title: Case T-647/16: Action brought on 15 September 2016 — Camerin v Parliament

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/23

         Action brought on 15 September 2016 — Camerin v Parliament
   (Case T-647/16)
   (2016/C 410/32)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Laure Camerin (Etterbeek, Belgium) (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the application admissible;

               —

               Annul the contested decision;

               —

               Annul, if necessary, the rejection decision;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action brought against the decision taken on 1 December 2015 by the Secretary General of the S&D Group in the European Parliament, refusing to extend the applicant’s service beyond the age of 65 years until 31 December 2016 (the contested decision), the applicant relies on a single plea in law, divided into two parts.

               —

               First part, alleging infringement of Article 52 of the Staff Regulations of Officials, a manifest error of assessment and infringement of the principle of sound administration.

               —

               Second part, alleging infringement of the sixth paragraph of Article 1 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations of Officials.


title: Case C-241/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel, Brussels lodged on 3 July 2009 — Fluxys SA v Commission de régulation de l’électricité et du gaz (CREG)

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/28

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel, Brussels lodged on 3 July 2009 — Fluxys SA v Commission de régulation de l’électricité et du gaz (CREG)
   (Case C-241/09)
   2009/C 205/48
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d’appel, Brussels

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Fluxys SA

      Defendant: Commission de régulation de l’électricité et du gaz (CREG)

      Questions referred

   Do Articles 1, 2 and 18 of Directive 2003/55/EC (1) and Article 3 of Regulation No 1775/2005/EC (2) preclude national legislation establishing a separate tariff regime for the transit activity, which derogates from the rules governing transportation, by creating a distinction, within the transportation activity, between ‘transmission’ and ‘transit’?

      (1)  Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 57).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 1775/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 September 2005 on conditions for access to the natural gas transmission networks (OJ 2005 L 289, p. 1).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 5 July 1995 in Case C-21/94: European Parliament v. Council of the European Union (Directive 93/89/EEC on the application by Member States of taxes on certain vehicles used for the carriage of goods by road and tolls and charges for the use of certain infrastructures - Reconsultation of the European Parliament)

text:
No C 229/8              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     2 . 9 . 95
      in the event of a radiological emergency, the Italian                  modified organisms, the Hellenic Republic has failed to
      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that               fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;
      Directive;
                                                                       2 . orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
2 . orders the Italian Republic to bear the costs.
                                                                       H OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .
( ! ) OJ No C 188 , 9 . 7 . 1994 .                                     ( 2 ) OJ No L 117, 8 . 5 . 1990, p. 1 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 357, 7 . 12 . 1989 , p . 31 .                            ( 3 ) OJ No L 117, 8 . 5 . 1990, p . 15 .
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                                        of 5 July 1995
                           of 29 June 1995                             in Case C-21/94: European Parliament v. Council of the
       in Case C-l 70/94: Commission of the European                                           European Union (*)
             Communities v. Hellenic Republic (*)                      (Directive 93/89/EEC on the application by Member States
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                 oftaxes on certain vehicles used for the carriage ofgoods by
Non-transposition of Directives 90/219/EEC and                         road and tolls and charges for the use of certain
       90/220/EEC — Genetically modified organisms)                    infrastructures — Reconsultation of the European
                                                                                Parliament)
                            ( 95/C 229/14 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 229/ 15 )
                 (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                     (Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-l 70/94 : Commission of the European
Communities ( Agent: Maria Kontou-Durande ) v. Hellenic                In Case C-21 /94 : European Parliament ( Agents : Johann
Republic ( Agents : Panagiotis Mylonopoulos and Nana                   Schoo and Jannis Pantalis ) v. Council of the European
Dafniou ) — application for a declaration that, by failing to          Union ( Agents : Antonio Sacchettini and Amadeu Lopes
adopt, or not notifying within the prescribed period, the              Sabino ) supported by Federal Republic of Germany
laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to           ( Agents : Ernst Röder and Bernd Kloke) and by the United
comply with Council Directive 90/219/EEC of 23 April                   Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ( Agents :
1990 on the contained use of genetically modified                      Lucinda Hudson and Lindsey Nicholl ) — application for the
micro-organisms (2 ) and Council Directive 90/220/EEC of               annulment of Council Directive 93/89/EEC of 25 October
23 April 1990 on the deliberate release into the environment           1993 on the application by Member States of taxes on
of genetically modified organisms (3 ), the Hellenic Republic          certain vehicles used for the carriage of goods by road and
has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty — the         tolls and charges for the use of certain infrastructures ( 2 ) —
Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: C. Gulmann,                      the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,
President of the Chamber, P. Jann, J. C. Moitinho de                   F. A. Schockweiler, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann and
Almeida, D. A. O. Edward and L. Sevón ( Rapporteur ),                  P. Jann ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, C. N.
Judges: F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar,           Kakouris, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur), J. L.
gave a judgment on 29 June 1995 , the operative part of                Murray, D. A. O. Edward, G. Hirsch, H. Ragnemalm and
which is as follows :                                                  L. Sevón, Judges; P. Leger, Advocate-General; R. Grass,
                                                                       Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 July 1995 in which
                                                                       it :
1 . declares that in not adopting within the prescribed
      periods the laws, regulations and administrative
      provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive            1 . annuls Council Directive 93/89/EEC of 25 October
      90/219/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the contained use of                    1 993 on the application by Member States of taxes on
      genetically modified micro-organisms and Council                       certain vehicles used for the carriage of goods by road
      Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the                           and tolls and charges for the use of certain
      deliberate release into the environment of genetically                 infrastructures;
 ---pagebreak--- 2 . 9 . 95            1 HN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 229/9
2 . declares that the effects ofthe annulled Directive shall be                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
       preserved until the Council has adopted new legislation                                  ( Sixth Chamber)
       in the matter;
                                                                                of 6 July 1995
                                                                        in Case C-62/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the
3 . orders the Council to pay the costs;                                Dioikitiko Protodikeio Athinas ): BP Supergas Anonimos
                                                                        Etairia Geniki Emporiki-Viomichaniki kai Antiprossopeion
4 . orders the Federal Republic of Germany and the United                                      v. Greek State (*)
       Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear            (Interpretation ofArticles 11, 17 and 27 of the Sixth VAT
       their own costs.                                                 Directive — Greek system for the taxation of petroleum
                                                                        products — Taxable amount — Right to deduct —
H OJ No C 59 , 26 . 2 . 1994 .                                                                       Exemption)
(2 ) OJ No L 279 , 12 . 11 . 1993 , p . 32 .                                                       ( 95 /C 229/ 17 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         ( Fourth Chamber)                              In Case C-62/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                            of 5 July 1995                              the EC Treaty by the Dioikitiko Protodikeio Athinas for a
                                                                        preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
in Case C-46/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                        court between BP Supergas Anonimos Etairia Geniki
the Tribunal de Police, Bordeaux ( France ): Criminal
                                                                        Emporiki-Viomichaniki kai Antiprosopeion and the Greek
             proceedings against Michele Voisine ( J )                  State on the interpretation of Article 11 , 17 and 27 of the
(Description of wines — Definition of 'labelling' — Affixing            Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
       of decoration unconnected with the wine marketed)                harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
                            ( 95/C 229/16 )                             turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:
                                                                        uniform basis of assessment ( 2 ) — the Court ( Sixth
                                                                        Chamber) composed of: F. A. Schockweiler, President of the
                  (Language of the case: French)                        Chamber, G. F. Mancini ( Rapporteur), J. L. Murray and
                                                                        G. Hirsch, Judges; Advocate-General : F. G. Jacobs;
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be            Registrar: H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, has given a
            published in the European Court Reports)                    judgment on 6 July 1995 , in which it rules :
In Case C-46/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of            1 . Articles 2, 11 and 17 of the Sixth Council Directive
the EC Treaty from the Tribunal de Police, Bordeaux                          77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977, on the harmonization of
( France ), for a preliminary ruling in the criminal                         the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes
proceedings pending before that court against Michele                        — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of
Voisine on the interpretation of Council Regulation ( EEC )                  assessment, must be interpreted as precluding national
No 2392/89 of 24 July 1989 laying down general rules for                     rules which make the importation offinished petroleum
the description and presentation of wines and grape                          products subject to VAT calculated on the basis of a
musts (2 ) — the Court ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of:                      basic price different from that provided for in Article 1 1
P. J. G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber, C. N. Kakouris                   of that Directive and which, by exempting traders in the
and J. L. Murray ( Rapporteur), Judges; M. B. Elmer,                         petroleum sector from the obligation to submit returns,
Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the                         deprive them ofthe right to deduct VAT charged directly
Registrar, gave a judgment on 5 July 1995 , the operative                    on transactions relating to inputs;
part of which is as follows:
                                                                         2 . the provisions of the Sixth Directive, in particular
 The definition of 'labelling' in Article 38 (1 ) of Council                 Articles 13 to 17 thereof, are to be interpreted as
 Regulation (EEC) No 2392/89 of24 July 1 989 laying down                     precluding an exemption from VAT on services in
general rules for the description and presentation of wines                  respect of the transport and storage of petroleum
 and grape musts covers decoration or advertising which is                   products that are unconnected with the transport of
 unconnected with the wine concerned.                                        those products from a first destination to another
                                                                             named destination;
 (') OJ No C 90, 26 . 3 . 1994 .
 ( 2 ) OJ No L 232, 9 . 8 . 1989 , p . 13 .                              3 . the provisions of Article 11A (1 ) and B (1 ) and (2) and
                                                                             of Article 17 (1 ) and (2) of the Sixth Directive confer
                                                                             rights on individuals on which they may rely before a
                                                                             national court;


title: Case T-562/14: Judgment of the General Court of 4 June 2015 — Yoo Holdings v OHIM — Eckes-Granini Group (YOO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark YOO — Earlier national and international word marks YO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               20.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/42

         Judgment of the General Court of 4 June 2015 — Yoo Holdings v OHIM — Eckes-Granini Group (YOO)
   (Case T-562/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark YOO - Earlier national and international word marks YO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 236/56)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Yoo Holdings Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Farnsworth, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Bonne, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Eckes-Granini Group GmbH (Nieder-Olm, Germany) (represented by: W. Berlit, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 April 2014 (Case R 762/2013-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Eckes-Granini Group GmbH and Yoo Holdings Ltd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Yoo Holdings Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.


title: Case C-342/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 24 June 2013 — Katalin Sebestyén v Kővári Zsolt Csaba and Others

text:
               16.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 336/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 24 June 2013 — Katalin Sebestyén v Kővári Zsolt Csaba and Others
   (Case C-342/13)
   2013/C 336/13
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Szombathelyi Törvényszék

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Katalin Sebestyén

      Defendants: Kővári Zsolt, Csaba OTP Bank, OTP Faktoring Követeléskezelő Zrt., Raiffeisen Bank Zrt.

      Questions referred

               1.

               On the basis of Article 3(1) [of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts], is a contractual clause to be regarded as unfair that makes disputes regarding a loan contract concluded by a consumer and a bank subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of a Chamber made up of three arbitrators of the Pénz- és Tőkepiaci Állandó Választottbíróság (Permanent Arbitration Court of the Financial and Capital Market)?

               2.

               On the basis of Article 3(1) [of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts], is a contractual clause to be regarded as unfair that makes disputes concerning a loan contract entered into by a consumer and a bank subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of a Chamber made up of three arbitrators of the Permanent Arbitration Court of the Financial and Capital Market, save in the exceptional cases provided for in the contract, regardless of the fact that the contract contains general information concerning differences between the procedure governed by Law LXXI of 1994 on Arbitration and ordinary legal proceedings?

      (1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).


title: Case T-43/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 6 July 2006 — Cofira-Sac v Commission

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/46

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 6 July 2006 — Cofira-Sac v Commission
   (Case T-43/06) (1)

   (2006/C 212/81)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.


title: Appeal brought on 23 December 1996 by Sveriges Betodlares Centralförening and Mr Sven Åke Henrikson against the order made on 4 October 1996 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-197/95 between Sveriges Betodlares Centralförening and Mr Sven Åke Henrikson and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-409/96 P)

text:
8 . 3 . 97             EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 74/11
Is Article 5 ( a ) of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2137/85            Appeal brought on 23 December 1996 by Glencore Grain
of 25 July 1985 on the European Economic Interest                      Ltd, formerly Richco Commodities Ltd, against the
Grouping ( EEIG ) O to be interpreted as meaning that,                 judgment delivered on 24 September 1996 by the Court of
apart from the additions of 'European Economic Interest                First Instance of the European Communities in Case
Grouping' or 'EEIG', the name or business name of an                   T-509/93     between Richco Commodities Ltd and the
EEIG may consist of a purely descriptive designation, even                      Commission of the European Communities
where internal law in principle precludes the use of such a                                     ( Case C-404/96 P)
name for the formation of a European Economic Interest
                                                                                97/C 74/21 )
Grouping ?
H OJ No L 199, 31 . 7 . 1985 , p . 1 .                                 An appeal against the judgment delivered on 24 September
                                                                       1996 by the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                       Communities       in       Case      T-509/93  between   Richco
                                                                       Commodities Ltd and the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
                                                                       the European Communities on 23 December 1996 by
                                                                       Glencore Grain Ltd, formerly Richco Commodities Ltd,
Appeal brought on 23 December 1996 by Glencore Grain                   represented by P. V. F. Bos, J. G. A. van Zuuren and M. M.
Ltd, formerly Richco Commodities Ltd, against the                      Slotboom, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for
judgment delivered on 24 September 1996 by the Court of                service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch,
First Instance of the European Communities in Case                      11 rue Goethe .
T-491 /93 between Richco Commodities Ltd and the
           Commission of the European Communities                      The appellant claims that the Court should:
                       ( Case C-403/96 P)
                                                                       — partially set aside the judgment of the Court of First
                           ( 97/C 74/20 )                                   Instance in Case T-509/93 , in so far as that judgment
                                                                            declares inadmissible Glencore's application for
                                                                            annulment of the Commission Decision of 10 June
 An appeal against the judgment delivered on 24 September                   1993 addressed to the SEIB under reference SG ( 93 )
 1996 by the Court of First Instance of the European                        D/ 11703 ,
 Communities        in   Case     T-491 /93   between     Richco
 Commodities Ltd and the Commission of the European                     — declare Glencore's application, referred to in the first
 Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of                     indent above, admissible,
 the European Communities on 23 December 1996 by
 Glencore Grain Ltd, formerly Richco Commodities Ltd,                   — order the Commission to pay all the costs, including
 represented by P. V. F. Bos, J. G. A. van Zuuren and M. M.                 those incurred in the proceedings before the Court of
 Slotboom, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for                        First Instance .
 service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch,
 11 rue Goethe .                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                        The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
 The appellant claims that the Court should :                           Case C-386/96 P (').
 — partially set aside the judgment of the Court of First               (') OJ No C 40, 8 . 2 . 1997, p . 10 .
       Instance in Case T-491 /93 , in so far as that judgment
       declares inadmissible Glencore 's application for
       annulment of the decision or at least the act of the
       Commission of 1 April 1993 addressed to the
       Vnesheconombank under reference SG ( 93 ) D/5397,
                                                                        Appeal brought on 23 December 1996 by Sveriges
                                                                        Betodlares Centralforening and Mr Sven Ake Henrikson
 — declare Glencore's application, referred to in the first             against the order made on 4 October 1996 by the First
       indent above, admissible,                                        Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                        Communities in Case T-l 97/95 between Sveriges
 — order the Commission to pay all the costs.                           Betodlares Centralforening and Mr Sven Ake Henrikson
                                                                             and the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case C-409/96 P)
  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                ( 97/C 74/22 )
  The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
  Case C-386/96 P ( M.                                                   An appeal against the order made on 4 October 1996 by
                                                                         the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European     Communities           in  Case T-l 97/95  between
  H OJ No C 40, 8 . 2 . 1997, p . 10 .                                   Sveriges Betodlares Centralforening and Mr Sven Ake
                                                                         Henrikson and the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, was brought before the Court of Justice of
 ---pagebreak--- No C 74/ 12            I EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                             8 . 3 . 97
the European Communities on 23 December 1996 by                          If the appellants' action is not considered admissible, in
Sveriges Betodlares Centralforening and Mr Sven Ake                      the particular circumstances of their case, there would be
Henrikson, represented by Otfried Lieberknecht, Rechts                  no other feasible way for them to challenge the unlawful
anwalt, Diisseldorf, Michael Schiitte, Rechtsanwalt, Berlin,             administrative act of the Commission constituted by
and Vanessa Turner, Solicitor of the Supreme Court of                    Regulation ( EC) No 1734/95 ('). This would lead to an
England and Wales, with an address for service in                        unacceptable loophole in the system of judicial review of
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Bonn & Schmitt, 62,                        administrative acts of the Commission.
avenue Guillaume .
                                                                         (') Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 1734/95 of 14 July 1995
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                   fixing, for the 1994/95 marketing year, the specific agricultural
                                                                              conversion rate applicable to the minimum sugarbeet prices
— set aside the Order of the Court of First Instance of                       and the production levy and additional levy in the sugar sector
       4 October 1996,                                                        ( OJ No L 165 , 15 . 7 . 1995 , p. 12 ).
— declare that the application in Case T- 197/95 is
       admissible,
— order the Commission to bear the costs of these
       proceedings and the proceedings                 concerning       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
       admissibility in Case T-197/95 .                                 Grande Instance de Metz by judgment of that court of
                                                                         19 December 1996 in the case of Procureur de la
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                       Republique against Andre Ambry
                                                                                ( Case C-410/96 )
In its legal analysis of the case, the Court of First Instance                                           ( 97/C 74/23 )
infringed Community law (in particular, Article 173 (4 ) of
the EC Treaty, which grants the appellants the right to
challenge the contested Regulation since this Regulation                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
directly and individually concerned them ) by reaching                  European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal de
conclusions which were :                                                Grande Instance ( Regional Court), Metz, of 19 December
                                                                         1996, received at the Court Registry on 24 December
( i ) not justified on the facts;                                        1996, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Procureur de
                                                                        la Republique v. Andre Ambry on the following question:
( ii ) in contradiction to the case-law of the Court of Justice
       of the European Communities and of the Court of                  Are the provisions of Article 14 of Decree No 94.490 of
       First Instance itself.                                           15 June 1994, adopted pursuant to Article 31 of Law No
                                                                        92.645 of 13 July 1992, to be regarded as not in
In particular the Court of First Instance infringed                     conformity with Directive 73/183/EEC ( J ), the first
Community law in four ways .                                            Coordination Directive of 15 December 1989 (2 ),
                                                                        Article 59 of the Treaty establishing the European
In the first place, the Court took the view that the                    Communities and Article 73 B of the Maastricht Treaty, in
contested Regulation did not constitute a bundle of                     so far as they require that, where a financial security is
decisions, thus failing to recognize the true nature of this            issued in a Member State of the EC other than France, an
Regulation.                                                             agreement must be concluded between the credit
                                                                        institution or insurance company situated in the Member
The second infringement of Community law by the Court                   State other than France and a credit institution or an
of First Instance was the failure, having regard to the case           insurance company situated in France ?
law of the Court of Justice, to take proper account of the
specific and serious negative effect on the appellants of the           (') OJ No L 194, 16 . 7. 1973 , p . 1 .
contested Regulation, in particular having regard to the                ( 2 ) OJ No L 386 , 30 . 12 . 1989 , p . 1 .
nine currency devaluations in Sweden between 1 January
and 30 June 1995 .
The third infringement of Community law was the Court
of First Instance 's conclusion that the Commission was
not, in this case, under a duty to take account of the                  Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein
consequences of the measure it envisaged adopting for the              Hallinto-oikeus by order of that court of 13 December
situation of certain individuals, i . e . the Swedish sugarbeet         1996 in the proceedings brought by Kainuun Liikenne Oy
growers .                                                                                and Oy Pohjolan Liikenne Ab
                                                                                ( Case C-412/96 )
The fourth infringement of Community law was the Court
of     First  Instance's   conclusion that    neither   individual                                      ( 97/C 74/24 )
Swedish beet growers ( such as Mr Henrikson ) nor Sveriges
Betodlares Centralforening as the association representing              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
all Swedish beet growers in negotiations with the Swedish              the European Communities by an order of the Korkein
sugar manufacturer were individually concerned by the                  Hallinto-oikeus ( Supreme Administrative Court ) of
contested Regulation .                                                  13 December 1996, which was received at the Court


title: Case C-232/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeitsgericht Düsseldorf by order of that court of 5 May 2004 in the case of Ms Nurten Güney-Görres against Securicor Aviation Limited, Securicor Aviation (Germany) Limited, and Kötter Aviation Security GmbH & Co. KG.

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeitsgericht Düsseldorf by order of that court of 5 May 2004 in the case of Ms Nurten Güney-Görres against Securicor Aviation Limited, Securicor Aviation (Germany) Limited, and Kötter Aviation Security GmbH & Co. KG.
   (Case C-232/04)
   (2004/C 228/38)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Arbeitsgericht Düsseldorf (Labour Court Düsseldorf) (Germany) of 5 May 2004 received at the Court Registry on 3 June 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ms Nurten Güney-Görres against Securicor Aviation Limited, Securicor Aviation (Germany) Limited and Kötter Aviation Security GmbH & Co. KG on the following question:

               1.

               In examining whether there is — irrespective of the question of ownership — a transfer of a business within the meaning of Article 1 of Directive 2001/23/EC (1) in the context of a fresh award of a contract, does the transfer of the assets from the original contractor to the new contractor — having regard to all the facts — presuppose their transfer for independent commercial use by the transferee? By extension, is conferment on the contractor of a right to determine the manner in which the assets are to be used in its own commercial interest the essential criterion for a transfer of assets? On that basis, is it necessary to determine the operational significance of the contracting authority's assets for the service provided by the contractor?

               2.

               If the Court answers Question 1 in the affirmative:

                           (a)

                           Is it precluded to classify assets as being for independent commercial use if they are made available to the contractor by the contracting authority solely for their use and responsibility for maintaining those assets, including the associated costs, is borne by the contracting authority?

                           (b)

                           Is there independent commercial use by the contractor when, for the purpose of conducting airport security checks, it uses the walk-through metal detectors, hand-held metal detectors and X-ray equipment supplied by the contracting authority?

      (1)  OJ L 82 of 22.3.2001, p. 16.


title: Case C-663/16 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 July 2017 — Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann GmbH, Ecolab Deutschland GmbH v European Chemicals Agency (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 — Making available on the market and use of biocidal products — Article 95 — European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) — Publication of a list of active substances — Inclusion of a company as a supplier of an active substance)

text:
               11.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/9

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 July 2017 — Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann GmbH, Ecolab Deutschland GmbH v European Chemicals Agency
   (Case C-663/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 - Making available on the market and use of biocidal products - Article 95 - European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) - Publication of a list of active substances - Inclusion of a company as a supplier of an active substance))
   (2017/C 300/11)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann GmbH, Ecolab Deutschland GmbH (represented by: M. Grunchard and K. Van Maldegem, avocats, and P. Sellar, Advocate)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Chemicals Agency (represented by: M. Heikkilä and C. Buchanan, Agents, and P. Oliver, Barrister)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann GmbH and Ecolab Deutschland GmbH shall pay the costs.

               3.

               Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann GmbH, Ecolab Deutschland GmbH, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), BASF SE and Oxea GmbH shall each bear their own costs relating to the application for leave to intervene.

      (1)  OJ C 53, 20.2.2017.


title: Case T-111/06: Action brought on  12 April 2006  — Wesergold Getränkeindustrie v OHIM — Lidl Stiftung (VITAL& FIT)

text:
               17.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/32

         Action brought on 12 April 2006 — Wesergold Getränkeindustrie v OHIM — Lidl Stiftung (VITAL& FIT)
   (Case T-111/06)
   (2006/C 143/64)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Wesergold Getränkeindustrie GmbH & Co. KG (Rinteln, Germany) (represented by: P. Godenbaum, T. Melchert and I. Rohr, Rechtsanwälte)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 16 February 2006 (R 3/2005-2);

               —

               order the OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘VITAL& FIT’ for goods in Class 32 (Application no. 1 457 951).
   Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The German word mark ‘VITAFIT’ no. 1 050 163 for goods in Class 32.
   Decision of the Opposition Division: Grant of the opposition
   Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejection of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Misinterpretation of the subject of the appeal by the Board of Appeal (Article 62(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1)); breach of the right to a fair hearing and the obligation to state reasons (Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94); breach of the obligation to take into account the facts and evidence which were not submitted late (Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94); breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94, as there is no likelihood of confusion between the opposing trade marks.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1)


title: Case F-4/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 6 November 2014  — DH v Parliament (Civil service — Probationary official — Article 34 of the Staff Regulations — Probation report establishing the obvious inadequacy of the probationary official — Extension of the probationary period — Reassignment — Dismissal at the end of the probationary period — Conditions under which the probationary period progressed — Professional incompetence — Duty of care — Principle of sound administration)

text:
               15.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 448/38

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 6 November 2014 — DH v Parliament
   (Case F-4/14) (1)

   ((Civil service - Probationary official - Article 34 of the Staff Regulations - Probation report establishing the obvious inadequacy of the probationary official - Extension of the probationary period - Reassignment - Dismissal at the end of the probationary period - Conditions under which the probationary period progressed - Professional incompetence - Duty of care - Principle of sound administration))
   (2014/C 448/47)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: DH (represented by: A. Salerno and B. Cortese, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: S. Alves and M. Ecker, Agents)

      Re:

   Application to annul the decision to dismiss the applicant at the end of the probationary period.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders DH to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament.

      (1)  OJ C 61, 1/3/2014, p. 22.


title: Case C-473/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 29 August 2016 — F v Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal

text:
               14.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 419/31

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 29 August 2016 — F v Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal
   (Case C-473/16)
   (2016/C 419/40)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: F

      Defendant: Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal

      Questions referred

               1.

               In the light of Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must Article 4 of Directive 2004/83/EC (1) be interpreted as not precluding a forensic psychologist’s expert opinion based on projective personality tests from being sought and evaluated, in relation to LGBTI applicants for asylum, when in order to formulate that opinion no questions are asked about the applicant for asylum’s sexual habits and that applicant is not subject to a physical examination?

               2.

               If the expert opinion referred to in question 1 may not be used as proof, must Article 4 of Directive 2004/83 be interpreted, in the light of Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as meaning that when the asylum application is based on persecution on grounds of sexual orientation, neither the national administrative authorities nor the courts have any possibility of examining, by expert methods, the truthfulness of the applicant for asylum’s claims, irrespective of the particular characteristics of those methods?

      (1)  Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12).


title: Case C-393/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 29 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 — Organic production of agricultural products — Private inspection bodies — Requirement of an establishment or permanent infrastructure in the Member State where the services are provided — Justifications — Connection with the exercise of official authority — Article 55 EC — Consumer protection)

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 29 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-393/05) (1)

   (Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 - Organic production of agricultural products - Private inspection bodies - Requirement of an establishment or permanent infrastructure in the Member State where the services are provided - Justifications - Connection with the exercise of official authority - Article 55 EC - Consumer protection)
   (2008/C 22/05)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Traversa and G. Braun, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 49 EC — Freedom to provide services — Requirement for inspection bodies in the field of organic production of agricultural products which are approved in another Member State to have a place of business or permanent infrastructure in Austria
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by requiring of private inspection bodies of organically-farmed products approved in another Member State that they maintain an establishment in Austria in order to be able to provide inspection services there, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 10, 14.1.2006.


title: Case T-104/16: Action brought on 16 March 2016 — Puma v EUIPO (FOREVER FASTER)

text:
               10.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/16

         Action brought on 16 March 2016 — Puma v EUIPO (FOREVER FASTER)
   (Case T-104/16)
   (2016/C 165/17)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: M. Schunke, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ‘FOREVER FASTER’ — Application for registration No 1 217 411

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 January 2016 in Case R 770/2015-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision and order the defendant to allow the registration of the term ‘FOREVER FASTER’ for the contested goods;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred before the Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of the principles of equality and sound administration established by European laws.


title: Case C-171/15: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Connexxion Taxi Services BV v Staat der Nederlanden, Transvision BV, Rotterdamse Mobiliteit Centrale RMC BV, Zorgvervoercentrale Nederland BV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public service contracts — Directive 2004/18/EC — Article 45(2) — Personal situation of the candidate or tenderer — Optional grounds of exclusion — Grave professional misconduct — National legislation providing for a case-by-case assessment in accordance with the principle of proportionality — Decisions of the contracting authorities — Directive 89/665/EEC — Judicial review)

text:
               13.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/3

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Connexxion Taxi Services BV v Staat der Nederlanden, Transvision BV, Rotterdamse Mobiliteit Centrale RMC BV, Zorgvervoercentrale Nederland BV
   (Case C-171/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public service contracts - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 45(2) - Personal situation of the candidate or tenderer - Optional grounds of exclusion - Grave professional misconduct - National legislation providing for a case-by-case assessment in accordance with the principle of proportionality - Decisions of the contracting authorities - Directive 89/665/EEC - Judicial review))
   (2017/C 046/03)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Connexxion Taxi Services BV

      Defendants: Staat der Nederlanden, Transvision BV, Rotterdamse Mobiliteit Centrale RMC BV, Zorgvervoercentrale Nederland BV

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               EU law, in particular Article 45(2) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, does not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which requires a contracting authority to assess, in accordance with the principle of proportionality, whether it is in fact appropriate to exclude from a public contract a tenderer which has been guilty of grave professional misconduct.

               2.

               The provisions of Directive 2004/18, in particular those of Article 2 of and Annex VII A, point 17, thereto, read in the light of the principle of equal treatment and the obligation of transparency which derives from that, must be interpreted as precluding a contracting authority from deciding to award a public contract to a tenderer which has been guilty of grave professional misconduct on the ground that the exclusion of that tenderer from the award procedure would be contrary to the principle of proportionality, even though, according to the tender conditions of that contract, a tenderer which has been guilty of grave professional misconduct must necessarily be excluded, without consideration of the proportionality of that sanction.

      (1)  OJ C 213, 29.6.2015.


title: Case T-370/13: Order of the General Court of 7 September 2016 — Gemeente Eindhoven v Commission

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/32

         Order of the General Court of 7 September 2016 — Gemeente Eindhoven v Commission
   (Case T-370/13) (1)

   (2016/C 410/46)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.


title: Case C-34/16: Order of the President of the Court of 23 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Alicante — Spain) — Manuel González Poyato, Ana Belén Tovar García v Banco Popular Español SA

text:
               10.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/31

         Order of the President of the Court of 23 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Alicante — Spain) — Manuel González Poyato, Ana Belén Tovar García v Banco Popular Español SA
   (Case C-34/16) (1)

   (2017/C 112/43)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 136, 18.4.2016.


title: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 April 2002 in Case C-323/00 P: DSG Dradenauer Stahlgesellschaft mbH v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — ECSC — State aid to steel undertakings)

text:
C 156/2                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       29.6.2002
1.    Dismisses the appeal;                                                3.    The Federal Republic of Germany is to bear its own costs.
2.    Orders Ms Campogrande to pay the costs;
                                                                           (1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
(1) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
                    ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                                         of 30 January 2002
                         of 25 April 2002                                  in Case C-151/01 P: La Conqueste SCEA v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
in Case C-323/00 P: DSG Dradenauer Stahlgesellschaft
   mbH v Commission of the European Communities (1)                        (Community protection of geographical indications — Regu-
                                                                           lation (EC) No 1338/2000 — Registration of the name
                                                                           ‘Canard à foie gras du Sud-Ouest’ — Inadmissibility of the
    (Appeal — ECSC — State aid to steel undertakings)                          action for annulment — Appeal manifestly unfounded)
                          (2002/C 156/03)                                                           (2002/C 156/04)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                   (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                          In Case C-151/01 P, La Conqueste SCEA, established in
                                                                           Morlaas (France), represented by A. Lyon-Caen, F. Fabiani and
                                                                           F. Thiriez, avocats, appeal against the order of the Court of
                                                                           First Instance of the European Communities (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                           in Case T-215/00 La Conqueste v Commission [2001] ECR II-
In Case C-323/00 P, DSG Dradenauer Stahlgesellschaft mbH,                  181, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party
represented by U. Theune and M. Luther: Appeal against the                 to the proceedings being: Commission of the European
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European                    Communities (Agents: A.-M. Rouchaud and X. Lewis) — the
Communities (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) in Case                  Court (Second Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric, President
T-234/95 DSG v Commission [2000] ECR II-2603, seeking to                   of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and V. Skouris,
have that judgment set aside, the other parties to the proceed-            Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass,
ings being: Commission of the European Communities (Agent:                 Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 January 2002, in which
K.-D. Borchardt, assisted by professor M. Hilf), Federal Republic          it:
of Germany (Agent: W.-D. Plessing, assisted by W. Kirchhoff
and M. Schütte) and United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:                  1.    Dismisses the action.
P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,
D.A.O. Edward, M. Wathelet, C.W.A. Timmermans and A. Ros-                  2.    Orders La Conqueste SCEA to pay the costs.
as, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General;
R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on , the operative part
of which is as follows:
                                                                           (1) OJ C 173 of 16.6.2001.
1.    The appeal is dismissed.
2.    DSG Dradenauer Stahlwerke mbH is to pay the costs.


title: Case C-21/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 July 2015 — European Commission v Rusal Armenal ZAO, Council of the European Union (Appeal — Dumping — Imports of certain aluminium foil originating in Armenia, Brazil and China — Accession of the Republic of Armenia to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) — Article 2(7) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 — Whether compatible with the Agreement on implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT))

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/7

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 July 2015 — European Commission v Rusal Armenal ZAO, Council of the European Union
   (Case C-21/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Dumping - Imports of certain aluminium foil originating in Armenia, Brazil and China - Accession of the Republic of Armenia to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) - Article 2(7) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 - Whether compatible with the Agreement on implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT)))
   (2015/C 311/08)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, M. França and T. Maxian Rusche, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Rusal Armenal ZAO (represented by B. Evtimov, lawyer), Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert and J. P. Hix, Agents, and by B. O’Connor, Solicitor, and S. Gubel, avocat)

      Intervener in support of the appellant: European Parliament (represented by D. Warin and A. Auersperger Matić, Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Rusal Armenal v Council (T-512/09, EU:T:2013:571);

               2)

               Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for it to rule on the pleas in law on which it did not adjudicate;

               3)

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.


title: Case C-92/07: Action brought on 16 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/23

         Action brought on 16 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-92/07)
   (2007/C 95/42)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P.J. Kuijper and S. Boelaert, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by introducing and maintaining a system of administrative fees for the issue of residence permits which are higher than those imposed on nationals of Member States and nationals of Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland for the issue of an equivalent document, and by applying that system to Turkish nationals who have a right of residence in the Netherlands on the basis of the Association Agreement (1), the Additional Protocol (2) or Decision No 1/80 (3), the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Association Agreement, in particular Article 9, the Additional Protocol, in particular Article 41, and Decision No 1/80, in particular Articles 10(1) and 13;

               —

               order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission finds that the rates of administrative fees for residence permits which the Netherlands have imposed since 1994 on Turkish nationals are at variance with the standstill and non-discrimination provisions of the Association Agreement, the Additional Protocol and Decision No 1/80.
   Under the standstill provisions of the Additional Protocol and Decision No 1/80, a Member State is not entitled to introduce any new measure having the purpose or effect of making the rights which Turkish nationals derive from the Association Agreement, the Additional Protocol and Decision No 1/80, and the right of residence closely connected thereto, subject to more stringent conditions. In the Commission's view, the Netherlands administrative fees in question infringe those standstill provisions inasmuch as they were introduced after the standstill provisions had entered into force for the Netherlands and inasmuch as they hinder or make less attractive the exercise of the rights which Turkish nationals derive from the Association Agreement, the Additional Protocol and Decision No 1/80.
   The Commission submits further that, in so far as the Netherlands make Turkish nationals subject to the payment of administrative fees for residence permits, such fees may not, pursuant to the provisions on non-discrimination contained in the Association Agreement and Decision No 1/80, be higher than those imposed, in respect of equivalent documents, on EU nationals and nationals of Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland.

      (1)  Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, approved and confirmed by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963 (OJ 1973 C 113).

      (2)  Additional Protocol, approved by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 of 19 December 1972 (OJ 1973 C 113).

      (3)  Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association.


title: Case C-491/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hessischen Verwaltungsgerichtshofes by order of that Court of 1 October 2003 in the case of Volkswirt Weinschänken GmbH against Stadt Frankfurt am Main

text:
C 47/14               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                          21.2.2004
3.   In assessing the amount of damages, in addition to the             2.   If the first question is answered in the affirmative: are
     restitution of sums charged in breach of Community                      Article 2(1) and Article 17 of the Sixth Directive to be
     rules, is the national court required (again as a matter of             interpreted as meaning that all services obtained in
     Community law) to award the injured party a sum by way                  connection with a listing on the stock market are to be
     of punitive damages against those persons responsible                   attributed to an exempt supply and that for that reason
     for the prohibited agreement or abuse of a dominant                     there is no right to a deduction of input tax?
     position?
4.   Does Community law also require the payment of                     3.   If the first question is answered in the negative: is there a
     damages for non-material loss?                                          right under Article 17(1) and (2) of the Sixth Directive to
                                                                             deduct input tax on the ground that the services in respect
                                                                             of which a deduction of input tax is claimed (advertising,
5.   As a matter of Community law, is the national court
                                                                             agent’s fees, and legal and technical advice) are used for
     required of its own motion to order the payment of
                                                                             the purposes of the undertaking’s taxable transactions?
     punitive damages or damages for non-material loss?
6.   Is the limitation period of one year for bringing an action
     for damages for breach of Articles 81 and 82 EC under              (1) OJ L 145, p. 1.
     Italian law too short and therefore in conflict with
     Community law?
7.   As a matter of Community law, for the purposes of the
     limitation period for bringing an action for damages,
     does time begin to run from the day on which the
     infringement of Articles 81 and 82 EC was committed or
     the day on which that infringement came to an end?
8.   Does Community law require national courts to disapply
     national rules in conflict with Community law or rather
     to interpret them so as to comply with Community law?              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hessischen
                                                                        Verwaltungsgerichtshofes by order of that Court of
                                                                        1 October 2003 in the case of Volkswirt Weinschänken
                                                                                GmbH against Stadt Frankfurt am Main
                                                                                (Case C-491/03)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängigen
Finanzsenats der Außenstelle Linz by order of that Court
of 20 October 2003 in the case of Kretztechnik AG                                                 (2004/C 47/24)
                    against Finanzamt Linz
                        (Case C-465/03)
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                         (2004/C 47/23)
                                                                        European Communities by order of the Hessischen Verwal-
                                                                        tungsgerichtshofes of 1 October 2003, received at the Court
                                                                        Registry on 20 November 2003, for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                        the case of Volkswirt Weinschänken GmbH against Stadt
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  Frankfurt am Main on the following questions:
European Communities by order of the Unabhängigen Fi-
nanzsenats der Außenstelle Linz of 20 October 2003, received
at the Court Registry on 5 November 2003, for a preliminary             1.   A local beverage duty bye-law defines as the subject-
ruling in the case of Kretztechnik AG against Finanzamt Linz                 matter of that duty ‘the sale of alcoholic beverages for
on the following questions:                                                  immediate consumption’, and as such a sale ‘any sale for
                                                                             consumption on the premises’. Is this duty another
1.   In becoming listed on a stock market and in issuing                     indirect tax on products subject to excise duty for the
     shares in that connection to new shareholders in return                 purposes of Article 3(1) and (2) of Council Directive
     for the issue price, does a public limited company                      92/12/EEC (1) of 25 February 1992 on the general
     make a supply for consideration within the meaning of                   arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on
     Article 2(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of                   the holding, movement and monitoring of such products,
     17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the                     or is it a tax on the supply of services relating to products
     Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common                       subject to excise duty, within the meaning of the second
     system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment? (1)             subparagraph of Article 3(3) of Directive 92/12/EEC?
 ---pagebreak--- 21.2.2004                EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 47/15
2.     If the answer to the second alternative in question 1.                          failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4, 8 and
       above is in the affirmative:                                                    9 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC (1) on waste, as
                                                                                amended by Directive 91/156/EEC. (2)
       Does the proviso ‘subject to the same proviso’ contained
       in the second subparagraph of Article 3(3) of Directive
       92/12/EEC refer, also on taxation of the supply of services         —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
       relating to products subject to excise duty as defined by
       Article 3(1) of Directive 92/12/EEC, only to the condition
       laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 3(3) of that
       directive, namely ‘provided, however, that those taxes do
       not give rise to border-crossing formalities in trade               Pleas in law and main arguments
       between Member States’, or in such a case must ‘specific
       purposes’ for the tax, as laid down in Article 3(2) of the
       directive, also exist?                                              According to the most recent records (December 2002), 1458
                                                                           unlawful and uncontrolled waste tips are operating which
                                                                           receive waste from 47 % of the country’s population.
(1) OJ L 76, p. 1.
                                                                           The Greek authorities informed the Commission that the
                                                                           programme to reduce unlawful and uncontrolled waste dis-
                                                                           posal sites and their replacement with lawful landfill sites
                                                                           meeting public health requirements will only be completed at
                                                                           the end of 2007.
Action brought on 26 November 2003 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the Hel-                       The Commission considers that, inasmuch as it is allowing the
                           lenic Republic                                  unlawful and uncontrolled sites to operate on its territory, the
                                                                           Hellenic Republic is in breach of its obligations under
                                                                           Articles 4, 8 and 9 of Directive 75/442/EEC on waste, as
                          (Case C-502/03)                                  amended by Directive 91/156/EEC.
                           (2004/C 47/25)                                  (1) OJ L 194 of 25.07.1975, p. 39.
                                                                           (2) OJ L 78 of 26.3.1991, p. 32.
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 Nov-
ember 2003 by the Commission of the European Communi-
ties, represented by M. Konstantinidis, of its Legal Service.
The Commission claims that the Court should:                               Action brought on 1 December 2003 (fax 26 November
                                                                           2003) by the Federal Republic of Germany against the
—      declare that, by failing to take all the measures necessary:                 Commission of the European Communities
       —     to ensure that waste is disposed of without
             endangering human health and without harming                                            (Case C-506/03)
             the environment,
                                                                                (2004/C 47/26)
       —     to prohibit the abandonment, dispοsal and uncon-
             trolled treatment of waste, to ensure that any holder
             of waste has it handled by a private or public waste
             collector or by an undertaking which carries out
             disposal, or disposes of it himself, in accordance            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
             with the measures taken under Article 4,                      ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                           Communities on 1 December 2003 (fax 26 November 2003)
       —     to ensure that the establishments or undertakings             by the Federal Republic of Germany, represented by Wolf-
             which carry out disposal operations operate under a           Dieter Plessing, Ministerialrat in the Federal Ministry of Finance,
             permit from the competent authority or under a                and Christoph von Donat, Rechtsanwalt, with an address for
             permit which meets the legal requirements, has                service at the Federal Ministry for Finance, Berlin (Germany).


title: Case T-602/11: Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2014  — Pêra-Grave v OHIM — Fundação Eugénio de Almeida (Q TA S. JOSÉ DE PERAMANCA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark Q TA S. JOSÉ DE PERAMANCA — Earlier national figurative marks VINHO PERA-MANCA TINTO, VINHO PERA-MANCA BRANCO and PÊRA-MANCA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2014 — Pêra-Grave v OHIM — Fundação Eugénio de Almeida (QTA S. JOSÉ DE PERAMANCA)
   (Case T-602/11) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark QTA S. JOSÉ DE PERAMANCA - Earlier national figurative marks VINHO PERA-MANCA TINTO, VINHO PERA-MANCA BRANCO and PÊRA-MANCA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2014/C 112/36
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Pêra-Grave — Sociedade Agrícola, Unipessoal Lda (Evora, Portugal) (represented by: J. de Oliveira Vaz Miranda Sousa, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Fundação Eugénio de Almeida (Evora) (represented by: B. Braga da Cruz and J. Pimenta, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 September 2011 (Case R 1797/2010-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Fundação Eugénio de Almeida and Pêra-Grave — Sociedade Agrícola, Unipessoal Lda.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Pêra-Grave — Sociedade Agrícola, Unipessoal Lda to pay the costs, including the costs necessarily incurred by Fundação Eugénio de Almeida for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

      (1)  OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.


title: Case T-373/94: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2006 — Werners v Council and Commission (Actions for damages — Non-contractual liability — Milk — Additional levy — Reference quantity — Producers who entered into a non-marketing undertaking — SLOM 1984 producers — Failure to resume production on expiry of the undertaking)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/27

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2006 — Werners v Council and Commission
   (Case T-373/94) (1)

   (Actions for damages - Non-contractual liability - Milk - Additional levy - Reference quantity - Producers who entered into a non-marketing undertaking - SLOM 1984 producers - Failure to resume production on expiry of the undertaking)
   (2006/C 331/60)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: R.W. Werners (Meppel, Netherlands) (represented by: initially H. Bronkhorst and E. Pijnacker Hordijk, lawyers, and subsequently E. Pijnacker Hordijk)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially A. Brautigam and A.-M. Colaert, Agents, and subsequently A.-M. Colaert,) and Commission of the European Communities (represented by: initially T. van Rijn, Agent, assisted by H.J. Rabe, lawyer, and subsequently T. van Rijn)
   Re:
   Action for compensation pursuant to Article 178 of the EC Treaty (now Article 235 EC) and the second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty (now the second paragraph of Article 288 EC) for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant by reason of the fact that he was prevented from marketing milk in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector (OJ 1984 L 90, p. 13), as supplemented by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1371/84 of 16 May 1984 laying down detailed rules for the application of the additional levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 (OJ 1984 L 132, p. 11).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr R.W. Werners to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 370, 24.12.1994.


title: Case T-323/17: Action brought on 29 May 2017 — Martinair Holland v Commission

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/51

         Action brought on 29 May 2017 — Martinair Holland v Commission
   (Case T-323/17)
   (2017/C 239/65)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Martinair Holland NV (Haarlemmermeer, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Smeets, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision C(2017) 1742 final of 17 March 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case AT.39258 — Airfreight) in whole for a violation of the prohibition of arbitrariness and the principle of equal treatment in accordance with its first plea; for lack of jurisdiction over air transport from airports outside the EEA to airports within the EEA in accordance with its second plea (in primary order); or

               —

               annul Articles 1(2)(d) and 1(3)(d) of the contested decision, in so far as it is found in these provisions that the applicant committed an infringement in relation to air transport from airports outside the EEA to airports within the EEA, in accordance with its second plea (in subsidiary order); and

               —

               annul Article 1 and Article 1(1)(d), 1(2)(d), 1(3)(d) and 1(4)(d) of the contested decision, in so far as it is found there that the single and continuous infringement included the non-commissioning of surcharges, in accordance with its third plea; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings if the Court annuls the contested decision in whole or in part.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a violation of the prohibition of arbitrariness and the principle of equal treatment.

                           —

                           The applicant puts forward that the contested decision violates the prohibition of arbitrariness by excluding undertakings from the operative part of the contested decision which, according to its statement of reasons, have taken part in the same behaviour as the addressees of the contested decision.

                           —

                           The applicant further puts forward that the contested decision violates the principle of equal treatment by sanctioning the applicant for an infringement and imposing a fine on the applicant, and exposing it to civil liability, while undertakings are excluded from the operative part which, according to its statement of reasons, have taken part in the same behaviour as the addressees of the contested decision.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a lack of jurisdiction over air cargo transport from airports outside the EEA to airports in the EEA.

                           —

                           The applicant puts forward that the contested decision wrongly relies on the assumption that the single and continuous infringement concerning air transport from airports outside the EEA to airports in the EEA was implemented in the EEA.

                           —

                           The applicant further puts forward that the contested decision wrongly relies on the assumption that the single and continuous infringement concerning air transport from airports outside the EEA to airports in the EEA had a substantial, immediate and foreseeable effect on competition in the EEA.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons and manifest error of assessment in finding that the non-commissioning of surcharges constitutes a separate element of the infringement.

                           —

                           The applicant puts forward that the two assumptions on which the contested decision relies to qualify non-commissioning of surcharges as a separate element of the infringement, are contradictory in light of the economic and regulatory context of the industry concerned.

                           —

                           The applicant further puts forward that the non-commissioning of surcharges is indistinguishable from the practices regarding the fuel surcharge and the security surcharge, and does not constitute a separate element of the infringement.


title: Case C-289/10 P: Appeal brought on 10 June 2010 by European Dynamics SA against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 19 March 2010 in Case T-50/05: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/20

         Appeal brought on 10 June 2010 by European Dynamics SA against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 19 March 2010 in Case T-50/05: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission
   (Case C-289/10 P)
   ()
   2010/C 246/35
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: European Dynamics SA (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, Attorney at Law)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the decision of the General Court

               —

               annul the decision of the Commission (DG Taxation and Customs Union) to reject the bid of the Appellant, filed in response to the Call for Tender TAXUD/2004/AO-004 for the ‘Specification, Development, Maintenance and Support of Telematic Systems to Control the Movements of Products Subject to Excise Duty within the European Community under the Excise-Duty Suspension Arrangement (EMCS-DEV)’ (OJ 2004/S 139-118603) and to award the same Call for Tender to another bidder

               —

               order the Commission to pay the Appellant's legal and other costs including those incurred in connection with the initial procedure, even if the current Appeal is rejected as well as those of the current Appeal, in case it is accepted.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Appellant submits that the contested judgment should be set aside on the following grounds:

               First, because the General Court committed an error in law, by adopting an erroneous interpretation of Article 89 (1) of the Financial Regulation and of the principles of equality of treatment, non-discrimination, transparency and freedom of competition, when it rejected the plea of the Appellant that two types of technical information that were necessary for the formulation of tenders for the contract at issue, namely the exact specifications for the EMCS and the source-code and design and technical documentation for the NCTS were not made available to the appellant.

               Second, the Appellant submits that the General Court erred in law when it concluded that the statement of reasons provided by the Commission enabled the Appellant to assert its rights. More specifically, the GC erred in considering that DG TAXUD communicated to the Appellant sufficient information ‘enabling it to assert its rights and the GC to exercise its review’.

               Thirdly, the Court erred at par. 102-116 of the judgment when it considered that the Appellant did not substantiate its claim that the award criteria were ‘vague and subjective’. The Appellant considers, especially in the light of the total uncertainty on the scope of the work and the degree of potential re-use of NCTS requested by the contracting authority, that Article 97 par. 1 of the Financial Regulation and Article 17 par. 1 of Directive 92/50 (1) have been infringed.

               Finally, the Appellant considers that the General Court appears to err in law by stating, with regard to the plea as to the manifest error of assessment, that the Appellant limited its arguments to general assertions and consequently failed to show whether, and in what way, the alleged errors affected the final outcome of the evaluation of the tender.

      (1)  Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, OJ L 209, 24.07.1992, p. 1


title: Case T-431/08: Action brought on 1 October 2008 — Bulur Giyim Sanayi ve Ticaret Sirketi v OHIM — Denim (VIGOSS)

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/46

         Action brought on 1 October 2008 — Bulur Giyim Sanayi ve Ticaret Sirketi v OHIM — Denim (VIGOSS)
   (Case T-431/08)
   (2008/C 313/84)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Bulur Giyim Sanayi ve Ticaret Sirketi (Istanbul, Turkey) (represented by: R. Böhm, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: A V Denim, Inc. (trading as A&V Denim, Inc.) (New York, United States)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 July 2008 in case R 1366/2007-2, insofar as it dismissed the appeal lodged by the applicant against the decision of the Opposition Division of 26 June 2007 ruling on opposition No B 923 005; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘VIGOSS’ for goods in classes 14, 18 and 25

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

      Mark or sign cited: International trade mark registration No 771 374 of the figurative mark ‘VIGOSS’ for goods in class 25

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially rejected the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partially annulled the contested decision and dismissed the appeal for the reminder

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal failed to take into account all relevant factors when assessing the likelihood of confusion between the conflicting trade marks.


title: Case T-206/10: Action brought on 30 April 2010 — Vesteda Groep v Commission

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/53

         Action brought on 30 April 2010 — Vesteda Groep v Commission
   (Case T-206/10)
   2010/C 179/90
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Vesteda Groep BV (Maastricht, Netherlands) (represented by: G. van der Wal and T. Boesman, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission’s decision of 15 December 2009;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 26 final of 15 December 2009 relating to State aid E 2/2005 and N 642/2009 (Netherlands) — Existing and special project aid to housing corporations. The applicant relies on three pleas in law in support of its application.
   First, the applicant submits that, at paragraphs 25 to 37 of the contested decision, the Commission erred in law in finding that the Netherlands system of financing social housing and all changes to that system since the introduction of the EEC Treaty constitute existing aid and that, on that basis, the Commission’s assessment is made in the context of Article 108(1) TFEU and Chapter 5 of Regulation No 659/1999. (1) According to the applicant, the Commission made errors of assessment, its examination of the changes to that system was inadequate and it gave insufficient reasons for the contested decision.
   Second, according to the applicant, the Commission erred in law in the contested decision in accepting on the basis of Article 19 of Regulation No 659/1999 the measures proposed by the Netherlands as referred to in Article 19(1) of Regulation No 659/1999. The appropriate measures accepted by the Commission are inadequate and/or are not suitable for ensuring that the existing aid is compatible with Articles 107 TFEU and 106 TFEU. Furthermore, the Commission applied the requirements of Article 106(2) TFEU incorrectly and gave insufficient reasons for its decision.
   Third, the applicant submits that the Commission erred in law in neglecting to initiate the procedure provided for under Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 4(4) of Regulation No 659/1999.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).


title: Case F-134/07: Action brought on 3 December 2007 — Adjemian and Others v Commission

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/66

         Action brought on 3 December 2007 — Adjemian and Others v Commission
   (Case F-134/07)
   (2008/C 64/109)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Vahan Adjemian (Angera, Italy) and Others (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   The subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Annulment of the decisions of the Commission, first, refusing to renew the engagement of the applicants as contract staff for a fixed or indefinite period and, second, laying down conditions of employment. In support of their action, the applicants rely on infringement of the principle of stability of employment relations and in particular the unlawfulness of Article 88 of the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Communities (‘Conditions of Employment’) in so far as it limits the duration of the contracts of contract staff.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the successive decisions of the Commission and in particular that of 28 April 2004 concerning the maximum duration of the recourse to non-permanent staff in its services;

               —

               Declare Article 88 of the Conditions of Employment unlawful in so far as it limits the duration of the contracts for contract staff;

               —

               Annul the decisions of the Commission of 23 August and 31 October 2007 rejecting complaints R/263/07, R/492/07 and R/390/07 brought against the decisions of the Commission to conclude contracts with or to renew the engagement of the applicants as contract staff only for a fixed period;

               —

               Annul the decision of the Commission of 5 September 2007 rejecting the applications of the applicants of 31 May and 20 July 2007 seeking the extension for an indefinite period of the applicants' contracts as members of the contract staff;

               —

               Annul the decisions of the Commission which lay down the respective conditions of the employment of the applicants in so far as their engagement or the extension thereof is limited to a fixed period;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case T-256/10 P: Appeal brought on 9 June 2010 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 25 March 2010 in Case F-102/08, Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/49

         Appeal brought on 9 June 2010 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 25 March 2010 in Case F-102/08, Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-256/10 P)
   ()
   2010/C 221/80
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

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

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               In any event, set aside in its entirety and without exception the order under appeal.

               —

               Declare that the action at first instance, in relation to which the order under appeal was made, was perfectly admissible.

               —

               Allow in its entirety and without any exception whatsoever the relief sought by the appellant at first instance.

               —

               Order the Commission to reimburse the appellant in respect of all costs, disbursements and fees incurred by him in relation to both the proceedings at first instance and the present appeal proceedings.

               —

               In the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal, sitting in a different formation, for a fresh decision.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present appeal is brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) of 25 March 2010. That order dismissed as partly manifestly inadmissible and partly manifestly unfounded an action seeking a declaration that there was no legal basis for or, in the alternative, the annulment of the Commission’s decision refusing to send to the appellant a copy of the photographs taken when his personal effects were removed from his lodgings in Luanda (Angola) and to destroy every document relating to that removal, together with an order that the Commission pay compensation to the appellant for the damage resulting from the fact that it proceeded with the removal against the appellant’s will.
   In support of his claims, the appellant alleges a total failure to state reasons and infringement of rules governing evidence, the principle of the equality of the parties before the Community judicature, Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the CST, the Commission’s duty to have regard for the welfare of the appellant and the duty of sound administration.
   The appellant also submits that the CST failed to give a ruling on three of his claims.