title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 19 March 1996 in Case C-25/94: Commission of the European Communities v. Council of the European Union (FAO - Fishery Agreement - Right to vote - Member States - Community)

text:
22 . 6 . 96               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 180/5
1 . Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed                   Council Directive 90/385/EEC of 20 June 1990 on the
      period the laws, regulations and administrative                          approximation ofthe laws ofthe Member States relating
      provisions necessary to comply with Commission                           to active implantable medical devices, the Kingdom of
      Directive 93/67/EEC of 20 July 1993 laying down the                      Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      principles for assessment of risks to man and the                        Article 16 of that Directive.
      environment of substances notified in accordance with
      Council Directive 67/548/EEC, the Italian Republic has
      failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8 of Directive       2 . Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
      93/67/EEC.
                                                                          (') OJ No C 229 , 2 . 9 . 1995 .
2 . Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
f 1 ) OJ No C 229 , 2 . 9 . 1995 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 19 March 1996
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                          in    Case C-25/94 : Commission of the European
                            ( Sixth Chamber)                                   Communities v. Council of the European Union (^
                          of 14 March 1996                                (FAO — Fishery Agreement — Right to vote — Member
in Case        C-239/95 : Commission of the European                                          States — Community)
            Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium ( l )                                                 ( 96/C 180/10 )
 (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
 Transposition of Directive 90/385/EEC on the
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to                                (Language of the case: French)
               active implantable medical devices)
                               ( 96/C 180/09 )
                                                                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
                  (Language of the case: French)
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be             In Case C-25/94 : Commission of the European
           published in the European Court Reports)                       Communities ( Agent: Jorn Sack ) v . Council of the European
                                                                          Union ( Agents : Rudiger Bandilla and Felix van Craeyenest ),
                                                                          supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain and
In Case C-239/95 : Commission of the European                             Northern Ireland ( Agents : John E. Collins and Richard
 Communities ( Agent: Hendrik van Lier ) v. Kingdom of                    Plender QC ) — application for annulment of the decision of
Belgium ( Agent: Jan Devadder ) — application for a                       the Fisheries Council of 22 November 1993 giving the
declaration that, by failing to adopt and, in the alternative,            Member States the right to vote in the United Nations Food
to communicate to the Commission the measures necessary                   and Agriculture Organization for the adoption of the
to transpose Council Directive 90/385/EEC of 20 June 1990                 Agreement to Promote Compliance with International
on the approximation of the laws of the Member States                     Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing
relating to active implantable medical devices ( OJ No L 189,             Vessels on the High Seas — the Court, composed of G. C.
 1990, p . 17 ), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its          Rodriguez Iglesias, President, J. -P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch
obligations under that Directive and in particular Article 16             ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler
thereof — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of C. N.                   ( Rapporteur), J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn,
Kakouris, President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch, G. F.                      C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, H. Ragnemalm and L. Sevon,
Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler and J. L. Murray ( Rapporteur ),              Judges;      F.    G. Jacobs, Advocate-General;             D.
Judges; Advocate-General, D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer;                         Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the
 Registrar, R. Grass, gave a judgment on 14 March 1996, in                Registrar, gave a. judgment on 19 March 1996 , in which
which it :                                                                it :
 1 . Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations              1 . Annuls the decision of the Fisheries Council of
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with                   22 November 1 993 giving the Member States the right
 ---pagebreak--- No C 180/6             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    22 . 6 . 96
     to vote in the United Nations Food and Agriculture                  90/676/EEC of 13 December 1990, must be interpreted as
     Organization for the adoption of the Agreement to                  prohibiting the importation into a Member State of a
     promote compliance with international conservation                 medicinal product covered by that Directive with a view to
     and management measures by fishing vessels on the high             placing it on the market of that State or of administering it
     seas .                                                             there in the absence of prior authorization issued by the
                                                                        competent authority of that Member State.
2.   Orders the Council to bear the costs .
                                                                        (<) OJ No C 370, 24 . 12 . 1994 .
 3 . Orders the United Kingdom to bear its own costs.
 (') OJ No C 90 , 26 . 3 . 1994 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( First Chamber )
                                                                                of 21 March 1996
                                                                        in Case C-335/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                        the Amtsgericht, Recklinghausen ): Proceedings by Hans
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                        Walter Mrozek and Bernhard Jager against administrative
                          ( First Chamber )                                                          fines ( 1 )
                       of 21 March 1996                                 (Social legislation relating to road transport — Derogation
in Case C-297/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling made                                    for refuse vehicles)
by the Belgian Counseil d'État): Dominique Bruyère and                                           ( 96/C 180/12 )
                  Others v. Belgian State (')
 ( Veterinary medicinal products — Directives 81/851/EEC
                        and 90/676/EEC)                                                (Language of the case: German)
                            ( 96/C 180/ 11 )
                                                                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        In Case C-335/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be            of the EC Treaty from the Amtsgericht ( Local Court),
          published in the European Court Reports)                      Recklinghausen, for a preliminarey ruling in the proceedings
                                                                        against administrative fines brought before that court by
                                                                        Hans Walter Mrozek and Bernhard Jager on the
In Case C-297/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177             interpretation of Article 4 ( 6 ) of Council Regulation ( EEC )
of the EC Treaty by the Belgian Conseil d'État for a                   No 3820/85 of 20 December 1985 on the harmonization of
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that              certain social legislation relating to road transport ( OJ No
court between Dominique Bruyère and Others and the                     L 370, 1985 , p . 1 ) — the Court ( First Chamber ), composed
Belgian State — on the interpretation of Article 4 ( 2 ) of            of D. A. O. Edward ( President of the Chamber), P. Jann
Council Directive 81 /851 /EEC of 28 September 1981 on the              ( Rapporteur ) and L. Sevôn, Judges; P. Léger,
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to             Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for
veterinary medicinal products ( OJ No L 317, 1981 , p . 1 ), in        the Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 March 1996 in
its original version and as amended by Council Directive               which it rules :
90/676/EEC of 13 December 1990 ( OJ No L 373 , 1990,
p . 15 ) — the Court ( First Chamber ), composed of D. A. O.
Edward, President of the Chamber, P. Jann and L. Sevôn                  1 . The words 'vehicles used in connection with . . . refuse
( Rapporteur ), Judges ; M. P. Elmer, Advocate-General; L.                  collection and disposal' in Article 4 (6) of Council
Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                      Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of20 December 1985 on
judgment on 21 March 1 996 , the operative part of which is                 the harmonization ofcertain social legislation relating to
as follows :                                                                road transport must be interpreted as covering vehicles
                                                                            used for the collection of waste of all kinds which is not
                                                                            subject to more specific rules and for the transportation
Article 4 of Council Directive 81 /851 /EEC of28 September                  ofsuch waste over short distances, within the context of
198Î on the approximation of the laws of the Member                         a general service in the public interest provided directly
States relating to veterinary medicinal products, in its                    by the public authorities or by private undertakings
original version and as amended by Council Directive                        under their control.


title: Case T-183/13: Judgment of the General Court of 5 May 2015 — Skype v OHIM — Sky and Sky IP International (SKYPE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark SKYPE — Earlier Community word mark SKY — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               22.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 5 May 2015 — Skype v OHIM — Sky and Sky IP International (SKYPE)
   (Case T-183/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark SKYPE - Earlier Community word mark SKY - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 205/36)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Skype Ultd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented: initially by I. Fowler, Solicitor, J. Schmitt, lawyer, and J. Mellor QC, and subsequently by A. Carboni and M. Browne, Solicitors)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock and N. Bambara, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Sky plc, formerly British Sky Broadcasting Group plc (Isleworth, United Kingdom); and Sky IP International Ltd (Isleworth) (represented by: R. Guthrie, D. Rose, V. Baxter, Solicitors, and T. Moody-Stuart, Barrister, and subsequently by R. Guthrie, D. Rose, Solicitors, T. Moody-Stuart, Barrister, and J. Curry, Solicitor)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 January 2013 (Case R 2398/2010-4) concerning opposition proceedings between, on the one side, British Sky Broadcasting Group plc and Sky IP International Ltd and, on the other, Skype Ultd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Skype Ultd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Sky plc and Sky IP International Ltd.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.


title: Case F-108/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 7 June 2016 — Verile v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Transfer of pension rights acquired in a national pension scheme into the European Union pension scheme — Proposal concerning additional pensionable years — Action — Annulment — Appeal — Reclassification of claim for annulment of the proposal concerning additional pensionable years — Interpretation of the claim for annulment as a claim seeking annulment of the decision recognising additional pensionable years following the transfer of pension rights — Rejection of the claim — Judgment on appeal which has acquired the force of res judicata — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               18.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/52

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 7 June 2016 — Verile v Commission
   (Case F-108/12) (1)

   ((Civil service - Officials - Pensions - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Transfer of pension rights acquired in a national pension scheme into the European Union pension scheme - Proposal concerning additional pensionable years - Action - Annulment - Appeal - Reclassification of claim for annulment of the proposal concerning additional pensionable years - Interpretation of the claim for annulment as a claim seeking annulment of the decision recognising additional pensionable years following the transfer of pension rights - Rejection of the claim - Judgment on appeal which has acquired the force of res judicata - No need to adjudicate))
   (2016/C 260/64)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Marco Verile (Cadrezzate, Italy) (represented by: initially by D. de Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, É. Marchal, S. Orlandi and J.-N. Louis, lawyers, then by D. de Abreu Caldas, S. Orlandi and J.-N. Louis, lawyers, then by S. Orlandi and J.-N. Louis, lawyers, and finally by J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially by D. Martin and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents, then by J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents, then by G. Gattinara, acting as Agent, and finally by G. Gattinara and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision regarding the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights into the European Union pension scheme, a decision which applies the new general implementing provisions relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate in Case F-108/12, Verile v Commission.

               2.

               Mr Marco Verile and the European Commission are each ordered to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 379, 8.12.2012, p. 34.


title: Case C-148/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato, Quinta Sezione lodged on  20 March 2006  — Santorso Soc. coop. arl v Comune di Torino

text:
               1.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 154/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato, Quinta Sezione lodged on 20 March 2006 — Santorso Soc. coop. arl v Comune di Torino
   (Case C-148/06)
   (2006/C 154/10)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Consiglio di Stato
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Santorso Soc. coop. arl

      Defendant: Comune di Torino and Others
   Question(s) referred

               1.

               Does the rule laid down in Article 30(4) of Directive 93/37/EEC (1) or the similar rule contained in Art. 55 (1) and (2) of Directive 2004/18/EC (2) (in cases where that is the relevant provision), that, where tenders appear to be abnormally low in relation to the works, the contracting authority shall, before it may reject those tenders, request, in writing, details of the constituent elements of the tender which it considers relevant and shall verify those constituent elements taking account of the explanations received, constitute a fundamental principle of Community law?

               2.

               If the answer to the preceding question is in the negative, is the rule established by Art. 30 (4) of Directive 93/37/EEC or the similar rule contained in Art. 55 (1) and (2) of Directive 2004/18/EC (in cases where that is the relevant provision), according to which, if tenders appear to be abnormally low in relation to the works, the contracting authority shall, before it may reject those tenders, request, in writing, details of the constituent elements of the tender which it considers relevant and shall verify those constituent elements taking account of the explanations received, while not presenting the characteristics of a fundamental principle of Community law, nevertheless an implied consequence of or a principle deriving from the principle of competition, considered in conjunction with the principles of administrative transparency and non-discrimination on grounds of nationality and is it therefore, as such, directly binding, taking precedence over possibly incompatible national provisions adopted by the Member States to regulate public works contracts to which Community law is not directly applicable?

      (1)  OJ L 199, p. 54.

      (2)  OJ L 134, p. 114.


title: Case F-65/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 December 2007 — Wandschneider v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Appraisal — Career development report — Appraisal for the year 2003 — Action for annulment — Reasons — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/52

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 December 2007 — Wandschneider v Commission
   (Case F-65/05) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Appraisal - Career development report - Appraisal for the year 2003 - Action for annulment - Reasons - Manifest error of assessment)
   (2008/C 22/97)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Paolo Sequeira Wandschneider (Brussels, Belgium) (represented originally by G. Vandersanden and C. Ronzi, lawyers, and then by G. Vandersanden, C. Ronzi and L. Levi, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and H. Tserepa-Lacombe, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the applicant's career development report for the appraisal year 2003 and also a claim for damages
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 229 of 17.9.2005, p. 32 (Case originally registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under number T-282/05 and transferred to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal by order of 15.12.2005).


title: Case T-259/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 July 2009 — Spain v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — Expenditure excluded from Community financing — Fibre flax — Hemp — Bananas — OLAF report — Report of the Court of Auditors — Bilateral meeting under Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 — Breach of essential procedural requirements — Abusive practice — Existence of financial harm to the EAGGF)

text:
               15.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/16

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 July 2009 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-259/05) (1)

   (EAGGF - Guarantee Section - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Fibre flax - Hemp - Bananas - OLAF report - Report of the Court of Auditors - Bilateral meeting under Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 - Breach of essential procedural requirements - Abusive practice - Existence of financial harm to the EAGGF)
   2009/C 193/21
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez, abogado del Estado)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: T. van Rijn, L. Parpala and F. Jimeno Fernández, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment in part of Commission Decision 2005/354/EC of 29 April 2005 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guarantee Section (OJ 2005 L 112, p. 14).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision 2005/354/EC of 29 April 2005 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guarantee Section, in so far as it excludes from Community financing the expenditure by the Kingdom of Spain made under aid granted for the production of hemp in the years 1996/1997 to 1999/2000;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 217, 3.9.2005.


title: Case C-199/06: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 February 2008 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (France)) — Centre d'exportation du livre français (CELF), Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication v Société internationale de diffusion et d'édition (State aid — Article 88(3) EC — National courts — Recovery of unlawfully implemented aid — Aid declared compatible with the common market)

text:
               29.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/3

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 February 2008 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (France)) — Centre d'exportation du livre français (CELF), Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication v Société internationale de diffusion et d'édition
   (Case C-199/06) (1)

   (State aid - Article 88(3) EC - National courts - Recovery of unlawfully implemented aid - Aid declared compatible with the common market)
   (2008/C 79/04)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Conseil d'État
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Centre d'exportation du livre français (CELF), Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication

      Defendant: Société internationale de diffusion et d'édition
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d'Etat (France) — Interpretation of Article 88 EC — Whether it is permissible for a Member State not to recover unlawfully granted aid which the European Commission, after receiving a complaint from a third party, has declared compatible with the common market
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The last sentence of Article 88(3) EC is to be interpreted as meaning that the national court is not bound to order the recovery of aid implemented contrary to that provision, where the Commission has adopted a final decision declaring that aid to be compatible with the common market, within the meaning of Article 87 EC. Applying Community law, the national court must order the aid recipient to pay interest in respect of the period of unlawfulness. Within the framework of its domestic law, it may, if appropriate, also order the recovery of the unlawful aid, without prejudice to the Member State's right to re-implement it, subsequently. It may also be required to uphold claims for compensation for damage caused by reason of the unlawful nature of the aid.

               2.

               In a procedural situation such as that in the main proceedings, the obligation, arising from the last sentence of Article 88(3) EC, to remedy the consequences of the aid's unlawfulness extends also, for the purposes of calculating the sums to be paid by the recipient, and save for exceptional circumstances, to the period between a decision of the Commission of the European Communities declaring the aid to be compatible with the common market and the annulment of that decision by the Community court.

      (1)  OJ C 154, 1.7.2006.


title: Case C-254/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties Tribunals, London Tribunal Centre, by decision of that court dated 5 July 2002, in the case of Fast Forward Resources plc against Commissioners of Customs and Excise

text:
C 202/16                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      24.8.2002
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties                    (3) Of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports
Tribunals, London Tribunal Centre, by decision of that                          from countries not members of the European Community (OJ
court dated 5 July 2002, in the case of Fast Forward                            L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1).
Resources plc against Commissioners of Customs and
                                 Excise
                            (Case C-254/02)
                                                                            Appeal brought on 15 July 2002 by Michael Becker
                                                                            against the judgment delivered on 12 June 2002 by the
                           (2002/C 202/23)                                  Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                            European Communities in Case T-9/01 between Michael
                                                                            Becker and the Court of Auditors of the European
                                                                                Communities
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                              (Case C-260/02 P)
European Communities by a decision of the VAT and Duties
Tribunals, London Tribunal Centre, dated 5 July 2002, which                                           (2002/C 202/24)
was received at the Court Registry on 11 July 2002, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Fast Forward Resources plc
and Commissioners of Customs and Excise on the following                    An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 June 2002 by
questions:                                                                  the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                            European Communities in Case T-9/01 between Michael
                                                                            Becker and the Court of Auditors of the European Communi-
(i)     In Commission Regulation (EC) 152/1999 (1) what is the              ties (1), brought on 15 July 2002 by Michael Becker, represent-
        proper meaning and legal effect of the term ‘registration           ed by Prof. Dr Ernst Fricke, Rechtsanwalt, of Kanzlei
        shall expire’ used in Article 3?                                    Prof. Dr. Fricke & Coll, Landshut (and Nuremberg, New
                                                                            Brandenburg and Luxembourg), and Roy Nathan, Rechtsan-
(ii) If Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) 152/1999                    walt, Luxembourg.
        means that the whole process of registration envisaged
        by the Regulation fails: (a) does this render Council               The appellant claims that the Court should: set aside in full the
        Regulation (EC) 175/2000 (2) ineffective in relation to the         judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 June 2002 and
        imports of leather handbags into the European Union                 grant in full the forms of order sought at first instance.
        before midnight on 23 October 1999; and (b) in relation
        to what products, if any, is Article 1.4 of Commission
        Regulation (EC) 175/2000 effective in imposing duty?
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
(iii) Is Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) 175/2000 consist-             The judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 June 2002
        ent with Article 11.4 and 14.5 of Council Regulation                infringes fundamental Community law.
        (EC) 384/96 (3) and, if not, what is the effect of this
        inconsistency on the collection of anti-dumping duties
        registered under Commission Regulation (EC) 152/1999?               —      Breach of the duty to have regard for the
                                                                                welfare of officials
(iv) Is Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) 175/2000 consist-
                                                                            It is for the Invalidity Committee to examine, on the basis of
        ent with Council Regulation (EC) 384/96 in so far as the
                                                                            the expert medical reports, whether the conditions set out in
        adoption of the measure occurred after the 12 month
                                                                            Article 78 of the Staff Regulations have been met. It is of no
        period indicated in Article 11.5 of Council Regulation
                                                                            relevance that the appellant was on leave on personal grounds.
        (EC) 384/96?
                                                                            The grounds on which the respondent rejected his complaint
                                                                            contravene the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials
                                                                            and are neither covered by the express terms, nor reflect the
(1) Of 22 January 1999 initiating a ‘new exporter’ review of Council        spirit and the purpose, of the Staff Regulations.
     Regulation (EC) No 1567/97 imposing a definitive anti-dumping
     duty on imports of leather handbags originating in the People’s
     Republic of China, repealing the duty with regard to imports from      —      Failure to appraise decisive information
     five exporting producers and making these imports subject to
     registration (OJ L 18, 23.1.1999, p. 10).
(2) Of 24 January 2000 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty            The European Commission replied to a request from the Court
     on imports of leather handbags originating in the People’s Repubic     for information and, in its reply, fully supported the appellant’s
     of China and sold for export to the Community by certain               legal position. In the grounds for its judgment, the Court of
     exporting producers and amending Regulation (EC) No 1567/97            First Instance did not refer to the Commission’s opinion,
     (OJ L 22, 27.1.2000, p. 25).                                           thereby failing to make a proper legal appraisal of that opinion.


title: Action brought on 5 June 1995 by Hassan Belhanbel against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-125/95)

text:
12 . 8 . 95           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 208/33
Instance of the European Communities on 24 May 1995 by               systematic deduction of sums from his salary by way of
Daniel Chabert, residing at Kraainem ( Belgium ),                    repayment of the sum unduly paid .
represented by Georges Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 Rue Glesener.
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                     Action brought on 1 June 1995 by Karl Fingerhut against
— annul the decision of the Commission of 6 October 1994             the Council of the European Union and the Commission of
    ordering the applicant to repay, in monthly instalments,                          the European Communities
    the sum of Bfrs 215 354 in respect of sums unduly                                      ( Case T-124/95 )
    paid ,                                                                                ( 95/C 208/69 )
— order the repayment of the sums compulsorily deducted                            (Language of the case: German)
    by the Commission from the applicant's salary since
    November 1994 , together with default interest at the
    annual rate of 8 % ,                                             An action against the Council of the European Union and
                                                                     the Commission of the European Communities was brought
— order the defendant to pay all of the costs .                      before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                     Communities on 1 June 1995 by Karl Fingerhut,
                                                                     Twistetal-Gembeck ( Federal Republic of Germany ),
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  represented by Bernd Meisterernst, Mechtild Düsing,
                                                                     Dietrich Manstetten, Frank Schulze and Winfried
The applicant states that, following his divorce, which was          Haneklaus , Rechtsanwälte, Münster, with an address for
pronounced on 1 February 1984 , he requested the                     service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Dupong &
administration to pay to his former wife the sum which               Associés, 14a Rue des Bains .
would have been due to her if she had been the person
entitled to receive the household allowance, namely 5 % of
her basic salary, with the balance being paid into the               The applicant claims that the Court should :
applicant's account; the administration carried out that
request, without objection, from 1 March 1 984 . For ten and         1 . order the defendants jointly to pay to the applicant
a half years, from March 1984 to October 1994, the                       SLOM III compensation for the period from
applicant was thus paid a sum, appearing on his salary slip              15 December 1985 to 29 July 1993 in the amount of
as the household allowance , which was deemed to represent               DM 43 929,06 , together with interest thereon at 8 %
the difference between the household allowance paid to his               from 19 May 1992 , and jointly to pay the costs of the
                                                                         proceedings;
former wife, corresponding to 5 % of her salary, and the
balance due to the applicant. It subsequently transpired that
the Commission did not, during that period , adjust that part        2 . join the present action to that already pending in Case
                                                                         T-77/93 Hülseberg and Others v. Council and
of the allowance which was payable to the applicant's
former wife in line with the alterations in her salary; thus             Commission and also stay the proceedings .
although the allowance was increased in line with the salary
increases of the applicant's former wife, it was paid to her on      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
an unchanging basis only, and the applicant consequently
received a residual sum which grew progressively. The                The pleas in law and arguments are identical to those in Case
                                                                     T-20/95 .
payment was thus indeed irregular, but that irregularity was
entirely due to the defendant and the applicant was not
aware of it .
The applicant bases his case on a single plea , namely,
infringement of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations . The
defendant maintains that it is appropriate in the present case       Action brought on 5 June 1995 by Hassan Belhanbel against
for the undue payment to be recovered , because the                        the Commission of the European Communities
irregularity of the payment was 'patent'. The applicant                                    ( Case T-125/95 )
denies that contention, maintaining that, even if he had                                     ( 95/C 208/70 )
become aware of an increase in the sum paid to him in
respect of the allowance — which he did not — he would
have been legitimately entitled to assume that the amount of                        (Language of the case: French)
that allowance had been increased by an amount greater
than the increase in his former wife's salary, since he was not      An action against the Commission of the European
aware of the extent to which that salary had risen; the error        Communities was brought before the Court of First
on the part of the administration was not, therefore,                Instance on 5 June 1995 by Hassan Belhanbel, of Namur,
patently such that the applicant could not have been                 Belgium,    represented      by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry
unaware of it. Consequently, the applicant considers that            Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an
the defendant has misapplied Article 85 of the Staff                 adress for service in Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire
Regulations and that it has acted unlawfully in ordering the         Myson Sari, 1 Rue Glesener.
 ---pagebreak--- No C 208/34            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       12 . 8 . 95
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          — order the Commission to pay the costs.
— annul the decision by which the selection board in open
    competition COM/B/765 awarded the applicant marks                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    falling short of the prescribed minimum and refused to
    enter him on the list of successful candidates,                   The applicant explains that, for nearly 15 years, the Greek
                                                                      Government has been considering the construction of a new
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                              international airport to serve Athens and replace the existing
                                                                      airport at Hellenikon. In view of the importance of that
                                                                      project for its economy, Greece expects to receive
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                      considerable financial aid from the Community, in the form
                                                                      of credit from the structural funds and loans from the
The applicant, a former member of the temporary staff of              European Investment Bank ( EIB ). After much political
the Commission, contests the decision of the selection board          debate, it was decided to locate the airport in the Spata area
in competition COM/B/765 to award him for the oral test               and to put out a restricted international invitation to
marks falling short of the prescribed minimum, resulting in           tender .
his not being included on the list of successful candidates for
that competition .
                                                                      From the nine consortia which took part in the invitation to
He alleges breach of the obligation to state reasons . The            tender, the Greek authorities selected two finalists : the first,
applicant specifically asked the selection board to inform            Athens Airport Associates ( AAA), led by Societe Auxiliaire
him of the reasons for its decision and of the criteria adopted       d'Entreprises ( SAE), comprised Aeroports de Paris, Siemens,
for evaluation of the oral test but there was no response to          the applicant company and four Greek partners ; the second,
his request.                                                          led by Hochtief, consisted exclusively of German
                                                                      untertakings .
The applicant was particularly entitled to seek an
explanation since the marks awarded in the oral test were             From then on, according to the applicant, the procedure —
astonishing having regard to the marks obtained in the                at the end of which the Greek authorities announced that the
written tests , which concerned the same subjects, and to the         Hochtief consortium had been selected — was vitiated in
applicant's experience . Such a discrepancy can be attributed         several respects . That led AAA to lodge a complaint on
only to a manifest error of assessment.                               26 August 1994 with the Commission, which was
                                                                      investigated by the relevant departments . On completion of
                                                                      that procedure , the Commissioner responsible for public
                                                                      contracts submitted a proposal to the other Commissioners
                                                                      collectively that the infringement procedure be initiated
                                                                      against the Hellenic Republic . However, at its meeting on
                                                                      29 March 1995 , the Commission as a body decided to reject
Action brought on 5 June 1995 by Dumez SA against the                 the complaint submitted by AAA. That decision is the
         Commission of the European Communities                       subject of the present action for annulment or, in the
                                                                      alternative, for failure to act.
                         ( Case T-126/95 )
                           ( 95/C 208/71 )
                                                                      First of all, the applicant submits that the Court's case-law,
                                                                      which disallows altogether actions by individuals against a
                 (Language of the case: French)                       refusal by the Commission to act on their complaints,
                                                                      cannot be applied in the present case , in so far as the purpose
An action against the Commission of the European                      of the infringement procedure, which the Commission had
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     been requested to set in motion, was to compel Greece to
Instance of the European Communities on 5 June 1995 by                adopt, not an act of general application, but an individual
                                                                      decision of direct concern to the two finalists in the
Dumez SA, whose registered office is at Nanterre ( France ),
represented by Alexandre Carnelutti and Jean-Pierre                   tendering procedure . Secondly, the case-law in question no
Spitzer, of the Paris Bar.                                            longer seems applicable in view of the following
                                                                      considerations :
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          ( a ) the national measure concerned is of a purely individual
                                                                            character;
— annul the Commission's decision of 29 March 1995 ,
— in the alternative, declare that the Commission                     ( b ) the EC provisions which have been infringed by a
    unlawfully omitted to initiate the procedure for failure                Member State belong to the category of fundamental
    to fulfil its obligations against the Hellenic Republic, on             principles of Community law;
    account of the serious and repeated infringements of
    Community law committed by the Greek Government in                 (c ) the infringements have occurred in procedures for the
    connection with the procedure for awarding the                          award of public contracts which are scheduled to
    contract for the new Athens airport,                                    receive    considerable    financial    aid     from       the


title: Case C-482/11 P: Appeal brought on 21 September 2011 by Affi Pascal N'Guessan against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Case T-352/11 N'Guessan v Council

text:
               7.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/6

         Appeal brought on 21 September 2011 by Affi Pascal N'Guessan against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Case T-352/11 N'Guessan v Council

   (Case C-482/11 P)
   2012/C 6/07
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Affi Pascal N'Guessan (represented by: L. Bourthoumieux, J. Vergès, R. Dumas and M. Ceccaldi, avocats)

      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the action brought by Mr Affi Pascal N’Guessan admissible;

               —

               Annul the order in Case T-352/11 of 13 July 2011, after holding it to be time-barred;

               —

               Refer the action back to the General Court in order that the appellant may claim his rights;

               —

               Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs under Articles 69 and 73 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of his appeal, the appellant raises the following pleas in law:

               —

                  Force majeure, the fact of the war interrupting the limitation period. The events with which the appellant had been confronted since November 2010 in Côte d’Ivoire constitute a case of force majeure within the meaning of Article 45 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, having regard to the state of war which interrupted the limitation period for acts adopted against him by the Council.

               —

               The present case of force majeure because of the war constitutes an obstacle to the appellant’s freely exercising his right of action against actions which manifestly infringe fundamental rights.

               —

               The fundamental rights and freedoms take priority over the principle of legal certainty. By applying the principle of legal certainty in order to declare the appellant’s application inadmissible, the General Court infringes the fundamental right of access to courts and tribunals and of the rights of the defence. Thus, the appellant has been deprived of his right to be heard by a court having jurisdiction.

               —

               The unenforceability of the time-limit on account of distance and of the time-limit for lodging an appeal in the event of war. The time-limit on account of distance and the time-limit for lodging an appeal cannot be enforced against a person residing in a State at open war. Such time-limits apply only in peacetime and on the continent of Europe. The appellant is located on another continent and, therefore, the strict application of Article 102 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court to the present case is indisputably in breach of Article 6(1) of European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and of Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

               —

               The primacy of Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Article 102 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court would render inoperable any obligation of notification as provided for in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union which provides that the period for lodging an appeal starts to run with effect from the publication or notification to the plaintiff of the measure or the day on which it came to his knowledge. Article 102 of the Rules of Procedure avoids the obligation of notification and does not take into account the day on which the application effectively became aware of the measure, thus restricting the letter and the spirit of Article 263 TFEU. Accordingly, Article 102 calls into question the rights laid down and protected by the Treaty, which is of higher legal standing and which is mandatory for the institutions comprising the European Union. Consequently, since the contested measures were not notified to the appellant, in breach of Article 263(5) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the period for lodging an appeal can start only from when he became aware of the measures adopted against him.

               —

               A serious infringement of fundamental rights and freedoms. The principle of legal certainty as stated by the General Court seriously calls into question legal certainty as a whole since citizens seeking justice who reside outside the European Union and who reside in a country at war have sanctions issued against them against which they cannot effectively exercise their rights since they do not know of the sanction.

               —

               In the alternative, the appellant seeks the annulment of the measures adopted against him by the Council on the ground of the seriousness of the breach of fundamental rights and freedoms. Since the contested measures infringe fundamental freedoms protected by different international treaties, it is for the Court of Justice to annul those measures in so far as their unlawfulness contravenes the established European legal order and on the ground that no time-limit for lodging an appeal can be enforced because of the seriousness of the breach of the protected fundamental rights and freedoms.


title: Case T-132/00: Action brought on 17 May 2000 by Gerot Pharmazeutika GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 192/26              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          8.7.2000
Product or Service:           Products in Class 3 of the Nice           Pleas in law and main arguments
                              Agreement (in particular, washing
                              and bleaching preparations for            — Adipex Retard capsules are placed on the market solely on
                              laundry use; cleaning prep-                    the basis of a national Austrian authorisation, for the
                              arations, preparations for the                 grant of which the mutual recognition procedure under
                              washing of dishes, soaps, per-                 Chapter III of Directive 75/319 (1) was not applied. The
                              fumery, essential oils, cosmetics,             defendant was therefore not competent to adopt the
                              hair lotions, dentifrices)                     contested decision.
Contested        decision    Refusal of registration by the             — The Commission wrongly based its decision on Article 15a
before the Board of           examiner                                       of Directive 75/319 and the criteria in Article 5 of Directive
Appeal:                                                                      65/65 (2). In fact only Article 11 of Directive 65/65/EEC is
                                                                             material, however.
Grounds for appeal:          Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of
                              Regulation 40/94.                         — The conditions for withdrawal of authorisation are not
                                                                             satisfied. It has not been sufficiently established either that
                                                                             phentermin is harmful or that it lacks therapeutic effect if
                                                                             correctly used.
                                                                        (1) Second Council Directive 75/319/EEC of 20 May 1975 on the
                                                                            approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or
                                                                            administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal products
                                                                            (OJ 1975 L 147, p. 13).
                                                                        (2) Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the approxi-
Action brought on 17 May 2000 by Gerot Pharmazeutika                        mation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrat-
GmbH against the Commission of the European Com-                            ive action relating to proprietary medicinal products (OJ, English
                           munities                                         Special Edition 1965-1966, p. 20).
                        (Case T-132/00)
                       (2000/C 192/49)
                 (Language of the case: German)                         Action brought on 22 May 2000 by Cambridge Healthcare
                                                                        Supplies Limited against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 17 May 2000 by Gerot Pharmazeu-                                            (Case T-137/00)
tika GmbH, of Vienna, represented by Dr Karl Grigkar,
Rechtsanwalt, Vienna.                                                                              (2000/C 192/50)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
— annul Commission Decision K (2000) 452 of 9 March
    2000 on withdrawal of authorisation of medicinal prod-              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
    ucts for human use which contain the substance phen-                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
    termin, in particular with respect to the medicinal product         European Communities on 22 May 2000 by Cambridge
    Adipex Retard capsules authorised for the applicant; in             Healthcare Supplies Limited, represented by David Vaughan,
    eventu                                                              Q.C., Kelyn Bacon, Barrister, and Simon Davis, Solicitor,
                                                                        Clifford Chance, London.
— annul the Commission’s decision in so far as Article 1 in
    conjunction with Annex I thereof requires the Member                The applicant claims that the Court should:
    State Austria to withdraw the authorisation for the appli-
    cant’s medicinal product containing phentermin, namely              — annul Commission Decision C(2000)452, of 9 March
    Adipex Retard capsules;                                                  2000;
— order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.                    — order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.


title: Case T-327/11: Action brought on 20 June 2011 — Vinci Energies Schweiz v OHIM — Estavis (Yellow representation of the Brandenburg Gate)

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/50

         Action brought on 20 June 2011 — Vinci Energies Schweiz v OHIM — Estavis (Yellow representation of the Brandenburg Gate)
   (Case T-327/11)
   2011/C 269/112
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Vinci Energies Schweiz AG (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Estavis AG (Berlin, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 31 March 2011 in Case R 231/2010-1;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Estavis AG

      Community trade mark concerned: Representation of the Brandenburg Gate claiming the colour honey yellow for goods and services in Classes 6, 7, 9, 11, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41 and 42 — application No 6 585 871

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the figurative mark ‘ETAVIS’ for goods and services in Classes 6, 7, 9, 11, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42 and 45

      Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was partially upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the Opposition Division’s decision was annulled and the opposition was rejected

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 as there is likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue due to the at least average distinctive character of the mark on which the opposition is based and the identical nature or high degree of similarity of the signs at issue.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 May 1999 in Joined Cases T-34/96 and T-163/96: Bernard Connolly v Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Disciplinary proceedings - Removal from post - Articles 11, 12 and 17 of the Staff Regulations - Freedom of expression - Duty of an official to show good faith and to exercise dignity in the performance of his duties)

text:
18.9.1999                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 265/7
4. There is no need to adjudicate on the alternative form of                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     annulment order sought.
5. The Commission shall bear its own costs together with those                                       of 17 June 1999
     incurred by the applicant, with the exception of the costs incurred
     by the applicant as a result of the intervention by the French          in Case T-82/96: Associação dos Refinadores de Açúcar
     Republic.                                                               Portugueses (ARAP) and Others v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
6. The French Republic shall bear its own costs, together with the
     costs incurred by the applicant as a result of its intervention.
                                                                             (State aid — Complaints from competing undertakings —
                                                                             Judicial protection of complainants — Sugar — Aid granted
(1) OJ C 95 of 30.3.1996.                                                    in implementation of a general State aid scheme approved
                                                                             by the Commission — State aid for vocational training —
                                                                             State aid for co-financing under the rules on Structural
                                                                                Funds)
                                                                                (1999/C 265/12)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                           of 19 May 1999
                                                                             In Case T-82/96: Associação dos Refinadores de Açúcar
in Joined Cases T-34/96 and T-163/96: Bernard Connolly                       Portugueses (ARAP), established in Lisbon, Alcântara Refinari-
                                                                             as — Açúcares SA, established in Santa Iria de Azóia, Portugal,
       v Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                             and RAR Refinarias de Açúcar Reunidas SA, established in
                                                                             Oporto, Portugal, represented by Gerard van der Wal, Advo-
(Officials — Disciplinary proceedings — Removal from post                    caat with a right of audience before the Hoge Raad der
— Articles 11, 12 and 17 of the Staff Regulations —                          Nederlanden, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Freedom of expression — Duty of an official to show good                     Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue v Commission of
faith and to exercise dignity in the performance of his duties)              the European Communities (Agents: Nicholas Khan, Anders
                                                                             Christian Jessen and James Flett), supported by Portuguese
                           (1999/C 265/11)                                   Republic (Agents Susana Brasil de Brito and Luis Inez Fernan-
                                                                             des), and DAI — Sociedade de Desenvolvimento Agro-
                                                                             industrial SA, established in Monte da Barca, Portugal, rep-
                                                                             resented by Luis Sáragga Leal, Dulce Franco and Ricardo
                    (Language of the cases: French)                          Oliveira, of the Lisbon Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                             Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue
In Joined Cases T-34/96 and T-163/96: Bernard Connolly, a                    — application for annulment of the Commission decision of
former official of the Commission of the European Communi-                   11 January 1996 not to raise objections to State Aid N11/95
ties, residing in Everberg (Belgium), represented by Jacques                 in favour of DAI — Sociedade de Desenvolvimento Agro-
Sambon and Pierre-Paul Van Gehuchten, of the Brussels Bar,                   industrial SA and of the Commission’s letter to the applicants
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                 of 19 March 1996 — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed
Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim against Commission                   of: R.M. Moura Ramos, President, R. Garcia-Valdecasas. V. Tiili,
of the European Communities (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and                  P. Lindh and P. Mengozzi, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for
Julian Currall) — application, in the first place, for annulment             the Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 June 1999, in which
of the opinion of the Disciplinary Board of 7 December 1995                  it:
and of the Commission decision of 16 January 1996 removing
the applicant from his post, and, second, for compensation —
                                                                             1. Dismisses the application.
the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of
B. Vesterdorf, President, J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges; H.
Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 May 1999, the                    2. Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to pay those
operative part of which is as follows:                                            of the defendant and the intervener DAI — Sociedade de
                                                                                Desenvolvimento Agro-industriel SA.
1. Case T-34/96 is removed from the Register of the Court;
2. The application in Case T-163/96 is dismissed;                            3. Orders the Portuguese Republic to bear its own costs.
3. Each party shall bear its own costs.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 233 of 10.8.1996.
(1) OJ C 133 of 4.5.1996 and OJ C 370 of 7.12.1996.


title: Action brought on 20 October 1998 by Unión de Pequeños Agricultores against Council of the European Union (Case T-173/98)

text:
13.3.1999             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 71/27
made an order on 8 December 1998, the operative part of             the maximum guaranteed quantity, the limitation on new
which is as follows:                                                aid-eligible planting, the termination of the scheme for
                                                                    small producers and the option of private storage aid as a
                                                                    means of stabilising markets. Moreover, the adjustments
1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible;                    objected to were approved in June 1998, to come into
                                                                    force in the marketing year starting on 1 November 1998
2. The applicants are jointly and severally to pay the              and there is no provision for transitional arrangements or
     costs.                                                         phasing, nor any compensatory or complementary
                                                                    measures     which     might     palliate   the    immediate
                                                                    consequences in the sector. Also, the reforms may be
(1) OJ C 137, 2.5.1998.
                                                                    abolished or replaced within three years, the period of
                                                                    validity of the contested regulation, which of course
                                                                    creates uncertainty in the sector, which will not only have
                                                                    to adjust to the new framework of rules very quickly but
                                                                    will also lack the slightest certainty that the new
                                                                    arrangements will endure.
Action brought on 20 October 1998 by Unión de
PequenÄos Agricultores against Council of the European
                             Union                                  In support of its claims, the applicant makes the following
                                                                    submissions:
                       (Case T-173/98)
                        (1999/C 71/52)
                                                                    Ð Infringement of Article 190 of the Treaty, in that the
                                                                        reasons given by the Council are not only inadequate
               (Language of the case: Spanish)                          and insufficient but are also fundamentally
                                                                        inappropriate and contradictory. In fact, the describe
An action against the Council of the European Union was                 as mere adaptations and adjustments' measures like
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European              those mentioned above is to strain the natural
Communities on 20 October 1998 by Unión de PequenÄos                    meaning of the words unacceptably. Similarly, the
Agricultores, represented by Javier Ledesma Bartret and                 reasons given cannot be anything but unfocused given
JoseÂ Ma JimeÂnez Laiglesia y de OnÄate, both of the Madrid             the lack of reliable information for structuring the
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg care of                  reforms, as is expressly recognised in the first recital to
Concepción Llaser Moyano, 22 Rue Wenkelhiel                             the contested regulation.
(Dalheim).
                                                                    Ð Infringement of Article 39(1) of the Treaty, in that the
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance                   contested     regulation    has      chosen    manifestly
should:                                                                 inappropriate means to attain the CAP objectives
                                                                        mentioned      in    that   Article.    Moreover,       the
                                                                        abovementioned regulation's sole purpose is budgetary
Ð declare this action for annulment admissible in
                                                                        containment, which, however legitimate it might be, is
     accordance with Article 173 of the Treaty;
                                                                        not included amongst those mentioned in Article 39(1).
                                                                        Finally, the applicant alleges that the Council has
Ð Declare void Council Regulation (EC) No 1638/98 of                    exceeded its margin of discretion in expressly
     20 July 1998 amending Regulation No 136/66/EEC (1)                 recognising in the first recital in the preamble to the
     on the establishment of a common organisation of the               regulation that the information used is unreliable,
     market in oils and fats, with the exception of the aid             thereby raising the question whether the future
     scheme for table olives provided for in Article 5(4) of            consequences of the measures adopted have been
     Regulation No 136/66/EEC as amended by the                         responsibly evaluated.
     regulation at issue in these proceedings; and
                                                                    Ð Infringement of Article 39(2) of the Treaty. In the
Ð Order the Council to pay the costs.                                   applicant's opinion, the Council has not taken account
                                                                        of elements which are vital to regulation of the olive
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     oil market, and has not given reasons for the need for
                                                                        urgent reform; on the contrary it has adopted a
                                                                        measure which, in view of its urgent and peremptory
The applicant association, which represents and acts in the             nature, is absolutely exceptional.
interests of small farmers opposes the changes to the
common market organisation for olives brought about by
the contested regulation. In its view, the measures                 Ð Infringement of Article 40(3) of the Treaty, in four
contemplated in that regulation cannot be described as                  respects. First, it deals in a discriminatory manner
mere adjustments but amount to a veritable structural and               with small producers and traditional olive growers
definitive overhaul of the olive oil sector. The applicant              since they, being in circumstances different from those
refers in that connection to the elimination of intervention            of the big producers, cannot be treated in the same
and consumption aid, the adoption of a national basis for               way. Also, the contested regulation contains
 ---pagebreak--- C 71/28               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                13.3.1999
    discriminatory features regarding Spanish producers of         documents of the Centre for Information, Discussion and
    olive oil since a national guaranteed quantity has been        Exchange on Asylum (CIREA), which were requested
    fixed for Spain which falls far short of the yields of         pursuant to Council Decision 93/731/EC of 20 December
    the last two years, and for Italy a national guaranteed        1993 on public access to Council documents. The
    quantity has been fixed which substantially exceeds its        documents requested were as follows:
    production in the last marketing year. Similarly, the
    regulation discriminates against olive oil as a
    Mediterranean product as compared with other                   (a) Common Foreign and Security Policy reports, analyses
    continental products covered by market organisations.              or evaluations for the years 1994 up to and including
    Finally, the reform at issue is not based on common                1998 which had been drawn up by the CIREA or in
    criteria or uniform calculation methods.                           connection with the CIREA, with regard to the
                                                                       situation in those third countries or regions from
                                                                       which a large number of asylum-seekers originate or
Ð Breach of the principle of proportionality. Attention is             in which they reside;
    drawn in particular to the abolition of the export
    regime, which the applicant describes as manifestly
    disproportionate.                                              (b) any reports of joint missions or reports supplied to the
                                                                       CIREA by one or more Member States, concerning
                                                                       missions to third countries by such Member State or
Finally, the applicant alleges breach of the right to                  States;
property and infringement of the principle of freedom to
engage in an economic activity.
                                                                   (c) a list drawn up by the CIREA or in connection with
                                                                       the CIREA of those contact persons who are involved
(1) OJ L 210, 20.7.1998, p. 92.                                        with asylum cases in the Member States, together with
                                                                       any changes made to that list subsequently.
                                                                   The applicant submits that the refusal by the Council to
                                                                   grant access to the documents requested infringes
Action brought on 4 December 1998 by Aldo Kuijer
         against the Council of the European Union                 Ð Council Decision 93/731/EC, and more in particular
                                                                       articles 4(1) and 1(2) thereof,
                       (Case T-188/98)
                        (1999/C 71/53)
                                                                   Ð the obligation to state reasons and
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                   Ð the fundamental principle of Community law that
                                                                       European citizens should be granted the widest and
An action against the Council of the European Union was                fullest possible access to the EU Institutions'
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European             documents.
Communities on 4 December 1998 by Aldo Kuijer,
represented by Onno W. Brouwer and FreÂdeÂric P. Louis,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Me Marc Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        Action brought on 15 December 1998 by Micro Leader
                                                                   Business (M.L.B.) against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
Ð annul the contested decision whereby the Council
                                                                                (Case T-198/98)
    refuses to grant access to the document requested by
    the applicant;                                                                        (1999/C 71/54)
Ð order the Council to pay the applicant's costs pursuant                         (Language of the case: French)
    to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of
    First Instance, including the costs of any intervening
    parties.                                                       An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                   Instance of the European Communities on 15 December
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                1998 by Micro Leader Business (M.L.B.), whose registered
                                                                   office is at Aulnay sous Bois (France), represented by
                                                                   Silvestre Tandeau de Marsac, of the Paris Bar, with an
The applicant seeks the annulment of a refusal by the              address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Council of the European Union to grant access to certain           Jean Brucher, 10 Rue de Vianden.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 January 2001 in Case C-172/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus): Oy Liikenne Ab v Pekka Liskojärvi, Pentti Juntunen (Directive 77/187/EEC — Safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings — Directive 92/50/EEC — Public service contracts — Non-maritime public transport services)

text:
C 173/2                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          16.6.2001
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                92/50, a non-maritime public transport service — such
                                                                                as the operation of scheduled local bus routes — by a
                                                                                legal person governed by public law;
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                —    in a situation such as that in the main proceedings,
                         of 25 January 2001                                            Directive 77/187 does not apply where there is no
                                                                                transfer of significant tangible assets between those two
                                                                                undertakings.
in Case C-172/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Korkein oikeus): Oy Liikenne Ab v Pekka Liskojärvi,
                         Pentti Juntunen (1)                                (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
(Directive 77/187/EEC — Safeguarding of employees’ rights
in the event of transfers of undertakings — Directive
92/50/EEC — Public service contracts — Non-maritime
                      public transport services)
                           (2001/C 173/02)                                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 30 January 2001
                    (Language of the case: Finnish)
                                                                            in Case C-36/98: Kingdom of Spain v Council of the
                                                                            European Union, supported by French Republic, by Portu-
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      guese Republic, by Republic of Finland, and by Com-
                    in the European Court Reports)                                    mission of the European Communities (1)
In Case C-172/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of               (Legal basis — Environment — Council decision approving
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Korkein oikeus                  the Convention on cooperation for the protection and sus-
(Supreme Court), Finland, for a preliminary ruling in the                   tainable use of the river Danube — Article 130s(l) and (2)
proceedings pending before that court between Oy Liikenne                   of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 175(1) and
Ab and Pekka Liskojärvi, Pentti Juntunen — on the interpret-                   (2) EC) — Concept of ’management of water resources’)
ation of Article 1(1) of Council Directive 77/187/EEC of
14 February 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the                                              (2001/C 173/03)
Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’
rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or
parts of businesses (OJ 1977 L 61, p. 26) — the Court                                          (Language of the case: Spanish)
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the
Chamber, V. Skouris, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur),
R. Schintgen and N. Colneric, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a                                        in the European Court Reports)
judgment on 25 January 2001, in which it has ruled:
                                                                            In Case C-36/98: Kingdom of Spain (Agent: S. Ortiz Vaamonde)
1.    The taking over by an undertaking of non-maritime public              v Council of the European Union (Agents: G. Houttuin and
      transport activities — such as the operation of scheduled local       D. Canga Fano), supported by French Republic (Agents:
      bus routes — previously operated by another undertaking,              K. Rispal-Bellanger and R. Nadal), by Portuguese Republic
      following a procedure for the award of a public service contract      (Agents: L. Fernandes, M. Telles Romão and P. Canelas de
      under Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating            Castro), by Republic of Finland (Agents: H. Rotkirch and
      to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service     T. Pyrind), and by Commission of the European Communities
      contracts, may fall within the material scope of Council Directive    (Agents: R. Gosalbo Bono and F. de Sousa Fialho) — appli-
      77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the approximation of                cation for annulment of Council Decision 97/825/EC of
      the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of         24 November 1997 concerning the conclusion of the Conven-
      employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings,          tion on cooperation for the protection and sustainable use of
      businesses or parts of businesses, as set out in Article 1(1) of      the river Danube (OJ 1997 L 342, p. 18) — the Court,
      that directive.                                                       composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann,
                                                                            A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet, V. Skouris (Presidents of Cham-
2.    Article 1(1) of Directive 77/187 must be interpreted as               bers), D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevón
      meaning that                                                          (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and F. Macken, Judges; P. Léger,
                                                                            Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division,
      —     that directive may apply where there is no direct contrac-      for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 January 2001,
            tual link between two undertakings which are successively       in which it:
            awarded, following procedures for, the award of public
            service contracts conducted in accordance with Directive        1.    Dismisses the action;


title: Case C-213/06 P: Appeal brought on  9 May 2006  by the European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR) against the judgement of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) delivered on  23 February 2006  in Case T-471/04: Georgios Karatzoglou v European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR)

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/19

         Appeal brought on 9 May 2006 by the European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR) against the judgement of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 23 February 2006 in Case T-471/04: Georgios Karatzoglou v European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR)
   (Case C-213/06 P)
   (2006/C 178/30)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers and K. Niafas, agent)

      Other party to the proceedings: Georgios Karatzoglou
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the judgement of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 23 February 2006 in Case T-471/04 (Georgios Karatzoglou v European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR) ) in full;

               —

               Give judgement itself;

               —

               Dismiss the action for annulment of the decision of the EAR of 26 February 2004 terminating the contract of the applicant at first instance as a member of the termporary staff;

               —

               Order the applicant at first instance and respondent on appeal to pay the costs of the appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant submits that the Court of First Instance erred in law when, having qualified the contract signed by the defendant as a contract for an indefinite period of employment, it decided that the European Agency for Reconstruction (hereinafter EAR) could only terminate that contract in two circumstances — substantial reduction or winding-up of EAR's operation — which would be tantamount to considering the contract as a contract for a fixed term of employment the duration of which depended upon those criteria.
   The applicant further maintains that the Court of First Instance erred in law in so deciding because Council Regulation No 2667/2000 (1) which lays down rules concerning the functioning of EAR forbids the EAR to contract such an obligation since it is obliged to limit the recruitment of staff to what is strictly necessary with regard to the evolving needs of the EAR.
   The applicant finally submits that should the EAR have created a legitimate expectation not to terminate the defendant's contract except in the specific circumstance of a significant reduction of its operation, such an expectation would be illegitimate with regard to the obligation deriving from the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities and from the Council regulations governing the creation and functioning of the EAR.

      (1)  OJ L 305, p. 7.


title: Case F-64/08: Action brought on 29 July 2008 — Nijs v Court of Auditors

text:
               27.9.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/25

         Action brought on 29 July 2008 — Nijs v Court of Auditors
   (Case F-64/08)
   (2008/C 247/52)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Bart Nijs (Bereldange, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Rollinger and A. Hertzog, lawyers)

      Defendant: Court of Auditors of the European Communities
   Subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Annulment of the decision of the Court of Auditors designating the reporting officer and the countersigning officer and a claim for damage for loss suffered following the adoption of that decision.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the Court of Auditors to designate the director of translation as the applicant's reporting officer and, himself, to be his countersigning officer;

               —

               Order the Court of Auditors to pay damages for the non-material loss which the applicant suffered up to EUR 25 000;

               —

               Order the Court of Auditors of the European Communities to pay the costs.


title: Case C-195/14: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. v Teekanne GmbH & Co. KG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2000/13/EC — Labelling and presentation of foodstuffs — Articles 2(1)(a)(i) and 3(1)(2) — Labelling such as could mislead the purchaser as to the composition of foodstuffs — List of ingredients — Use of the indication ‘raspberry and vanilla adventure’ and of depictions of raspberries and vanilla flowers on the packaging of a fruit tea not containing those ingredients)

text:
               20.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/16

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. v Teekanne GmbH & Co. KG
   (Case C-195/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2000/13/EC - Labelling and presentation of foodstuffs - Articles 2(1)(a)(i) and 3(1)(2) - Labelling such as could mislead the purchaser as to the composition of foodstuffs - List of ingredients - Use of the indication ‘raspberry and vanilla adventure’ and of depictions of raspberries and vanilla flowers on the packaging of a fruit tea not containing those ingredients))
   (2015/C 236/22)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V.

      Defendant: Teekanne GmbH & Co. KG

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 2(1)(a)(i) and 3(1)(2) of Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 596/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009, must be interpreted as precluding the labelling of a foodstuff and methods used for the labelling from giving the impression, by means of the appearance, description or pictorial representation of a particular ingredient, that that ingredient is present, even though it is not in fact present and this is apparent solely from the list of ingredients on the foodstuff’s packaging.

      (1)  OJ C 245, 28.7.2014.


title: Case C-237/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Luxembourg) lodged on 12 May 2010 — Miguel Remy v Landsbanki Luxembourg SA (in liquidation)

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/23

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Luxembourg) lodged on 12 May 2010 — Miguel Remy v Landsbanki Luxembourg SA (in liquidation)
   (Case C-237/10)
   ()
   2010/C 209/30
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Miguel Remy

      Defendant: Landsbanki Luxembourg SA (in liquidation)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (1) to be interpreted as applying to a termination of activities as a result of a declaration that the employer is insolvent or a judicial decision ordering the dissolution and winding-up, on grounds of insolvency, of the credit institution which is the employer on the basis of Article 61(l)(a) and (b) of the amended Law of 5 April 1993 relating to the financial sector, in respect of which termination the national legislation provides for the termination of employment contracts with immediate effect?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, are Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Directive 98/59/EC to be interpreted as meaning that the administrator or liquidator is to be deemed to be in the same position as an employer who is contemplating collective redundancies and who is capable of carrying out, to that end, the acts referred to in Articles 2 and 3 of Directive 98/53/EC and of effecting such redundancies (judgment in Case C-323/08, paragraphs 39, 40 and 41)? (2)

      (1)  OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16.

      (2)  Judgment of 10 December 2009 in Case C-323/08 Rodríguez Mayor and Others