confusion between the two trade marks subject to comparison.


title: Case T-304/07: Action brought on 10 August 2007 — Calzaturificio Frau v OHIM — Camper

text:
               6.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/23

         Action brought on 10 August 2007 — Calzaturificio Frau v OHIM — Camper
   (Case T-304/07)
   (2007/C 235/43)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Calzaturificio Frau SpA (San Giovanni Ilarione VR, Italy) (represented by: A. Rizzoli, lawyer)

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

      Other part to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Camper S.L.
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that the present application and the annexes thereto are admissible;

               —

               annul the decision of the Board of Appeal (points 1, 2 and 3 of the operative part) in so far as it annuls the contested decision, rejects the application for registration in respect of all the goods in question and orders the applicant to pay the costs incurred by the opposing party in the opposition proceedings and the appeal;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Calzaturificio Frau

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark consisting of a black arch sloping to the right (application for registration No 3.388.097) for goods in Classes 18 and 25.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Camper S.L.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish national three-dimensional trade mark in the form of a shoe for goods in Class 25, a number of English national figurative trade marks representing, in various forms, sloping arches for goods in Class 25 and two figurative Community trade marks also in the shape of an arch for goods in Class 18.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: partial rejection of the opposition.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: annulment of the contested decision and refusal of the application for registration.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark and of Article 73 of that regulation.


title: Case C-352/11: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 May 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Austria (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Environment — Directive 2008/1/EC — Integrated pollution prevention and control — Requirements for the granting of permits for existing installations — Obligation to ensure the operation of such installations in accordance with the requirements of that directive)

text:
               7.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/4

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 May 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-352/11) (1)

   (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Environment - Directive 2008/1/EC - Integrated pollution prevention and control - Requirements for the granting of permits for existing installations - Obligation to ensure the operation of such installations in accordance with the requirements of that directive)
   2012/C 200/07
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Wilms and A. Alcover San Pedro, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer and A. Posch, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (OJ 2008 L 24, p. 8) — Requirements for the granting of permits for existing installations — Obligation to ensure that those installations are operated in accordance with the requirements provided for under that directive

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by having failed to grant permits in accordance with Articles 6 and 8 of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, to reconsider and, if necessary, renew existing permits, and to ensure that all existing installations are operated in accordance with the requirements of Articles 3, 7, 9, 10 and 13, 14(a) and (b) and Article 15(2) of that directive, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of that directive.

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 171, 9.7.2005

text:
               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/46

         (2005/C 182/87)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 171, 9.7.2005

   Past publications

      OJ C 155, 25.6.2005

      OJ C 143, 11.6.2005

      OJ C 132, 28.5.2005

      OJ C 115, 14.5.2005

      OJ C 106, 30.4.2005

      OJ C 93, 16.4.2005

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex:http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex

               CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case C-211/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 25 April 2014  — Criminal proceedings against Massimiliano Di Adamo

text:
               1.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 25 April 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Massimiliano Di Adamo
   (Case C-211/14)
   2014/C 292/14
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte suprema di cassazione

      Party to the main proceedings

   Massimiliano Di Adamo

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 February 2012 in Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10, to be interpreted as precluding a call for tenders for the award of licences with a period of validity shorter than that of licences awarded in the past where that tendering procedure has been launched in order to remedy the consequences of the unlawful exclusion of a certain number of operators from earlier tendering procedures?

               2.

               Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 February 2012 in Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10, to be interpreted as precluding the possibility that sufficient justification for the shorter period of validity of licences offered for tender, as compared with licences awarded in the past, can be found in the requirement for the licensing system to be reorganised through the alignment of licence expiry dates?

               3.

               Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 February 2012 in Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10, to be interpreted as precluding the imposition of an obligation to transfer, free of charge, the use of tangible and intangible assets represented by the betting management and collection network in the event that the activity has ceased owing to the expiry of the licence or as a result of measures disqualifying the licence-holder or withdrawing the licence?


title: Case T-427/12: Action brought on 26 September 2012 — Austria v Commission

text:
               1.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 373/10

         Action brought on 26 September 2012 — Austria v Commission
   (Case T-427/12)
   2012/C 373/16
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer, acting as Agent, and by M. Windisch)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Article 1(1)(d) in conjunction with Article 1(2) of the European Commission’s decision of 25 July 2012 in State aid case SA.28487 (C 16/2009 ex N 254/2009), according to which the funding guarantee given by Austria to Bayerische Landesbank constitutes State aid by the Republic of Austria to Bayerische Landesbank for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU and is compatible with the internal market in the light of the commitments set out in Annexes I and III and subject to the conditions set out in Annex II; and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to a fair hearing

                           —

                           The applicant submits that it was not heard by the defendant prior to the defendant’s classification as State aid of the measure implemented by the applicant. The applicant therefore had no opportunity to give an account of the actual legal substance of the agreement and to address subsequent changes in the facts of the situation.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging disregard of the obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU

                           —

                           The applicant states that the Commission did not give reasons in its decision to justify its classification of the measure at issue as State aid or to explain why that aid is compatible with the internal market. Accordingly it is not possible for those concerned to identify the grounds for the adoption of the legal act, or for the Courts of the European Union to exercise their power of review.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU

                           —

                           In the applicant’s view, the classification of the measure at issue as State aid compatible with the internal market infringes Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU. The applicant explains in that regard that no remuneration at market rates is paid for the measure at issue, nor does it have an impact on financial stability or bank lending in the implementing Member State (in this case Austria), or rather the Republic of Austria cannot exercise appropriate supervision in another Member State in respect of the achievement of any objectives that may have been set.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 125 TFEU

                           —

                           In this context the applicant submits that, under Article 125(1) TFEU, a Member State is not to be liable for or assume the commitments of the central governments, regional or local authorities of another Member State. Since that would, however, be the consequence of the Commission’s contested decision, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 125 TFEU.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging the defendant’s lack of competence

                           —

                           In the applicant’s opinion, the Commission is assessing a situation in this case that did not in fact occur in that form. The Commission is thereby exceeding its powers.


title: Case C-494/06 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 April 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic, Wam Spa (Appeal — State aid — Loans at reduced rates to enable a firm to establish itself in certain third countries — Effect on trade between Member States — Distortion of competition — Trade with non-member States — Commission decision — Unlawful State aid — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/4

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 April 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic, Wam Spa
   (Case C-494/06 P) (1)

   (Appeal - State aid - Loans at reduced rates to enable a firm to establish itself in certain third countries - Effect on trade between Member States - Distortion of competition - Trade with non-member States - Commission decision - Unlawful State aid - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)
   2009/C 153/06
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Di Bucci and E. Righini, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Italian Republic (represented by: I.M. Braguglia, Agent, and P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato), Wam SpA (represented by E. Giliani, avvocato)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 6 September 2006 Italian Republic and Wam v Commission (Joined Cases T-304/04 and T 316/04) whereby the Court annulled Commission Decision 2006/177/EC of 19 May 2004 on State aid No C 4/2003 (ex NN 102/2002) implemented by Italy for Wam SpA (OJ 2006 L 63, p. 11)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs at both instances.

      (1)  OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.


title: Case T-339/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 June 2007 — MacLean-Fogg v OHIM (LOKTHREAD) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark LOKTHREAD — Absolute grounds for refusal of registration — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/23

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 June 2007 — MacLean-Fogg v OHIM (LOKTHREAD)
   (Case T-339/05) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark LOKTHREAD - Absolute grounds for refusal of registration - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2007/C 170/45)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: MacLean-Fogg Co. (Mundelein, Illinois, United States) (represented by: S. Prückner and A. Franke, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: Ó. Mondéjar, Agent)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 June 2005 (Case R 1122/2004-1), concerning the registration of the word mark LOKTHREAD as a Community trade mark
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders MacLean-Fogg Co. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 296, 26.11.2005.


title: Case C-201/06: Action brought on  4 May 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/16

         Action brought on 4 May 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
   (Case C-201/06)
   (2006/C 165/29)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Stromsky, Agent)

      Defendant: French Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by requiring that a parallel imported plant protection product and a reference product have a common origin, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC;

               —

               order the French Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In France, the grant and continuation of an import authorisation in respect of parallel imports of plant protection products from another Member State where they are lawfully placed on the market are subject to the requirement that parallel imported plant protection products and reference products have a common origin.
   This constitutes a restriction on the free movement of plant protection products that is incompatible with Article 28 EC, is not justified on grounds of the protection of public health, animal health or the environment and is disproportionate in relation to the goal to be achieved.


title: Case T-282/10: Action brought on 25 June 2010 — Milux v OHMI (STOMACONTROL)

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/47

         Action brought on 25 June 2010 — Milux v OHMI (STOMACONTROL)
   (Case T-282/10)
   ()
   2010/C 234/84
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Milux Holding S.A. (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: J. Bojs, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 June 2010 in case R 1434/2009-4;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘STOMACONTROL’ for goods and services in classes 9, 10 and 44

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

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal misapplied the principle of non-discrimination to the facts of this case; in the alternative, infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in its conclusion that the trade mark applied for does not possess sufficient inherent distinctiveness.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof by order of that court of 2 July 1998 in the case of Schutzverband gegen Unwesen in der Wirtschaft e.V. v Warsteiner Brauerei Haus Cramer GmbH & Co. KG (Case C-312/98)

text:
C 327/8                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        24.10.98
    According to the Commission, that comparison does                   preliminary ruling in the case of Schutzverband gegen
    not explain the replanting of 2 446 hectares of vines.              Unwesen in der Wirtschaft e.V. v Warsteiner Brauerei
                                                                        Haus Cramer GmbH & Co. KG on the following
                                                                        question:
    The Italian authorities' failure to shed any light on
    that point led the Commission to conclude that the                  Does Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July
    area must be considered to have been unlawfully                    1992 on the protection of geographical indications and
    planted, giving rise without any financial aim to                   designations of origin for agricultural products and
    expenditure for the grubbing-up of that same surface                foodstuffs (1) preclude application of a national provision
    area' and it set the adjustment at LIT 31 861 816 140,              which prohibits the misleading use of a simple
    multiplying the number of hectares considered to be                 geographical designation of origin, that is, an indication in
    illegally planted by the value of the average cessation             the case of which there is no link between the
    premium paid for Apulia between 1989 and 1992                       characteristics of the product and its geographical origin?
    pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1442/88 (7).
                                                                        (1) OJ L 208, 24.7.1992, p. 1.
    The Italian Government maintains that the adjustment
    is unlawful because Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/
    87 (8) on the common organisation of the market in
    wine is silent on the question of financial penalties
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandes-
    applicable to individual cases and merely provides, in
                                                                        gericht Köln, by order of that court of 4 August 1998 in
    respect of vines planted or re-planted without
                                                                        proceedings concerning an administrative fine imposed on
    authorisation, for compulsory distillation of the yield
                                                                                Arnold Claasen
    to be used in the preparation of alcohol with an actual
    alcoholic strength by volume of at least 80 %                                                (Case C-313/98)
    (Articles 6(3) and 7(4)).                                                                     (98/C 327/11)
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    In any case, the subtraction of the adjustment amount               European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht
    from the sum paid for grubbing-up with a premium                    Köln (Higher Regional Court, Cologne) of 4 August 1998,
    pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 1442/88 seems                       received at the Court Registry on 13 August 1998, for a
    unwarranted, since those amounts were paid for the                  preliminary ruling in the proceedings concerning an
    grubbing-up of existing vines.                                      administrative fine imposed on Arnold Claasen, on the
                                                                        following question (1):
(1) OJ L 163, 6.6.1998, p. 28.
(2) OJ L 388, 30.12.1989, p. 18.                                        Does the amount of the charge payable under Article 8(1)
(3) OJ, English Special Edition 1970(I), p. 218.                        of the Agreement depend solely on the number of
(4) OJ L 337, 4.12.1990, p. 3.                                          axles fitted to the motor vehicle or articulated vehicle
(5) OJ L 350, 14.12.1990, p. 43.                                        combination in question, regardless of whether an axle is
(6) OJ L 67, 15.3.1990, p. 21.
                                                                        used or raised during the journey, or are tandem axles/
(7) OJ L 132, 28.5.1988, p. 3.
(8) OJ L 84, 27.3.1987, p. 1.                                           raisable axles to be left out of account in calculating the
                                                                        charge?
                                                                        (1) Concerning the interpretation of Article 8(1) of the Agreement
                                                                            of 9 February 1994 on the levying of charges for the use of
                                                                            certain roads by heavy commercial vehicles (Bundesgesetzblatt
                                                                            [Federal Gazette], Part II, p. 1768).
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes-
gerichtshof by order of that court of 2 July 1998 in the
case of Schutzverband gegen Unwesen in der Wirtschaft
e.V. v Warsteiner Brauerei Haus Cramer GmbH & Co.
                                KG                                      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandse
                                                                        Raad van State by judgment of that court of 10 August
                        (Case C-312/98)                                 1998 in the case of Snellers Auto's B.V. against Algemeen
                                                                                Directeur van de Dienst Wegverkeer
                          (98/C 327/10)
                                                                                (Case C-314/98)
                                                                                (98/C 327/12)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Bundesgerichts-                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
hof (Federal Court of Justice) of 2 July 1998, which was                European Communities by judgment of the Netherlandse
received at the Court Registry on 12 August 1998, for a                 Raad van State (Netherlands Council of State) of


title: Case C-227/04 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 September 2007 — Maria-Luise Lindorfer v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Officials — Transfer of pension rights — Professional activities prior to entering the service of the Communities — Calculation of the years of pensionable service — Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — General implementing provisions — Principle of non-discrimination — Principle of equal treatment)

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/3

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 September 2007 — Maria-Luise Lindorfer v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-227/04 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Officials - Transfer of pension rights - Professional activities prior to entering the service of the Communities - Calculation of the years of pensionable service - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - General implementing provisions - Principle of non-discrimination - Principle of equal treatment)
   (2007/C 269/07)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Maria-Luise Lindorfer (represented by: G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Anton and M. Sims-Robertson, Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 18 March 2004 in Case T-204/01 Lindorfer v Council dismissing her action for annulment of the Council decision of 3 November 2000 calculating her years of pensionable service following transfer to the Community scheme of the redemption value of the pension rights which she had acquired under the Austrian scheme.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 18 March 2004 in Case T-204/01 Lindorfer v Council to the extent that it dismissed Ms Lindorfer's action on the ground that there was no discrimination based on sex;

               2.

               Annuls the Decision of the Council of the European Union of 3 November 2000 calculating the number of Ms Lindorfer's years of pensionable service;

               3.

               Dismisses the remainder of the appeal;

               4.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal.

      (1)  JO C 190, 24.7.2004.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 November 2003 in Case C-4/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Employment Tribunal at Croydon): Serene Martin, Rohit Daby, Brian Willis v South Bank University (Directive 77/187/EEC — Safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses — Early retirement and associated benefits)

text:
10.1.2004             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                   C 7/1
                                                                       I
                                                                (Information)
                                                  COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                            COURT OF JUSTICE
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     gues, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal
                                                                          Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                          6 November 2003, in which it has ruled:
                       (Sixth Chamber)
                     of 6 November 2003
                                                                          1.   Rights contingent upon dismissal or the grant of early retirement
in Case C-4/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                        by agreement with the employer fall within the ‘rights and
the Employment Tribunal at Croydon): Serene Martin,                            obligations’ referred to in Article 3(1) of Council Directive 77/
   Rohit Daby, Brian Willis v South Bank University (1)                        187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the approximation of the
                                                                               laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of
                                                                               employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings,
(Directive 77/187/EEC — Safeguarding of employees’ rights                      businesses or parts of businesses.
in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts
  of businesses — Early retirement and associated benefits)
                         (2004/C 7/01)                                    2.   Early retirement benefits and benefits intended to enhance the
                                                                               conditions of such retirement, paid in the event of early
                                                                               retirement arising by agreement between the employer and the
                  (Language of the case: English)                              employee to employees who have reached a certain age, such as
                                                                               the benefits at issue in the main proceedings, are not old-age,
                                                                               invalidity or survivors’ benefits under supplementary company
                                                                               or inter-company pension schemes within the meaning of
                                                                               Article 3(3) of Directive 77/187.
In Case C-4/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Employment Tribunal, Croydon (United Kingdom) for
a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                    Article 3 of that directive is to be interpreted as meaning that
court between Serene Martin, Rohit Daby, Brian Willis and                      obligations arising upon the grant of such early retirement,
South Bank University, on the interpretation of Article 3 of                   arising from a contract of employment, an employment
Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the                        relationship or a collective agreement binding the transferor as
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to                     regards the employees concerned, are transferred to the transferee
the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers                subject to the conditions and limitations laid down by that
of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses (OJ 1977                    article, regardless of the fact that those obligations derive from
L 61, p. 26), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-                      statutory instruments or are implemented by such instruments
P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,                          and regardless of the practical arrangements adopted for such
R. Schintgen, C. Gulmann, F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodri-                      implementation.
 ---pagebreak--- C 7/2                    EN                             Official Journal of the European Union                                                10.1.2004
3.    Article 3 of Directive 77/187 precludes the transferee from               proceedings pending before that court between Assurandør-
      offering the employees of a transferred entity terms less                 Societetet, acting on behalf of Taksatorringen, and Skatteminis-
      favourable than those offered to them by the transferor in                teriet, on the interpretation of Article 13A(1)(f) and 13B(a) of
      respect of early retirement, and those employees from accepting           Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
      those terms, where those terms are merely brought into line               harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
      with the terms offered to the transferee’s other employees at the         turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
      time of the transfer, unless the more favourable terms previously         basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), the Court (Fifth
      offered by the transferor arose from a collective agreement which         Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, acting for the President of
      is no longer legally binding on the employees of the entity               the Fifth Chamber, A. La Pergola and S. von Bahr (Rapporteur),
      transferred, having regard to the conditions set out in                   Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal
      Article 3(2).                                                             Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                                20 November 2003, in which it has ruled:
4.    Where, in breach of the public policy obligations imposed by
      Article 3 of Directive 77/187, the transferee offered employees
      of the entity transferred early retirement less favourable than
      that to which they were entitled under their employment
      relationship with the transferor and those employees accepted             1.    Article 13B(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of
      such early retirement, it is for the transferee to ensure that those            17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
      employees are accorded early retirement on the terms to which                   States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value
      they were entitled under their employment relationship with the                 added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be construed as
      transferor.                                                                     meaning that motor vehicle damage assessments carried out, on
                                                                                behalf of its members, by an association whose members are
                                                                                insurance companies are neither insurance transactions nor
(1) OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001.                                                             services related to insurance transactions that are performed by
                                                                                insurance brokers or insurance agents within the meaning of
                                                                                that provision.
                                                                                2.    Article 13A(1)(f) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388 must be
                                                                                construed as meaning that the grant of exemption from value
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                               added tax under that provision to an association such as that
                                                                                in issue in the main proceedings and which satisfies all of the
                                                                                other conditions of that provision must be refused if there is a
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                            genuine risk that the exemption may by itself, immediately or
                                                                                in the future, give rise to distortions of competition.
                       of 20 November 2003
in Case C-008/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                       3.    National legislation which allows a temporary exemption to be
the Østre Landsret): Assurandør-Societetet, acting on                                 granted where doubt exists as to whether that exemption, such
       behalf of Taksatorringen, v Skatteministeriet (1)                              as that in the case in the main proceedings, is liable at a later
                                                                                date to give rise to distortions of competition is compatible with
(Sixth VAT Directive — Article 13A(1)(f) and 13B(a) —                                 Article 13A(1)(f) of Sixth Directive 77/388, provided that the
Exemption for services performed by independent groups not                            exemption is renewed only for as long as the person concerned
likely to give rise to distortions of competition — Exemption                         satisfies the conditions of that provision.
for insurance transactions and related services performed by
insurance brokers and insurance agents — Assessments of
damage caused to motor vehicles carried out by an association
                                                                                4.    The fact that large insurance companies have the assessments
on behalf of insurance companies which are members of that
                                                                                of damage to motor vehicles carried out by their own experts,
                              association)
                                                                                thereby avoiding liability for value added tax in respect of the
                                                                                provision of such services, is not such as to have any bearing on
                             (2004/C 7/02)                                            the answers to be given to the first three questions.
                    (Language of the case: Danish)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published          (1) OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001.
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-8/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Østre Landsret (Denmark) for a preliminary ruling in the


title: Case C-15/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 11 January 2016 — Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht v Ewald Baumeister

text:
               29.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 111/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 11 January 2016 — Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht v Ewald Baumeister
   (Case C-15/16)
   (2016/C 111/14)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant on point of law and defendant: Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht

      Respondent on point of law and applicant: Ewald Baumeister

      Third Party: Frank Schmitt as administrator of the assets of Phoenix Kapitaldienst GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

                           a)

                           Is all business information communicated to the supervisory authority by the supervised entity covered by the term ‘confidential information’ within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 54(1) of Directive 2004/39/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC (OJ 2004 L 145, p. 1; ‘Directive 2004/39/EC’), and therefore the obligation of professional secrecy in accordance with the first sentence of Article 54(1) of Directive 2004/39/EC, independently of any further conditions?

                           b)

                           Does ‘prudential secrecy’, as a component of professional secrecy within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 54(1) of Directive 2004/39/EC, independently of any further conditions, cover all statements by the supervisory authority contained in the files, including its correspondence with other entities?
                           If questions a) or b) are answered in the negative:

                           c)

                           Must the provision on professional secrecy in Article 54(1) of Directive 2004/39/EC be interpreted as meaning that, as regards classification of information as confidential,

                                       aa)

                                       the relevant factor is whether the information is by its nature covered by the obligation of professional secrecy or access to the information could actually and specifically undermine the interest served by confidentiality, or

                                       bb)

                                       account must be taken of other circumstances under which the information is covered by the obligation of professional secrecy, or

                                       cc)

                                       in respect of business information of the supervised institution held in its files and related documentation of its own, the supervisory authority may rely on a rebuttable presumption that this information concerns business or prudential secrets?

               2.

               Must the term ‘confidential information’ within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 54(1) of Directive 2004/39/EC be interpreted as meaning that for business information communicated by the supervisory authority to be classified as a business secret meriting protection or as information otherwise meriting protection, the relevant factor is solely the date of communication to the supervisory authority?
               If the second question is answered in the negative:

               3.

               Regarding the question of whether an item of business information is to be protected as a business secret regardless of changes in the economic climate and is therefore subject to the obligation of professional secrecy in accordance with the second sentence of Article 54(1) of Directive 2004/39/EC, must, in a general manner, a time limit — of five years, say — be assumed, following expiry of which it will be rebuttably presumed that the information has lost its economic value? Do analogous considerations apply as regards prudential secrecy?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 145, p. 1.


               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/2

         Taking of the oath by a new Member of the Court of Justice
   2010/C 317/02
   Following his appointment as Judge at the Court of Justice for the period from 7 October 2010 to 6 October 2012 by decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union of 29 September 2010, (1) Mr Jarašiūnas took the oath before the Court on 6 October 2010.

      (1)  OJ L 261 of 5.10.2010, p. 5.


title: Case T-405/09: Action brought on 9 October 2009 — Deutsche Bahn v OHIM (Combination of the colours grey and red)

text:
               5.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/32

         Action brought on 9 October 2009 — Deutsche Bahn v OHIM (Combination of the colours grey and red)
   (Case T-405/09)
   2009/C 297/48
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Deutsche Bahn AG (represented by U. Hildebrandt, K. Schmidt-Hern and B. Weichhaus)

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

      Forms of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 July 2009 (Case R 379/2009-1);

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: A trade mark consisting of the combination of the colours grey and red for services in Class 39 (Application No 6 735 401)

      Decision of the Examiner: Application refused

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: In its assessment of the mark applied for, the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market applied criteria which are inconsistent with the case-law of the Court of First Instance; it was, in particular, ignored that different criteria are applicable to the registration of colour marks for services than for goods.


title: Joined Cases T-64/07 to T-66/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2009 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM (350, 250 and 150) (Community trade mark — Applications for Community word marks 350, 250 and 150 — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/22

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2009 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM (350, 250 and 150)
   (Joined Cases T-64/07 to T-66/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Applications for Community word marks 350, 250 and 150 - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2010/C 11/42
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. (Częstochowa, Poland) (represented by: D. Rzążewska, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Montalto and K. Zajfert, Agents)

      Re:

   Three actions brought against the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 December 2006 (Cases R 1033/2006-4, R 1034/2006-4 and R 1035/2006-4) concerning applications for registration of word marks 350, 250 and 150 as Community trade marks.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions;

               2.

               orders Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.


title: Case C-153/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 20 March 2007 — Communication Services TELE2 GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

text:
               23.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 140/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 20 March 2007 — Communication Services TELE2 GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   (Case C-153/07)
   (2007/C 140/13)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesverwaltungsgericht
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Communication Services TELE2 GmbH

      Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

      Intervener: Deutsche Telekom AG
   Questions referred
   Are Commission Directive 90/388/EEC of 28 June 1990 on competition in the markets for telecommunications services (Competition Directive) (1) and Directive 97/33/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 on interconnection in telecommunications with regard to ensuring universal service and interoperability through application of the principles of Open Network Provision (ONP) (Interconnection Directive) (2) to be interpreted as meaning that the national regulatory authority is precluded from requiring, in 2003, the operator of a network which is interconnected with a public local telecommunications network to pay a contribution to the market-dominant operator of the local network in order to compensate him for the deficit incurred as a result of providing the local loop?
   If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative:
   Is the incompatibility with Community law of such a requirement, which is a provision of domestic law, to be taken into account by the national court in proceedings concerning the approval of a contribution by the interconnected network operator?

      (1)  OJ 1990 L 192, p. 10.

      (2)  OJ 1997 L 199, p. 32.


title: Case T-234/00: Order of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Fondazione Opera S. Maria della Carità v Commission

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/44

         Order of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Fondazione Opera S. Maria della Carità v Commission
   (Case T-234/00) (1)

   2011/C 347/77
   Language of the case: Italian
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 4, 6.1.2001.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 March 1999 in Joined Cases T-163/94 and T-165/94 (92), NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko Co. Ltd. v Council of the European Union (Taxation of costs - Inadmissible)

text:
C 188/26                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          3.7.1999
                                                          COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
        ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               whose registered office is at Cabestany (France), represented
                                                                           by Nicolas Boespflug, of the Paris Bar, 22 Rue Lalo, Paris, v
                         of 17 March 1999                                  Commission of the European Communities (Agents: José Luis
                                                                           Iglesias Buhigues and Jean-Francis Pasquier), supported by the
in Joined Cases T-163/94 and T-165/94 (92), NTN Corpor-                    Kingdom of Spain, represented by Paloma Plaza Garcı́a,
ation and Koyo Seiko Co. Ltd. v Council of the European                    Abogado del Estado, of its Community Affairs Legal Depart-
                              Union (1)                                    ment, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxem-
                                                                           bourg at the Spanish Embassy, 4-6 Boulevard Emmanuel
               (Taxation of costs — Inadmissible)                          Servais — application for annulment of Commission Regu-
                                                                           lation (EC) No 1107/96 of 12 June 1996 on the registration
                                                                           of geographical indications and designations of origin under
                          (1999/C 188/60)                                  the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council Regulation
                                                                           (EEC) No 2081/92 (OJ 1996 L 148, p. 1) in so far as it
                    (Language of the case: English)                        registered the names Turrón de Jijona and Turrón de Alicante
                                                                           as protected geographical indications — the Court of First
In Joined Cases T-163/94 and T-165/94 (92), NTN Corpor-                    Instance (First Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf (President
ation, established at Osaka, represented by Jürgen Schwarze                of the Chamber), and J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung,
and Malte Sprenger, Rechtsanwalt, Düsseldorf, with an address              Registrar, has given an order on 26 March 1999 in which it:
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Claude Penning,
78 Grand-Rue, and Koyo Seiko Co. Ltd, established at Osaka,                1. Dismisses the application as inadmissible;
represented by Jacques Buhart, of the Paris Bar, and Charles
Kaplan, Barrister, with an address for service in Luxembourg               2. Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and those of the
at the Chambers of Arendt and Medernach, 8-10 Rue Mathias                       Commission, and orders the intervener to bear its own costs.
Hardt, against Council of the European Union (Agent: Stephan
Marquardt), application for taxation of costs made by NTN
Corporation following the judgment of the Court of First                   (1) OJ No C 269 (14.9.1996).
Instance of 2 May 1995 in Joined Cases T-163/94 and
T-165/94 NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko v Council [1995]
ECR II-1381, the Court (Fifth Chamber, Extended Compo-
sition), composed of J.D. Cooke, President, R. Garcı́a-
Valdecasas, P. Lindh, J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges; Registrar:
H. Jung, made an order on 17 March 1999, the operative part
of which is as follows:
1) The application by NTH Corporation is dismissed as inadmis-                   ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      sible.
                                                                                of 22 March 1999
( 1) OJ No C 29 of 2 February 1993.
                                                                           in Case T-105/98 Rainer Dumont du Voitel v Council of
                                                                                the European Union (1)
                                                                           (Council Decision 98/319/EC of 27 April 1998 on the
                                                                           procedures whereby officials and employees of the General
        ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Secretariat of the Council may be allowed access to classified
                                                                           information held by the Council — Action for annulment —
                         of 26 March 1999                                                          Inadmissibility)
in Case T-114/96 Biscuiterie-confiserie LOR SA and                                                (1999/C 188/62)
Another v Commission of the European Communities
                           and Another (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(Actions for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 —
Registration of geographical indications — ‘Turrón de Jijona’
    and ‘Turrón de Alicante’ — Locus standi – Inadmissible)               Application, in Case T-105/98, Rainer Dumont du Voitel, an
                                                                           official at the Council of the European Union resident at
                          (1999/C 188/61)                                  Vossem-Tervuren, Belgium, represented by Pierre-Paul Van
                                                                           Gehuchten and Jacques Sambon, of the Brussels Bar, with an
                                                                           address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis
                     (Language of the case: French)                        Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim against the Council of the
                                                                           European Union (Agents: Jean-Paul Jacqué and Diego Canga
In Case T-114/96 Biscuiterie-confiserie LOR SA, whose regis-               Fano), for annulment of Council Decision 98/319/EC of
tered office is at Perpignan (France) and Confiserie du Tech SA,           27 April 1998 relating to the procedures whereby officials and


title: Action brought on 23 February 1995 by Corporación Uniland SA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-58/95)

text:
13 . 5 . 95          LM                    Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 119/21
5 . In assessing the role of the applicant, the Commission            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     failed to properly appreciate the fact that the applicant
     was a victim of a continued abuse of a collective                The applicant relies upon the following grounds:
     dominant position by the members of the European
     Task Force, a grouping of the major European                       I. Breach of essential procedural requirements:
     producers, whose aim was to prevent exports from
     Greece to the rest of the Community.                                  1 . Infringement of Article 19 of Regulation No 17,
                                                                               Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Regulation No 99/63 and
6. The Commission has not sufficiently shown in law that                       Article 3 of Regulation No 1 on the following
     the applicant participated in a 'single and continuous'                   grounds:
     agreement relating to the principle of non-transhipment
     to home markets .                                                         (a ) Sending a Statement of Objections lacking
                                                                                clarity, vitiated by lack of coherency and
                                                                                unclear as to the period to which the
7. The Commission has incorrectly interpreted the
                                                                                objections relate;
     activities of the Export Policy Committee and the role of
     the applicant within it.                                                  ( b ) Incomplete notification of the Statement of
                                                                                Objections and refusal to give access to the
8 . The fine imposed on the applicant is based on an                                 whole of the file;
     erroneous assessment of the facts and clear breach of the
     rule of law. In any event it is excessive.                                (c) Inadequate access to the file;
(!) OJ No L 343 , 30 . 12 . 1994, p. 1 .                                       ( d ) Notification of documents not written in
                                                                                Spanish;
                                                                               (e) Failure to be allowed to participate in the
                                                                                hearing;
                                                                               ( f) Substantial amendment of the objections
                                                                                without sending a new Statement of
Action brought on 23 February 1995 by Corporacion                                    Objections and without granting the parties
Uniland SA against the Commission of the European                                    the opportunity to state their opinion in that
                            Communities
                                                                                regard.
                          (Case T-58/95 )
                           ( 95/C 119/43 )                                 2. Infringement of Article 1 0 of Regulation No 1 7: thé
                                                                               Commission did not inform the Advisory
                                                                               Committee of the amount of the fines to be
                 (Language of the case: Spanisb)                               imposed by the Decision.
An action against the Commission of the European                       II. Improper application of Article 85 of the EC
Communities was brought before the Court of First                          Treaty:
Instance on 23 February 1995 by Corporacion Uniland SA
represented by Luis de Carlos Bertrân and Edurne Navarro                   1 , as regards the so-called 'Cembureau Agreement',
Varona, of the Barcelona Bar, with an address for service                      the Commission has failed to prove either the
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Bonn & Schmitt,                               existence, or the unitary and continuous nature, or
62 Avenue Guillaume,                                                           the duration of the alleged agreement;
                                                                           2, as regards the 'European Task Force', the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     Commission has failed to prove that the ETF
                                                                               constituted an agreement contrary to Article 85 of
— annul in whole Commission Decision 94/815/EC of                              the EC Treaty, or that the applicant participated in
     30 November 1994 relating to a proceeding under                           the agreement setting up the ETF, or the duration of
     Article 85 of the EC Treaty ( Cases IV/33.126 and                         the alleged agreement;
     33.322 — Cement),
                                                                           3 , as regards Interciment, the Commission has failed
                                                                                to prove either that the applicant was party to the
— in the alternative, annul Articles 1 , 4 ( 1 ), 4 ( 2 ) and 4 ( 3 )
                                                                                agreement relating to the constitution of
     (a ) and 9 of the aforementioned Decision in so far as they                Interciment or the duration of such agreement;
     affect the applicant,
                                                                           4, as regards the defence measures for the Italian
— as a subsidiary plea, reduce the amount of the fine                           market, the Commission has failed to prove the
     imposed on the applicant, set out in Article 9 of the                      existence of concerted practices intended to avoid
     Decision,                                                                  Calestruzzi being a customer for Greek producers
                                                                                or the participation of the applicant in the
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                                       aforementioned alleged practices.
 ---pagebreak--- No C 119/22             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    13 . 5 . 95
III. As regards the amount of the fine imposed, the                         6. Imposition of fines without prior warning.
      applicant pleads, first, infringement of Article 15 of
      Regulation No 17, alleging that there was a mistake               II. Improper application of Article 85 of the EC Treaty
      both in determining the duration of the matters alleged               through lack of evidence and erroneous assessment of
      and the assessment of the seriousness of its alleged                  the applicable legal concepts, as regards:
      participation; and secondly, breach of the principle of
      fairness .                                                            1 . The analysis of the relevant market;
                                                                            2. The Cembureau Agreement;
                                                                            3 . The agreements concerning the exchange of
                                                                                information on prices;
Action brought on 23 February 1995 by Agrupaciôn de
Fabricantes de Cemento de Espana 'Oficemen' against the                     4. The concerted practices concerning the exchange of
         Commission of the European Communities                                 information on prices;
                          (Case T-59/95 )
                                                                            5 . The Spain-Portugal Agreement;
                           ( 95/C 119/44)
                                                                            6 . The agreement concerning the European Task
                  (Language of the case: Spartish)                              Force;
An action against the Commission of the European                            7. The agreement concerning Interciment;
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance on 23 February 1995 by Agrupaciôn de                               8 . The concerted practices ^s regards Calcestruzzi;
Fabricantes de Espana ('Oficemen'), represented by Jaime                    9 . The concerted practices as regards ECEC.
Folguera Crespo and Ramon Vidal Puig, of the Madrid Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers              III. Infringement of Article 15 (2 ) of Regulation No 17 on
of Bonn & Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume,                                     the following grounds:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 1 . Inadmissibility of imposing general penalties;
— annul           Commission       Decision     94/815/EC        of         2 . Erroneous assessment of the duration of the
    30 November 1984,                                                           infringements;
— in the alternative, annul Articles 1 , 2, 3 (2 ), 4 ( 1 ), 4 (2 ),        3 . Erroneous assessment of the gravity of the
    4 ( 3 ) (a ), 5 and 9 of the aforementioned Decision, in so                 infringements;
    far as those Articles refer to Oficemen,
                                                                            4. Breach of the principle 'non bis in idem'.
— as a subsidiary plea, annul the fine imposed on Oficemen
    in Article 9 of the Decision or reduce the amount of the           IV. Misapplication of Article 1 ( 1 ) ( b) of Regulation (EEC)
    same ,                                                                  No 2988/74: the alleged offences are time-barred.
— order the Commission to pay the costs, expressly
    including the expenses of lodging and maintaining the
    security for the fine.
                                                                       Action brought on 23 February 1995 by Irish Cement Ltd
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      against the Commission of the European Communities
The applicant relies upon the following grounds in support                                   (Case T-60/95 )
of its claims :                                                                               ( 95/C 119/45 )
  I. Breach of essential procedural requirements:                                     (Language of the case: English)
      1 . Incomplete notification of the Statement of
            Objections, limited access to the file and exclusion       An action against the Commission of the European
            from the hearings;                                         Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                       Instance of the European Communities on 23 February
      2. Inadequate access to the file;                                1995 by Irish Cement Ltd, represented by Mr. John D.
                                                                       Cooke and Mr John Glackin with and address for service in
      3 . Absence of a statement of reasons for the                    Luxembourg at the Chambers of Etude Faltz & associés, 6,
            'abandonment' of national objections;                      rue Heinrich Heine, L-1720 Luxembourg.
      4. Failure to consult the Advisory Committee;                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
      5 . Inconsistency between the objections and the                 — declare under Article 174 that the Commission's
            Decision;                                                      Decision of 30 November 1994 is void,


title: Case C-576/14 P: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 June 2015 — Mirelta Ingatlanhasznosító kft v European Commission, European Ombudsman (Appeal — Action for annulment — Refusal by the Commission to bring proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations — Inadmissibility and lack of jurisdiction of the General Court — Appeal in part manifestly unfounded and in part manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/13

         Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 June 2015 — Mirelta Ingatlanhasznosító kft v European Commission, European Ombudsman
   (Case C-576/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Action for annulment - Refusal by the Commission to bring proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations - Inadmissibility and lack of jurisdiction of the General Court - Appeal in part manifestly unfounded and in part manifestly inadmissible))
   (2015/C 320/18)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Parties

      Appellant: Mirelta Ingatlanhasznosító kft (represented by: K. Pap, ügyvéd)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, European Ombudsman

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mirelta Ingatlanhasznosító kft shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 73, 2.3.2015.


title: Case C-426/06: Action brought on 17 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/29

         Action brought on 17 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-426/06)
   (2006/C 326/60)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and M. Konstantinidis)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic
   Form of order sought
   The Court is asked to:

               —

               declare that, by failing to take the appropriate measures to transpose fully and correctly Article 2 (points 27, 28, 31, 32, 34 and 36), Articles 4 and 5, Article 6(2), Article 7, Article 8 (1) and (2), Article 9, Article 10(2), Article 11(2) to (6), Article 13(4), Article 14 and Annexes II to VIII of Directive 2000/60/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions and Article 24(1) of that Directive

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Greek authorities transposed Directive 2000/60/EC into Greek law by Law 3199/2003, which was published in the Official Gazette (FEK/A/280/9.12.2003) and notified to the Commission as the national measure of transposition. Examination of the conformity of that legislative act with Directive 2000/60/EC has shown that it is a law which requires specification by way of the adoption of implementing measures by which all the provisions of the directive will be transposed.
   In the Commission's view, exact transposition of the directive into Greek law has particular significance in the present case because Directive 2000/60/EC, on account of its extended subject-matter and scope of application constitutes a legislative text of fundamental importance as regards the protection and viable management of water.
   The Greek authorities recognise, moreover, that the directive has not been transposed fully and that the adoption of additional measures is necessary; the procedure for the adoption of such measures has begun but has not yet been completed.

      (1)  OJ L 327 of 22.12.2000, p. 1.


title: Case C-557/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 October 2012 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Transport — Development of the Community’s railways — Directive 91/440/EEC — Article 5(3) — Rail transport undertakings — Freedom of management — Decisions on staff, assets and own procurement — Article 7(3) — Grant of financing to the infrastructure manager — Directive 2001/14/EC — Article 6(1) — Balancing the accounts — Appropriate conditions — Incomplete transposition)

text:
               22.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 October 2012 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-557/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Transport - Development of the Community’s railways - Directive 91/440/EEC - Article 5(3) - Rail transport undertakings - Freedom of management - Decisions on staff, assets and own procurement - Article 7(3) - Grant of financing to the infrastructure manager - Directive 2001/14/EC - Article 6(1) - Balancing the accounts - Appropriate conditions - Incomplete transposition)
   2012/C 399/03
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and M. França, Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes and A. Pereira de Miranda, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period specified, all the measures necessary to comply with Article 5(3) of Council Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991 on the development of the Community's railways (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 25), as amended by Directive 2001/12/EC (OJ 2001 L 75, p. 1), Article 7(3) of Directive 91/440 and Article 6(1) of Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (OJ 2001 L 75, p. 29)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by making individual decisions to acquire or transfer holdings in the capital of companies by the public rail transport undertaking CP Comboios de Portugal EPE subject to government approval and by failing to adopt the national measures necessary to comply with the obligation to lay down appropriate conditions to ensure that the accounts of the infrastructure manager la Rede Ferroviária Nacional — REFER EP are balanced, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(3) of Council Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991 on the development of the Community’s railways, as amended by Directive 2001/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001, and, second, Article 7(3) of Directive 91/440 and Article 6(1) of Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification, as amended by Directive 2007/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007;

               2.

               Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 38, 5.2.2011.


title: Case T-51/08 P: Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2011 — Commission v Dittert (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Promotion — 2005 promotion procedure — Priority points — Points not allocated due to a technical problem — A* Promotion Committee — Allocation of a lower number of points than had been proposed by the applicant’s superior — Failure to include the applicant in the list of officials eligible for promotion)

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/47

      Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2011 — Commission v Dittert
      (Case T-51/08 P) (1)

      (Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2005 promotion procedure - Priority points - Points not allocated due to a technical problem - A* Promotion Committee - Allocation of a lower number of points than had been proposed by the applicant’s superior - Failure to include the applicant in the list of officials eligible for promotion)
      (2012/C 25/89)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Appellant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and K. Herrmann, Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings: Daniel Dittert (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: B. Cortese and C. Cortese, lawyers)

         Re:

      Appeal lodged against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 22 November 2007 in Case F 109/06 Dittert v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, with a view to having that judgment set aside.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the appeal;

                  2.

                  Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay Mr Daniel Dittert’s costs.

         (1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.