title: Joined Cases C-186/14 P and C 193/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 April 2016 — ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Ostrava a.s. and Others v Hubei Xinyegang Steel Co. Ltd, Council of the European Union, European Commission and Council of the European Union v Italian Republic and Others (Appeal — Dumping — Regulation (EC) No 384/96 — Article 3(5), (7) and (9) — Article 6(1) — Regulation (EC) No 926/2009 — Imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel originating in China — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Determination of a threat of injury — Taking into account of post-investigation period data)

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/6

      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 April 2016 — ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Ostrava a.s. and Others v Hubei Xinyegang Steel Co. Ltd, Council of the European Union, European Commission and Council of the European Union v Italian Republic and Others
      (Joined Cases C-186/14 P and C 193/14 P) (1)

      ((Appeal - Dumping - Regulation (EC) No 384/96 - Article 3(5), (7) and (9) - Article 6(1) - Regulation (EC) No 926/2009 - Imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel originating in China - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Determination of a threat of injury - Taking into account of post-investigation period data))
      (2016/C 211/06)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

      (Case C-186/14 P)

         Appellants: ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Ostrava a.s., ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Roman SA, Benteler Deutschland GmbH, formerly Benteler Stahl/Rohr GmbH, Ovako Tube & Ring AB, Rohrwerk Maxhütte GmbH, Dalmine SpA, Silcotub SA, TMK-Artrom, Tubos Reunidos SA, Vallourec Oil and Gas France SAS, formerly Vallourec Mannesmann Oil & Gas France SAS, Vallourec Tubes France SAS, formerly V & M France SAS, Vallourec Deutschland GmbH, formerly V & M Deutschland GmbH, Voestalpine Tubulars GmbH & Co. KG, Železiarne Podbrezová a.s. (represented by: G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt, and B. Byrne, Solicitor)

         Other parties to the proceedings: Hubei Xinyegang Steel Co. Ltd (represented by: N. Niejahr, Rechtsanwältin, Q. Azau and H. Wiame, avocats, and by F. Carlin, Barrister), Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, and by B. O’Connor, Solicitor, and S. Gubel, avocat), European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and M. França, acting as Agents)
      (Case C-193/14 P)

         Appellants: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, and by B. O’Connor, Solicitor, and S. Gubel, avocat), Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and by A. Collabolletta, avvocato dello Stato)

         Other parties to the proceedings: Hubei Xinyegang Steel Co. Ltd (represented by: F. Carlin, Barrister, M. Healy, Solicitor, N. Niejahr, Rechtsanwältin, and Q. Azau and H. Wiame, avocats), European Commission (represented by J.-F. Brakeland and M. França, acting as Agents), ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Ostrava a.s., ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Roman SA, Benteler Deutschland GmbH, formerly Benteler Stahl/Rohr GmbH, Ovako Tube & Ring AB, Rohrwerk Maxhütte GmbH, Dalmine SpA, Silcotub SA, TMK-Artrom SA, Tubos Reunidos SA, Vallourec Oil and Gas France SAS, formerly Vallourec Mannesmann Oil & Gas France SAS, Vallourec Tubes France SAS, formerly V & M France SAS, Vallourec Deutschland GmbH, formerly V & M Deutschland GmbH, Voestalpine Tubulars GmbH & Co. KG, Železiarne Podbrezová a.s. (represented by: G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt, and B. Byrne, Solicitor)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the appeals brought in Cases C-186/14 P and C-193/14 P;

                  2.

                  Orders ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Ostrava a.s., ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Roman SA, Benteler Deutschland GmbH, Ovako Tube & Ring AB, Rohrwerk Maxhütte GmbH, Dalmine SpA, Silcotub SA, TMK-Artrom SA, Tubos Reunidos SA, Vallourec Oil and Gas France SAS, Vallourec Tubes France SAS, Vallourec Deutschland GmbH, Voestalpine Tubulars GmbH & Co. KG, Železiarne Podbrezová a.s. and the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;

                  3.

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

         (1)  OJ C 212, 7.7.2014


title: Case C-243/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel (Belgium)) — RVS Levensverzekeringen NV v Belgische Staat (Direct life assurance — Annual tax on assurance transactions — Directive 2002/83/EC — Articles 1(1)(g) and 50 — Definition of ‘Member State of the commitment’ — Assurance undertaking established in the Netherlands — Policyholder having taken out an assurance contract in the Netherlands and transferred his habitual residence to Belgium after the contract was concluded — Freedom to provide services)

text:
               20.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 114/10

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel (Belgium)) — RVS Levensverzekeringen NV v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-243/11) (1)

   (Direct life assurance - Annual tax on assurance transactions - Directive 2002/83/EC - Articles 1(1)(g) and 50 - Definition of ‘Member State of the commitment’ - Assurance undertaking established in the Netherlands - Policyholder having taken out an assurance contract in the Netherlands and transferred his habitual residence to Belgium after the contract was concluded - Freedom to provide services)
   2013/C 114/12
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: RVS Levensverzekeringen NV

      Respondent: Belgische Staat

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel — Interpretation of Article 50 of Directive 2002/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 concerning life assurance (OJ 2002 L 345, p. 1) — National rule subjecting insurance transactions to an annual tax when the risk is situated in Belgium, either because the natural person insured is habitually resident there or because the legal person insured is established there — Assurance undertaking established in the Netherlands, without any presence in Belgium except for one of its policyholders, who moved to Belgium after the contract was concluded — Place of taxation — Article 49 and Article 56 TFEU — Restrictions

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 50 of Directive 2002/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 concerning life assurance must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from collecting an indirect tax on life assurance premiums paid by policyholders who are natural persons having their habitual residence in that Member State, when the assurance contracts concerned were taken out in another Member State in which those policyholders had their habitual residence on the date the contracts were taken out.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.


title: Case T-7/14 P: Appeal brought on 2 January 2014 by BQ against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 23 October 2013 in Case F-39/12, BQ v Court of Auditors

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/40

         Appeal brought on 2 January 2014 by BQ against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 23 October 2013 in Case F-39/12, BQ v Court of Auditors
   (Case T-7/14 P)
   2014/C 112/53
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: BQ (Bereldange, Luxembourg) (represented by D. de Abreu Caldas and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: the Court of Auditors of the European Union

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) delivered on 23 October 2013 in Case F-39/12 (BQ v Court of Auditors);

               —

               Order the Court of Auditors to pay the costs

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging error in law as to the requirements for the liability of the European Union to be incurred when implementing Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, in that the CST required that the incident incompatible with the order and tranquillity of the service have an impact on the operation of the service and the health of the protagonists, though that requirement is not provided for either by the Staff Regulations or by case-law. The appellant further argues that the CST distorted the facts in holding, first, that the Court of Auditors took all necessary measures to restore the proper functioning of the service and, secondly, that the disruption to the service had no impact on the health of the protagonists, though the Court of Auditors did not act sufficiently quickly and decisively to end the situation of conflict which caused the appellant’s permanent total disability (paragraphs 67 and 68 of the judgment under appeal).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an error of law in the judicial review of legality conducted by the CST when it stated that the medical assessments setting out the existence of mental disorders resulting from psychological harassment to which the appellant was subject whilst at work do not make it possible to establish that the appellant was indeed the victim of harassment. The appellant claims that the Tribunal is not competent to question medical assessments and draw inferences to the contrary (paragraphs 69 and 70 of the judgment under appeal).

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality resulting from the CST assessing in the amount of EUR 2 000 the damage resulting from the delay of more than two years in providing the appellant with the investigation report, without providing the appellant with a statement of reasons allowing him to understand the criteria which led to the determination of that amount. The appellant submits that the CST did not take account of the context in which the damage occurred.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging an error of law in the allocation of costs.


title: Case C-564/16 P: Appeal brought on 7 November 2016 by European Union Intellectual Property Office against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2016 in Case T-159/15: Puma SE v European Union Intellectual Property Office

text:
               20.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/5

         Appeal brought on 7 November 2016 by European Union Intellectual Property Office against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2016 in Case T-159/15: Puma SE v European Union Intellectual Property Office
   (Case C-564/16 P)
   (2017/C 086/07)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf, D. Botis, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Puma SE

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the Judgment under appeal in its entirety;

               —

               Order Puma SE to bear the costs incurred by the Office.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      First, the General Court disregarded the Office’s procedural position and obligations in inter partes proceedings before the Office, infringing Article 76(1) of Regulation 207/2009 (1) and the principle of sound administration, in that it found that Puma ‘duly relied on’ the three previous Office decisions for the purposes complying with its duty to show the reputation of the Puma marks (Rule 19(2)(c) of Regulation No 2868/95 (2)). In doing so, the General Court accepted that this duty can be discharged by means of general and unspecified references to documents submitted in prior opposition proceedings involving different parties — and to which the other party to the proceedings at hand had not been a party.
   Since the Office cannot ignore, but rather needs to respect, the other party’s right to be heard (Article 75 of Regulation 207/2009), the General Court’s finding necessarily obliges the Office to take on an active role in the inter partes proceedings. This undermines the adversarial nature of these proceedings, the Office’s corresponding duty of neutrality, as well as the sound administration of these proceedings.

      Second, in qualifying the previous decisions of the Office invoked by Puma as a ‘decision-making practice’ of the Office, the General Court misconceived both the adversarial nature of the inter partes proceedings and the notion of ‘reputation’ within the meaning of Article 8(5) of Regulation 207/2009. This twofold misconception resulted in a corresponding twofold breach of the principle of sound administration.
   On the one hand, the prerequisite for the very application of the Technopol-case law is not fulfilled in the present — inter partes — case because that case law on the Office’s duty to inquire ex officio the relevant facts of the case to decide only relates to ex parte proceedings. In any event, given the inevitable absence of any specific ‘decisionmaking practice’ of the Office with respect to the reputation of the Puma marks, no duty could possibly exist to state the reasons for not applying the findings made on the Puma marks’ reputation in previous decisions to the situation in the case at hand.
   On the other hand, the General Court could not — without infringing the adversarial principle governing inter partes proceedings laid down in Article 76(1) of Regulation 207/2009 — infer from the principle of sound administration the Board of Appeal’s additional duty to invite, on its own motion, Puma to submit supplementary evidence of the reputation it claimed of its Puma marks.

      Third, the General Court’s finding of the Office’s duty to invite, on its own motion, Puma to submit supplementary evidence moreover infringed Article 76(2) of Regulation 207/2009 (applicable pursuant to Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95) which exclusively applies to submissions made by the parties on their own motion.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark

      OJ 2009, L 78, p. 1

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark

      OJ 1995, L 303, p. 1


title: Case T-250/15: Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2016 — Speciality Drinks Ltd v EUIPO — William Grant (CLAN) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark CLAN — Earlier EU word mark CLAN MACGREGOR — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods covered by the signs at issue — Relevant public — Interdependence of the criteria — Power to alter — Article 65(3) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               27.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2016 — Speciality Drinks Ltd v EUIPO — William Grant (CLAN)
   (Case T-250/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark CLAN - Earlier EU word mark CLAN MACGREGOR - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods covered by the signs at issue - Relevant public - Interdependence of the criteria - Power to alter - Article 65(3) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 063/33)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Speciality Drinks Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: G. Pritchard, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Vuijst, A. Folliard-Monguiral and M. Rajh, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: William Grant & Sons Ltd (Dufftown, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Cormack and G. Anderson, Solicitors)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 March 2015 (Case R 220/2014-1), relating to opposition proceedings between William Grant & Sons Ltd and Speciality Drinks Ltd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Speciality Drinks Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.


title: Case T-39/12 P: Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2013 — Di Tullio v Commission (Appeal — Civil Service — Members of the temporary staff — Leave for national service — Article 18, first indent, of the Conditions of Employment — Temporal effects of a judgment)

text:
               20.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 114/34

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2013 — Di Tullio v Commission
   (Case T-39/12 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil Service - Members of the temporary staff - Leave for national service - Article 18, first indent, of the Conditions of Employment - Temporal effects of a judgment)
   2013/C 114/55
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Roberto di Tullio (Rovigo, Italy) (represented by: initially by S. Woog and T. Bontinck, and subsequently by T. Bontinck, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and V. Joris, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 29 November 2011 in Case F-119/10 Di Tullio v Commission [2011] ECR-SC I-A-0000 and II-A-1-0000, and seeking to have that judgment set aside

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Mr Roberto Di Tullio to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the context of the present proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.


title: Case T-218/07: Action brought on 26 June 2007 — Agroquivir v Council and Commission

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/35

         Action brought on 26 June 2007 — Agroquivir v Council and Commission
   (Case T-218/07)
   (2007/C 211/68)
   Language of the proceedings: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Agroquivir, S. Coop. And. de Segundo Grado (Seville, Spain) (represented by: Luis Ortiz Blanco, lawyer)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities
   Forms of order sought

               —

               to uphold the present action for damages, in accordance with Article 288 EC, and declare that the applicant is entitled to be financially compensated by the Council and the Commission jointly and severally in the sum total of two hundred and eighty-eight thousand two hundred and thirty-eight euros (EUR 288 238);

               —

               to order the defendant institutions to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are those already put forward in Case T-217/07 Las Palmeras v Council and Commission.


title: Case C-511/06 P: Appeal brought on 15 December 2006 by Archer Daniels Midland Co. against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) delivered on 27 September 2006 in Case T-59/02: Archer Daniels Midland Company v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/16

         Appeal brought on 15 December 2006 by Archer Daniels Midland Co. against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) delivered on 27 September 2006 in Case T-59/02: Archer Daniels Midland Company v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-511/06 P)
   (2007/C 56/29)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: Archer Daniels Midland Co. (represented by: C. Lenz, Prof. Dr., L. Martin Alegi, E. Batchelor and M. Garcia, Solicitors)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               (i) set aside the Judgment in so far as it dismisses the application brought by ADM in respect of the Decision;

               —

               (ii) annul Article 3 of the Decision insofar as it pertains to ADM,

               —

               (iii) in the alternative to the point (ii), modify Article 3 of the Decision reduce further or cancel the fine imposed on ADM,

               —

               (iv) in the alternative to (ii) and (iii), refer the case back to the CFI for judgment in accordance with the judgment of the ECJ as to the law;

               —

               (v) in any event, order that he Commission bear its own costs and pay ADM's costs relating to the proceedings before the CFI and the ECJ.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant submits that:

               1.

               The Court of First Instance (CFI) misapplied the law on the rights of defence in determining Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM) was given fair warning of the facts on which the Commission found it to be a leader;

               2.

               The CFI infringed essential procedural safeguards by permitting the Commission to rely on the FBI's summary of an interview with an ADM employee as evidence of leadership;

               3.

               The CFI distorted the evidence by stating that Cerestar's statement as to ADM's leadership is corroborated;

               4.

               The CFI failed to give reasons for dismissing ADM's plea that Cerestar's failure tp identify positively or provide details of Sherpa meetings is fatal to Cerestar's statement that ADM led those meetings;

               5.

               the CFI erroneously concluded that ADM is estopped from disputing the accuracy of Cerestar's statement because it did not do so during the administrative procedure;

               6.

               The CFI infringed the principle that the Commission must follow self-imposed rules by:

                           (a)

                           permitting the Commission to disregard termination of the infringement as a relevant attenuating circumstance;

                           (b)

                           holding it that the Commission had proven impact on a market without defining the relevant market;

               7.

               the CFI infringed the principle of legitimate expectations in applying the Leniency Notice by concluding that ADM was a leader and could not qualify for Section B leniency;

               8.

               the CFI misapplied the law on legitimate expectations in finding that the Commission's representations during the administrative procedure did not give rise to a justified expectation that ADM would receive a reduction in penalty under Section B of the Leniency Notice.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT of 25 May 1998 in Case C-82/97: Bergpracht Milchwerk GmbH & Co. KG and Others v. Commission of the European Communities (Actions brought before the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance for annulment of the same act - Decision of the Court of First Instance declining jurisdiction - Objection of inadmissibility - Referral of proceedings to the Court of First Instance)

text:
5.9.98               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 278/9
2. Costs are reserved.                                               Brown Holding SA, 310 Route d'Esch, L-1471
                                                                     Luxembourg Ð application for annulment of Commission
(1) OJ C 108, 5.4.1997.                                              Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 of 12 June 1996 on the
                                                                     registration of geographical indications and designations
                                                                     of origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of
                                                                     Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (OJ L 148,
                                                                     21.6.1996, p. 1) in so far as it concerns registration of the
                                                                     name feta' as a protected designation of origin Ð the
                                                                     Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,
                 ORDER OF THE COURT                                  C. Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet and R.
                                                                     Schintgen (Rapporteur), Presidents of Chambers, G. F.
                       of 25 May 1998                                Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L.
in Case C-81/97: MD Foods Amba and Danske Mejeriers                  Murray, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P.
Fñllesorganisation v. Commission of the European                     Jann, L. Sevón and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; A. La Pergola,
                        Communities (1)                              Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on
                                                                     25 May 1998, the operative part of which is as follows:
(Actions brought before the Court of Justice and the
Court of First Instance for annulment of the same act Ð
Decision of the Court of First Instance declining
jurisdiction Ð Objection of inadmissibility Ð Referral of            1. Case C-81/97 is referred to the Court of First Instance.
         proceedings to the Court of First Instance)
                         (98/C 278/15)
                                                                     2. The costs are reserved.
               (Language of the case: Danish)
                                                                     (1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.
In Case C-81/97: MD Foods Amba, established at Viby
(Denmark), and Danske Mejeriers Fñllesorganisation,
established at Aarhus (Denmark), acting on behalf of
1. KlùverMñlk        Amba,      established    at     Fredericia
    (Denmark),                                                                        ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 25 May 1998
2. Lùgismose Produktion A/S, established at Hårby                    in Case C-82/97: Bergpracht Milchwerk GmbH & Co.
    (Denmark),                                                       KG and Others v. Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities (1)
3. Mejeriselskabet Vesthimmerland, established at Farsù              (Actions brought before the Court of Justice and the
    (Denmark),                                                       Court of First Instance for annulment of the same act Ð
                                                                     Decision of the Court of First Instance declining
4. Nordex Food         A/S,   established   at  Dronninglund         jurisdiction Ð Objection of inadmissibility Ð Referral of
    (Denmark),                                                                proceedings to the Court of First Instance)
                                                                                (98/C 278/16)
5. Sinai Landmejeri, in the person of Gunnar Larsen,
    established at Broby (Denmark),
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
6. Sñdager       Andelsmejeri,     established     at    Hobro
    (Denmark),
                                                                     In Case C-82/97: Bergpracht Milchwerk GmbH & Co.
                                                                     KG, established at Tettnang (Germany), Hochland Reich,
represented by G. Lett, of the Copenhagen Bar, and N.                Summer & Co. KG, established in Heimenkirch
Scandamis, of the Athens Bar, with an address for service            (Germany), Milchwerk Crailsheim eG, established at
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of R. Assa, 1 Rue                      Crailsheim (Germany), Milchwerk Geislingen eG,
Jean-Pierre Brasseur, v. Commission of the European                  established at Geislingen/Steige (Germany), Wendelstein
Communities (Agents: J. L. Iglesias Buhigues and H.                  Käsewerk Molkerei Ziegenhain GmbH & Co. KG,
Stùvlbñk), supported by the Hellenic Republic (Agents: I.            established at Bad Aibling (Germany), and Zentral-
Chalkias and I. Galani-Maragkoudaki), the Council of the             Molkerei Aurich GmbH, established at Aurich (Germany),
European Union (Agents: O. Petersen and J.-P. Hix) and               represented by J. Salzwedel and M. Loschelder,
Koinopraktiki Tyrokomikon Monadon Ioanninon Pindos                   Rechtsanwälte, Cologne, with an address for service in
AEBE, the seat of which is at Ioannina (Greece),                     Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 11 Rue
represented by N. Korojiannakis, of he Athens Bar, with              Goethe, v. Commission of the European Communities
an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of                (Agents: J. L. Iglesias Buhigues and U. Wölker), supported
 ---pagebreak--- C 278/10             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       5.9.98
by the Hellenic Republic (Agents: I. Chalkias and                  By orders of 25 May 1998, the Court (Second Chamber)
I.    Galani-Maragkoudaki)       and    by    Koinopraktiki        ordered:
Tyrokomikon Monadon Ioanninon Pindos AEBE, the seat
of which is at Ioannina (Greece), represented by N.
Korojiannakis, of the Athens Bar, with an address for              The Court has no jurisdiction to answer the questions
service in Luxembourg at the office of Brown Holding SA,           referred by the ASVG-Landesberufungskommission für
310 Route d'Esch, L-1471 Luxembourg Ð application for              das Burgenland.
annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 of
12 June 1996 on the registration of geographical
indications and designations of origin under the procedure
laid down in Article 17 of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2081/92 (OJ L 148, 21.6.1996, p. 1) in so far as it
concerns registration of the name feta' as a protected
designation of origin Ð the Court, composed of: G. C.
Rodríguez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, H.                                        ORDER OF THE COURT
Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen (Rapporteur),
Presidents of Chambers, G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de                                 (Third Chamber)
Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward,                                 of 25 June 1998
J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann, L. Sevón and K. M.
Ioannou, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate-General; R.               in Case C-312/97 P: Augusto Fichtner v. Commission of
Grass, Registrar, made an order on 25 May 1998, the                                the European Communities (1)
operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                   (Officials Ð Action manifestly inadmissible before the
                                                                   Court of First Instance Ð Appeal manifestly unfounded or
                                                                                inadmissible)
1. Case C-82/97 is referred to the Court of First Instance.
                                                                                (98/C 278/18)
2. The costs are reserved.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
( ) OJ C 108, 5.4.1997.
 1
                                                                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                            published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                   In Case C-312/97 P: Augusto Fichtner, an official of the
References for a preliminary ruling from the ASVG-Lan-             Commission of the European Communities, represented
desberufungskommission für das Burgenland by decisions             by Vincenzo Salvatore, of the Pavia Bar, with an address
of that tribunal in the cases of Rouhollah Nour, Margarita         for service at 6 Via Orrigoni, Varese Ð appeal against the
Karner and Arthur Lindau v. Burgenländische Gebiets-               order of the Court of First Instance of the European
                        krankenkasse                               Communities (Fourth Chamber) of 9 July 1997 in Case
         (Cases C-361/97, C-362/97 and C-363/97)                   T-63/96 Fichtner v. Commission [1997] ECR-SC II-563,
                                                                   seeking to have that order set aside, the other party to the
                        (98/C 278/17)                              proceedings being the Commission of the European
                                                                   Communities (Agent: Gianluigi Valsesia, assisted by
                                                                   Alberto Dal Ferro) Ð the Court (Third Chamber),
              (Language of the case: German)                       composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, J. C.
                                                                   Moitinho de Almeida and J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur),
                                                                   Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar,
                                                                   made an order on 25 June 1998, the operative part of
Reference was made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                   which is as follows:
European Communities on 21 October 1997 by three
decisions of the ASVG-Landesberufungskommission für
das Burgenland (Social Security Appeals Board for
Burgenland), Austria, for preliminary rulings under                1. The appeal is dismissed.
Article 177 of the EC Treaty in the proceedings pending
before that tribunal between Rouhollah Nour (Case
C-361/97), Margarita Karner (Case C-362/97) and Arthur             2. The appellant is ordered to pay the costs.
Lindau (Case C-363/97) and Burgenländische Gebietskran-
kenkasse, concerning essentially the method of calculating
the remuneration of the President of the Landesberufungs-          (1) OJ C 331, 1.11.1997.
kommission and the relationship between the Paritätische
Schiedskommission as first-instance institution and the
Landesberufungskommission as appellate body.


               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/35

         Removal from the register of Case C-63/03 (1)

   (2004/C 118/68)
   By order of 24 March 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-63/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

      (1)  OJ C 83 of 5.4.2003.


title: Case C-73/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia) lodged on 10 February 2016 — Peter Puškár v Finančné riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky, Kriminálny úrad finančnej správy

text:
               10.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia) lodged on 10 February 2016 — Peter Puškár v Finančné riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky, Kriminálny úrad finančnej správy
   (Case C-73/16)
   (2016/C 165/07)
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Referring court

   Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Peter Puškár

      Defendant bodies: Finančné riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky, Kriminálny úrad finančnej správy

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 47(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, under which everyone whose rights, in particular their right to privacy with respect to the processing of personal data laid down in Article 1(1) et seq. of Directive 95/46/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data [‘Directive 95/46/EC’], are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal in compliance with the conditions laid down in Article 47 of that Charter, preclude a provision of national law which renders the exercise of an effective remedy before a tribunal, that is the submission of an application in administrative proceedings, conditional on the fact that the applicant, to protect his rights and freedoms, must have exhausted beforehand the procedures available to him under specific legislation, such as the Slovak Law on Administrative Complaints?

               2.

               Is it possible to interpret the right to respect for private and family life, home and communications, laid down in Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and the right to the protection of personal data laid down in Article 8 thereof to the effect that, where there is an alleged infringement of the right to the protection of personal data, which, with respect to the European Union, is implemented primarily through Directive 95/46/EC, and entails, in particular:

                           —

                           the obligation on Member States to protect the right to privacy of persons with respect to the processing of their personal data (Article [1](1)) and,

                           —

                           the authorisation conferred on Member States to process personal data where the processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest (Article 7, point (e)) or the processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or by the third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed,

                           —

                           and having regard to the authorisation [to restrict that right], by way of an exception, conferred on a Member State (Article 13(1)(e) and (f)), when such a restriction constitutes necessary measures to safeguard an important economic or financial interest of a Member State or of the European Union, including monetary, budgetary and taxation matters,

                     those rights do not allow a Member State to create, without the consent of the person concerned, a register of personal data for the purposes of tax administration, so that the fact that personal data is rendered at the disposal of a public authority for the purposes of countering tax fraud in itself constitutes a risk?

               3.

               Can a register held by a financial body of a Member State, which contains the applicant’s personal data and whose inaccessibility has been provided for by appropriate technical and organisational measures for the protection of personal data against unauthorised disclosure or access within the meaning of Article 17(1) of Directive 95/46/EC, be designated, by virtue of the fact that it was obtained by the applicant without the lawful agreement of the relevant financial body, as unlawful evidence, which the referring court must refuse to admit in accordance with the requirements of EU law on a fair trial laid down in the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights?

               4.

               Is the abovementioned right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial (in particular under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) infringed by an approach taken by the referring court whereby, where there is case-law from the European Court of Human Rights cited in the case before it which differs from the answer obtained from the Court of Justice of the European Union, the referring court, in accordance with the principle of sincere cooperation laid down in Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union and Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, gives precedence to the Court of Justice’s legal opinion?

      (1)  OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31.


title: Case C-312/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Anotato Dikastirio (Cyprus) lodged on 5 August 2009 — Giorgos Michalias v Christina A. Ioannou-Michalia

text:
               10.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 244/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Anotato Dikastirio (Cyprus) lodged on 5 August 2009 — Giorgos Michalias v Christina A. Ioannou-Michalia
   (Case C-312/09)
   2009/C 244/04
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Anotato Dikastirio

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Giorgos Michalias

      Respondent: Christina A. Ioannou-Michalia

      Question referred

   When Articles 2(1), 42 and 46 of Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 are interpreted correctly and applied, do the courts of a Member State of the European Union (Cyprus) have jurisdiction in respect of:

               (a)

               divorce proceedings begun by the husband in the courts of State X (Cyprus) in April 2003 after the regulation entered into force on 1 March 2001 but before State X (Cyprus) became a Member State on 1 May 2004 and

               (b)

               divorce proceedings begun by the wife after 1 May 2004 in the courts of another Member State (the United Kingdom) which was a Member State throughout the relevant period,

         if both spouses were permanently resident in State Y (the United Kingdom) throughout the relevant period
   and both spouses were nationals of State X (Cyprus) throughout the relevant period?


title: Case C-160/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 2 April 2010 — Peter Köhler v Land Hessen

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/26

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 2 April 2010 — Peter Köhler v Land Hessen
      (Case C-160/10)
      (2010/C 161/35)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Peter Köhler

         Defendant: Land Hessen

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Are the rules laid down in the Hessisches Beamtengesetz (Civil Service Law of the Land of Hessen) on what is in principle the compulsory retirement age for civil servants based on an aim in the public interest in accordance with standards of Union law?
                  The following main questions arise in this respect:

                              What specific requirements in Union law should such an aim prescribed in the public interest satisfy? What additional issues relating to the clarification of the facts of the case should the referring court consider?

                              Does an interest in saving budgetary resources and labour costs, in the present context by avoiding the recruitment of new staff and so reducing expenditure on personnel, represent a legitimate aim within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78/EC?

                              Can an employer’s aim of enjoying a degree of planning certainty as regards the retirement of civil servants be recognised as a legitimate aim in the public interest, even if every employer governed by the Hessiches Beamtengesetz or the Beamtenstatusgesetz (Law on the Status of Civil Servants) may develop and implement staff management ideas of his own?

                              Can an interest in a ‘favourable age stratification’ or ‘favourable age structure’ be recognised as an aim in the public interest, despite the absence of general standards or statutory rules on what constitutes a correct age stratification or age structure?

                              Can an interest in creating opportunities for the promotion of civil servants already in place be regarded as a legitimate aim in the public interest within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78/EC?

                              Does the adoption of rules on retirement ages to preclude individual legal disputes with older employees over their continued fitness for service constitute the pursuit of a legitimate aim in the public interest?

                              Does the reference to the public interest within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78/EC presuppose a labour market policy concept extending beyond individual employers in the area of employment, and if so, how uniform and binding must it be?

                              Is it in fact possible for individual employers to pursue aims in the public interest for groups of employees, limited here to civil servants governed by the Hessisches Beamtengesetz, with retirement age rules of such limited scope?

                              Under what conditions can the aim, which can be pursued by individual employers, but is not mandatory, of occupying posts vacated by retired employees with new recruits, where necessary after existing employees have been promoted, be regarded as being in the public interest within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78/EC? Must the reference to the public interest be backed not only by general claims that the rules serve that purpose, but also by statistics or other findings from which it can be inferred that such an aim is sufficiently serious and can actually be achieved?

                  2.

                  What specific requirements should be satisfied by the reasonableness and suitability of a retirement age arrangement within the meaning of the rules laid down in the Hessisches Beamtengesetz?
                  Are more thorough investigations needed to determine the ratio of the — probable — number of civil servants remaining in service voluntarily after retirement age to the number who wish to receive a full pension on reaching retirement age, if not earlier, and therefore certainly want to leave the service? Would it not be appropriate in this respect to give voluntary retirement preference over compulsory retirement, provided that arrangements are made for pensions to be reduced where they are taken before the set retirement age is reached so as to preclude unreasonable pension budget spending and associated labour costs (voluntary departure rather than compulsion as the more appropriate and, in effect, hardly less suitable arrangement)?
                  Can it be deemed reasonable and necessary to assume it to be irrefutable that all civil servants cease to be fit for service on reaching a given higher age, such as 65 years in this case, and so automatically to terminate their employment as civil servants at that age?
                  Is it reasonable for the possibility to remain employed in the civil service at least until the age of 68 years to be entirely dependent on the employer having special interests, but for employment in the civil service to be terminated with no legal possibility of securing reappointment where no such interests exist?
                  Does a retirement age arrangement which leads to compulsory retirement, rather than being confined to specifying the conditions for entitlement to a full pension, as permitted under Article 6(2) of Directive 2000/78/EC, result in an unreasonable devaluation of the interests of older people relative to the fundamentally no more valuable interests of younger people?
                  If the aim of facilitating recruitment and/or promotion is deemed to be legitimate, what more precise requirements must actually be satisfied to demonstrate the extent to which such opportunities are actually seized by each employer taking advantage of the retirement age arrangement or by all employers, in and outside the general labour market, to whom the statutory arrangement applies?
                  In view of the gaps already to be seen in the labour market owing to demographic trends and of the impending need for skilled staff of all kinds, including staff for the public service of the Federal German and Land governments, is it reasonable and necessary to force civil servants able and willing to continue working to retire from the civil service at a time when there will soon be a major demand for personnel which the labour market will hardly be able to meet? Will it possibly be necessary in the future to collect sectoral labour market data?

                  3.

                  What requirements need to be met as regards the coherence of Hessen’s and possibly Federal German legislation on retirement ages?
                  Can the relationship between Paragraph 50(1) und Paragraph 50(3) of the Hessisches Beamtengesetz be regarded as consistent if the possibility in principle of remaining in employment beyond retirement age depends entirely on the employer’s interests?
                  Should Paragraph 50(3) of the Hessisches Beamtengesetz possibly be interpreted to mean, in compliance with the Directive, that, to preclude unreasonable discrimination on the grounds of age, employment must always continue unless service factors prevent this? What requirements should then be satisfied to prove the existence of any such factors? Must it be assumed in this respect that the interests of the service require continued employment if only because unjustifiable discrimination on the grounds of age would otherwise occur?
                  How might advantage be taken of such an interpretation of Paragraph 50(3) of the Hessisches Beamtengesetz for a continuation or resumption of the applicant’s employment as a civil servant, even though that employment has meanwhile been terminated? Should, in that case, Paragraph 50(1) of the Hessisches Beamtengesetz remain inapplicable at least until the age of 68 years?
                  Is it reasonable and necessary, on the one hand, to impede the taking of voluntary retirement at the age of 60 or 63 years, with a permanent reduction in pension, and, on the other hand, to rule out the voluntary continuation of employment after the age of 65 years unless the employer has, by way of exception, a special interest in its continuation?
                  Do the rules on retirement ages laid down in Paragraph 50(1) of the Hessisches Beamtengesetz cease to be reasonable and necessary as a result of the more favourable rules on part-time work on the grounds of age on the one hand and fixed-term civil servants on the other?
                  What significance for coherence can be attributed to the various rules laid down in employment (public and private sector) and social insurance law which, first, are seeking permanently to raise the age at which a full pension can be drawn, second, prohibit the termination of employment on the grounds that the age specified for the standard retirement pension has been reached and, third, make it compulsory for employment to terminate when that precise age is reached?
                  Is it relevant to coherence that the gradual raising of retirement ages in the social insurance and civil service law relating to the Federal German authorities and some Länder primarily serves the interests of employees in delaying as long as possible the need to meet the more stringent requirements for a full retirement pension? Are these questions insignificant because retirement ages have not yet been raised for civil servants governed by the Hessisches Beamtengesetz, although this is due to become effective in the near future in the case of employees in employment relationships?


title: Case C-305/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Satu Mare (Romania) lodged on 25 June 2014  — Sergiu Lucian Băbășan v Inspectoratul Județean de Poliție Satu Mare

text:
               22.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 329/2

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Satu Mare (Romania) lodged on 25 June 2014 — Sergiu Lucian Băbășan v Inspectoratul Județean de Poliție Satu Mare
   (Case C-305/14)
   2014/C 329/02
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Tribunalul Satu Mare

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Sergiu Lucian Băbășan

      Respondent: Inspectoratul Județean de Poliție Satu Mare

      Questions referred

               1)

               Are the provisions of Article 6(1) of the Treaty on European Union, in conjunction with Article 11(1) and Article 12(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, also directly applicable in Romania with respect to EU citizens?

               2)

               Must Article 6(1) of the Treaty on European Union, in conjunction with Article 11(1) and Article 12(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, be interpreted as permitting citizens of the Union to be required to observe provisions of the national law of the Member States, such as the mandatory rules laid down in Article 12(1), together with the penalty provided for in Article 26(1)(a), of Law No 60/1991 of Romania on the organisation and the conduct of public meetings?


title: Action brought on 22 August 1997 by Benedetto D'Agostino against the European Parliament (Case T-242/97)

text:
1 . 11 . 97          EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 331 /23
him when he was clearly eligible for promotion, and that           that, in view of the doubt subsisting at the end of the
he has suffered a significant setback in his career, no            investigation procedure, the decision which was adopted is
justification for which has been provided by the                   disproportionate to the conduct complained of, having
appointing authority.                                              regard in particular to the mitigating circumstances noted
                                                                   by the disciplinary authority.
Action brought on 22 August 1997 by Benedetto
         D'Agostino against the European Parliament                Action brought on 26 August 1997 by Catherine
                       ( Case T-242/97)                            Metdepenningen and others against the Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities
                         ( 97/C 331 /46
                                                                                (Case T-243/ 97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 331 /47 )
               (Language of the case: French)
An action against the European Parliament was brought                              (Language of the case: French)
before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 22 August 1997 by Benedetto
D'Agostino, residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noel         An action against the Commission of the European
Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the                 Communities was brought before the Court of First
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at         Instance of the European Communities on 23 June 1997
the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .         by Catherine Metdepenningen, Jerome Poussielgue and
                                                                   Jiirgen Wettig, all residing in Brussels, represented by
                                                                   Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
                                                                   Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
— annul the decision of 28 October 1996 downgrading
     the applicant from grade CI , step 4, to grade C5,            The applicants claim that the Court should:
     step 1 ,
                                                                   — annul the Commission's decisions rejecting the
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                                 requests of the three applicants that they be allowed to
                                                                        benefit from possible extension of their contracts as
                                                                        members of the temporary staff, up to a total of five
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                        years ,
The applicant maintains, first, that, by allowing an
unreasonable period to elapse between the various steps in         — declare      the      Commission     decision adopted      on
the proceedings against him, without there being any                    13 November 1996 unlawful in so far as it limits all
justification whatever for the length of time taken to                  temporary staff contracts falling under Article 2 ( a ) of
conclude those proceedings, the defendant has infringed                 the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants to a
the first paragraph of Article 7 of Annex IX to the Staff               maximum duration of three years, with a possibility of
Regulations of officials . The applicant further pleads                 extension for a maximum of one year,
infringement of the right to a fair hearing, in that the
contested decision is based on documents which were not
communicated to him .                                              — order the Commission to pay the costs.
The applicant also maintains that the decision in issue is         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
vitiated by a manifest error of assessment and by the
absence of a sufficient statement of reasons, and that it
was adopted in breach of the principle of proportionality.         The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
He states that the contested penalty was imposed on the            Case T-185/97 Godts v. Commission ( ! ).
basis of mere assertions which were not proven and which
were, in some cases, formally contested by the parties
concerned, and that the numerous inconsistencies                   (') OJ C252 , 16 . 8 . 1997, p . 37 .
throughout the whole of the case are such as to make it
impossible to establish the truth of the facts alleged
against him. Consequently, and in addition, he considers


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 May 2005 in Case T-193/03, Giuseppe Piro v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Action for annulment — Staff report — Statement of reasons — Action for damages — Non-material damage)

text:
               9.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/17

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 10 May 2005
   in Case T-193/03, Giuseppe Piro v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Officials - Action for annulment - Staff report - Statement of reasons - Action for damages - Non-material damage)
   (2005/C 171/29)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-193/03, Giuseppe Piro, an official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in Wezembeek Oppem (Belgium), represented by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal and X. Martin Membiela, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Berardis-Kayser and H. Tserepa-Lacombe, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of the Commission's decision adopting the applicant's definitive staff report for the period 1999/2001 and for damage — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President, M.E. Martins Ribeiro and K. Jürimäe, Judges; I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 10 May 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Orders the Commission to pay the applicant one euro as compensation for the non-material damage suffered;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay half of the applicant's. The applicant is ordered to bear half of his own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 184 of 2.8.2003.


title: Case T-440/17: Action brought on 4 July 2017 — Arca Capital Bohemia v Commission

text:
               16.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/25

         Action brought on 4 July 2017 — Arca Capital Bohemia v Commission
   (Case T-440/17)
   (2017/C 347/34)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Arca Capital Bohemia a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Nedelka, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission decision COMP/D3/PB/2017/026659 of 15 March 2017, refusing access to documents pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 relating to case COMP/SA.17006 — C 27/04 (ex CZ 49/03) — Agrobanka Praha a.s. and GE Capital Bank a.s;

               —

               annul Commission decision No C(2017) 3130 final of 4 May 2017 confirming Decision No COMP/D3/PB/2017/026659 of 15 March 2017;

               —

               order the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the exceptions laid down in Article 4(2), first and third indents, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 were misapplied.

                           —

                           The applicant alleges in this regard that the defendant misapplied relevant case-law which, in its view, does not apply to cases in which the administrative file has been closed. Also, in State aid cases, there is a very strong public interest in obtaining as much information as possible in order to control State bodies and different considerations should also apply to arguments based on commercial interests than those which pertain in merger or cartel cases.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that there is an overriding public interest in disclosure.

                           —

                           In this regard the applicant advances arguments relating to the reasons behind the privatisation of the bank in question and the stability of the Czech banking sector.


title: Case T-118/08: Action brought on 13 March 2008 — Actega Terra v OHIM (TERRAEFFEKT matt & gloss)

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/42

         Action brought on 13 March 2008 — Actega Terra v OHIM (TERRAEFFEKT matt & gloss)
   (Case T-118/08)
   (2008/C 107/71)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Actega Terra GmbH (Lehrte, Germany) (represented by A. Andorfer-Erhard, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Decision R 1467/2007-1 of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 January 2008;

               —

               Declare that Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 do not preclude registration of the Community trade mark applied for No 5 454 517, TERRAEFFEKT matt & gloss, for goods in Class 2 ‘Lacquer, in particular for the graphic industry; all goods previously mentioned not for use in the building industry’;

               —

               In the alternative, limit the description of the goods in Community trade mark application No 5 454 517 as follows:

         ‘Class 2: Lacquer, in particular for the graphic industry, with the characteristic that when applied to an undercoat it produces either a matt or a glossy surface depending on the nature of the undercoat; all goods previously mentioned not for use in the building industry’
   and to declare that to that extent Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 do not preclude the possibility of registering the trade mark applied for;

               —

               Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘TERRAEFFEKT matt & gloss’ for goods in Class 2 (Application No 5 454 517).

      Decision of the Examiner: Reject the application.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismiss the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7 (1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) because the trade mark applied for displays the required distinctive character and is not exclusively descriptive.

      (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-103/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 5 November 2013 — Doyle v Europol (Civil service — Europol staff — Non-renewal of a contract — Refusal to grant a contract of an indefinite duration — Annulment by the Tribunal — Compliance with the judgment of the Tribunal)

text:
               21.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 377/21

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 5 November 2013 — Doyle v Europol
   (Case F-103/12) (1)

   (Civil service - Europol staff - Non-renewal of a contract - Refusal to grant a contract of an indefinite duration - Annulment by the Tribunal - Compliance with the judgment of the Tribunal)
   2013/C 377/48
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Margaret Doyle (Noordwijkerhout, Netherlands) (represented by: W.J. Dammingh and N.D. Dane, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Police Office (represented by: D. Neumann and D. El Khoury, Agents, B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application to annul Europol’s decision, taken to implement the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 June 2010 in Case F-37/09 Doyle v Europol, by which Europol granted the applicant a lump sum by way of compensation for the harm caused to him by the decision annulled by that judgment

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of 28 November 2011 by which the European Police Office granted Ms Doyle the sum of EUR 3 000 in order to comply with the judgment of the Tribunal of 29 June 2010 in Case F-37/09 Doyle v Europol;

               2.

               Orders the European Police Office to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mrs Doyle.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.01.2013, p. 70.


title: Case C-18/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Město Žamberk v Finanční ředitelství v Hradci Králové, now Odvolací finanční ředitelství (Taxation — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 132(1)(m) — Exemption — Supply of services closely linked to sport or physical education — Taking part in sporting activities of a non-organised and unsystematic nature — Municipal aquatic park)

text:
               20.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 114/18

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Město Žamberk v Finanční ředitelství v Hradci Králové, now Odvolací finanční ředitelství
   (Case C-18/12) (1)

   (Taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 132(1)(m) - Exemption - Supply of services closely linked to sport or physical education - Taking part in sporting activities of a non-organised and unsystematic nature - Municipal aquatic park)
   2013/C 114/25
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Nejvyšší správní soud

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Město Žamberk

      Defendant: Finanční ředitelství v Hradci Králové, now Odvolací finanční ředitelství

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Nejvyšší správní soud — Interpretation of Article 132(1)(m) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Exemptions — Supplies of services closely linked to sport or physical education — Occasional unsystematic participation in recreational sporting activities in a swimming pool complex (aquatic park) operated by the municipality and provided with facilities for those activities

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 132(1)(m) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that non-organised and unsystematic sporting activities which are not aimed at participation in sports competitions may be categorised as taking part in sport within the meaning of that provision.

               2.

               Article 132(1)(m) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that access to an aquatic park offering visitors not only facilities for engaging in sporting activities but also other types of amusement or rest may constitute a supply of services closely linked to sport. It is for the referring court to determine whether, in the light of the interpretative guidance provided by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the present judgment and having regard to the specific circumstances of the case in the main proceedings, that is the position in that case.

      (1)  OJ C 98, 31.3.2012.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 November 2004 in Case C-73/03 Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Tax benefits for the transfer of agricultural holdings — Subsidising of loans and guarantees for owners of agricultural holdings)

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/11

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 11 November 2004
   in Case C-73/03 Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (State aid - Tax benefits for the transfer of agricultural holdings - Subsidising of loans and guarantees for owners of agricultural holdings)
   (2005/C 6/19)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   In Case C-73/03 Kingdom of Spain (Agent: S. Ortiz Vaamonde) v Commission of the European Communities (Agent: J.L. Buendía Sierra) – action for annulment under the first paragraph of Article 230 EC, brought on 19 February 2003 – the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), J. Malenovský and U. Lõhmus, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 11 November 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 101 of 26.4.2003.


title: Joined Cases C-53/13 and C-80/13: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 June 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Ostravě, Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Strojírny Prostějov, a.s. (C-53/13), ACO Industries Tábor s.r.o. (C-80/13) v Odvolací finanční ředitelství (Freedom to provide services — Temporary employment agency — Secondment of workers by an agency established in another Member State — Restriction — Undertaking using the workforce — Tax on the income of those workers withheld at source — Obligation — Payment to national budget — Obligation — Situation of workers seconded by a national agency — Absence of such obligations)

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/10

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 June 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Ostravě, Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Strojírny Prostějov, a.s. (C-53/13), ACO Industries Tábor s.r.o. (C-80/13) v Odvolací finanční ředitelství
   (Joined Cases C-53/13 and C-80/13) (1)

   ((Freedom to provide services - Temporary employment agency - Secondment of workers by an agency established in another Member State - Restriction - Undertaking using the workforce - Tax on the income of those workers withheld at source - Obligation - Payment to national budget - Obligation - Situation of workers seconded by a national agency - Absence of such obligations))
   2014/C 282/13
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring courts

   Krajský soud v Ostravě, Nejvyšší správní soud

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Strojírny Prostějov, a.s. (C-53/13), ACO Industries Tábor s.r.o. (C-80/13)

      Defendant: Odvolací finanční ředitelství

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 56 TFEU precludes legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which companies established in one Member State using workers employed and seconded by temporary employment agencies established in another Member State, but operating in the first Member State through a branch, are obliged to withhold tax and to pay to the first Member State an advance payment on the income tax due by those workers, whereas the same obligation is not imposed on companies established in the first Member State which use the services of temporary employment agencies established in that Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 141, 18.5.2013.

      OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.


title: Case T-208/08: Action brought on 4 June 2008 — Gosselin World Wide Moving v Commission

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/45

         Action brought on 4 June 2008 — Gosselin World Wide Moving v Commission
   (Case T-208/08)
   (2008/C 223/78)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Gosselin World Wide Moving (Deurne, Belgium) (represented by: F. Wijckmans, lawyer, and S. De Keer, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision C(2008)926 final of 11 March 2008, notified to the applicant on 25 March 2008, relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case COMP/38.543 — International removal services), in so far as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               In the alternative, annul Article 1 of the Decision, in so far as it concerns the applicant, inasmuch as it finds a continuous infringement by the applicant from 31 January 1992 until 18 September 2002, and reduce the fine imposed on it in Article 2, in a manner corresponding to that adjusted period of the infringement;

               —

               In the alternative, annul Article 2(e) of the Decision, in so far as it concerns the applicant, on the grounds set out in the second and/or third pleas, and reduce correspondingly the fine imposed on it in Article 2;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant's first plea alleges that the Decision infringes Article 81 EC. The first part of the plea submits that the Commission has not proved that the acts alleged against the applicant are to be classified as an appreciable restriction of competition for the purposes of Article 81 EC. The second part submits that the Commission has not correctly proved that that the agreement in which the applicant participated could appreciably affect trade between Member States.
   In the alternative, the second plea submits that the Decision infringed Article 23 of Regulation No 1/2003 (1), Regulation No 17/62 (2), and the Guidelines on the method of setting fines (3). Those provisions were infringed when the Commission determined the gravity of the infringement, its duration, the value of turnover with regard to setting the basic amount of the fine, and rejected the existence of any mitigating circumstances for the applicant for the purposes of the fine.
   In the alternative, the third plea alleges breach of the principle of equal treatment, in particular when the Commission determined the gravity of the infringement and the value of relevant turnover for the purposes of the fine.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Regulation No 17 : First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (OJ, English Special Edition, 1962, p. 87).

      (3)  Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2006 C 210, p. 2).


title: Actions brought on 31 December 1997 by Alberny Frères and Others against Commission of the European Communities and Council of the European Union (Joined Cases T-615/97 to T-618/97)

text:
28.3.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 94/29
Further, the applicants allege, in support of their claims,        to be regarded as inappropriate, because they are limited
that the principles of proportionality, of the protection of       to a period of one year, and because the Regulation has no
legitimate expectations, fairness and proportionality have         binding effect on the Member States. Moreover, the action
been breached and that the right to property and freedom           envisaged by the Community was centred only on priority
to provide a service have been disregarded.                        regions. The applicants state in that connection that since
                                                                   the damage was definitive as at 1 January 1993, the date
                                                                   of publication of Regulation (EEC) No 3904/92 rendered
                                                                   ineffective the few measures that were envisaged therein,
                                                                   since the undertakings were obliged to take the economic
                                                                   measures necessary, without receiving support, on that
Actions brought on 31 December 1997 by Alberny FreÁres             same date in order to limit their losses. The measures
and Others against Commission of the European                      proposed, whatever they might be, could be taken only a
     Communities and Council of the European Union                 long time after the requisite adoption of the restructuring
                                                                   measures.
            (Joined Cases T-615/97 to T-618/97)
                        (98/C 94/73)                               The applicants allege breach, so far as they are concerned,
                                                                   of the principle of the observance of acquired rights, the
                (Language of the case: French)                     principle of legal certainty, the principle of the protection
                                                                   of legitimate expectations and the principle of non-
Actions against the Commission of the European                     discrimination.
Communities and the Council of the European Union
were brought before the Court of First Instance on                 The applicants state in particular in that connection that
31 December 1997 by Alberny FreÁres and Others,                    no initiative taken by the undertakings before 31 December
established in France, represented by Jean-FrancËois               1992 taking account of the disappearance of intra-
Bournilhas, of the Paris Bar, and Mark Clough, Solicitor,          Community customs traffic on 1 January 1993, in
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                   particular the laying off of employees under the special
chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue.                              social plan, could give effect to a regulation which was
                                                                   not to become known until 31 December 1992, that is to
The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance              say at the very time at which the harm accrued. Moreover,
should:                                                            Regulation (EEC) No 3904/92 treats in the same way
                                                                   situations which differ considerably from one Member
Ð declare the defendants liable, for the purposes of the           State to another. Finally, that Regulation is discriminatory
    second paragraph of Article 215 of the Treaty for the          as between those who took such action before January
    damage caused to their businesses as approved                  1993 and those who took it after its publication.
    customs agents as a result of the provisions adopted
    by the Council to ensure the free movement of goods            In the alternative, the applicants allege strict liability on
    throughout the internal market as from 1 January               the part of the Community, deriving from its failure to
    1993, without taking the measures necessary to                 ensure equal treatment in relation to charges imposed by
    safeguard the applicants' interests and as a result of         the public authorities. In their opinion, the intervention of
    the Commission's failure to propose and the Council's          the Community authorities can be deemed to constitute an
    failure to adopt the measures necessary legitimately to        expropriation, since the situation in which they find
    safeguard their rights,                                        themselves is worse than that which would derive from
                                                                   the economic risks associated with the economic sector
Ð order the defendants jointly and severally to                    concerned.
    compensate each of the applicants for the said
    damage, and to pay interest at the rate of 8 % per             (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3904/92 of 17 December 1992
    annum as from 1 January 1993,                                      on measures to adapt the profession of customs agent to the
                                                                       internal market (OJ L 394, 31.12.1992, p. 1).
Ð order the defendants jointly and severally to pay the
    costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicants, which are approved French customs                  Actions brought on 24 December 1997 by SPRL NoeÈl
agents, criticise the Community institutions for failing to        Boone and Others against Commission of the European
take adequate measures to forestall the harm accruing to                                     Communities
them as a result of completion of the internal market                           (Joined Cases T-620/97 to T-627/97)
established by the Single European Act.
                                                                                (98/C 94/74)
The applicants claim that the only reaction on the part of
the Community authorities to the situation in which they                            (Language of the case: French)
found themselves is contained in Council Regulation
(EEC) No 3904/92 of 17 December 1992 (1). However,                 Actions against the Commission of the European
the measures with which that Regulation is concerned are           Communities were brought before the Court of First


title: Case C-241/03: Action brought on 5 June 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
19.7.2003               EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 171/19
(3) How should the requirement that the use must be                      Action brought on 5 June 2003 by the Commission of
       ‘necessary’ to indicate the intended purpose of a product         the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
       be interpreted? Can the criterion of necessity be satisfied                                     Netherlands
       even though it would in itself be possible to state the
       intended purpose without an express reference to the
                                                                                (Case C-241/03)
       third party’s trade mark, by merely mentioning only for
       instance the technical principle of functioning of the
       product? What significance does it have in that case that                                     (2003/C 171/28)
       the statement may be more difficult for consumers to
       understand if there is no express reference to the third
       party’s trade mark?
                                                                         An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought
(4) What factors should be taken into account when assessing             before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
       accordance with honest commercial practice? Does the              5 June 2003 by the Commission of the European Communi-
       mentioning of a third party’s trade mark in connection            ties, represented by G. Zavvos and W. Wils, as Agents.
       with the marketing of one’s own product constitute a
       reference to the fact that the marketer’s own product
       corresponds, in quality and technically or as regards its         The applicant claims that the Court should:
       other properties, to the product designated by the third
       party’s trade mark?                                               —      declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                                and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
(5) Does it affect the permissibility of the use of a third                     Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of
       party’s trade mark that the economic operator who refers                 the Council of 16 May 2000 on the approximation of the
       to the third party’s trade mark also markets, in addition                laws of the Members States relating to insurance against
       to a spare part or accessory, a product of his own which                 civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and
       that spare part or accessory is intended to be used with?                amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/
                                                                                EEC (Fourth motor insurance Directive) ( 1), or in any
( 1) First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to                  event by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the
     approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade                Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its
     marks (OJ L 40 of 11.2.1989, p. 1).                                        obligations under that directive;
                                                                         —      order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de                     Pleas in law and main arguments
1a Instancia n o 35 (Barcelona) by order of that Court of
5 May 2003 in the case of QDQ Media S.A. against
                         A. Omedas Lecha                                 The time limit for compliance with the directive expired on
                                                                         20 July 2002.
                          (Case C-235/03)
                                                                         (1 ) OJ 2000 L 181, p. 65.
                          (2003/C 171/27)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Juzgado de 1a Instancia
no 35 (Court of First Instance No 35) (Barcelona) of 5 May
2003, received at the Court Registry on 2 June 2003, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of QDQ Media S.A. against                 Action brought on 6 June 2003 by the Commission of the
A. Omedas Lecha on the following question:                                    European Communities against the French Republic
Within the context of the protection accorded a creditor under                                       (Case C-243/03)
Directive 2000/35/EC ( 1) of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in                                             (2003/C 171/29)
commercial transaction, is it possible to regard as a debt-
related recovery cost the expenses arising from the use of legal
representation and assistance in the enforcement proceedings
brought for the purpose of recovering that debt.                         An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                         Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 June 2003
( 1) OJ L 200 of 8.8.2000, p. 35.                                        by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                         by E. Traversa, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg.


title: Case T-339/10: Action brought on 9 August 2010 — Cosepuri v EFSA

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/47

      Action brought on 9 August 2010 — Cosepuri v EFSA
      (Case T-339/10)
      ()
      (2010/C 288/90)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Cosepuri Soc. coop. p.a. (Bologna, Italy) (represented by: F. Fiorenza, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Annul the tender procedure to the extent that it provides for the evaluation of the financial bids to be conducted in secret;

                  —

                  Annul the decision awarding the contract to the company ANME and any act resulting therefrom;

                  —

                  Order EFSA to pay damages to Cosepuri;

                  —

                  Order EFSA to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      By contract notice dated 1 March 2010, published in the Official Journal of the European Union of 13 March 2010, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) launched an open tender procedure for the award of a shuttle service contract in Italy and Europe for a period of 48 months, with an estimated value of EUR 4 000 000, defining as the award criterion the most economically advantageous tender in terms of the criteria stated in the specifications (Document B [in annex to the application]). The applicant company submitted its tender, but the contract in question was awarded to another company.
      By the present application, the applicant contests that decision.
      By its first plea in law, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 89 of Regulation (EC) No 1605/2002 (1) and infringement of the principles of sound administration, transparency, the requirement for publicity and the right of access, because of the failure to conduct in public the procedures for the opening of the technical bids and the awarding of points for the financial bid. In that connection, it is submitted that the price bid cannot be regarded as confidential information.
      By its second plea in law, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 100 of Regulation (EC) No 1605/2002, infringement of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, (2) infringement of the duty to state reasons, the obligation of transparency and of the right of access to documents, since access to the documents was restricted after the contract was awarded, on the grounds that information such as the financial bid and public documents such as vehicle licences were confidential. In that connection, it is argued that the failure to disclose the price bid by the successful tenderer means that the acts were inadequately reasoned.
      By its third plea in law, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 100 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002, infringement of the specifications and a manifest error of reasoning on account of the errors made by the tenders committee in the evaluation of the financial bids.

         (1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1).

         (2)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).


title: Case T-33/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2009 — Greece v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — Expenditure excluded from Community financing — Olive oil, cotton, dried grapes and citrus fruits — Non-compliance with payment deadlines — Period of 24 months — Assessment of the expenditure to be excluded — Key controls — Principle of proportionality — Principle of ne bis in idem — Extrapolation of the findings of default)

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/44

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2009 — Greece v Commission
   (Case T-33/07) (1)

   (EAGGF - Guarantee Section - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Olive oil, cotton, dried grapes and citrus fruits - Non-compliance with payment deadlines - Period of 24 months - Assessment of the expenditure to be excluded - Key controls - Principle of proportionality - Principle of ne bis in idem - Extrapolation of the findings of default)
   2009/C 180/81
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Chalkias and G. Kanellopoulos, Agents)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Tserepa-Lacombe, F. Jimeno Fernández, Agents, assisted by N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2006/932/EC of 14 December 2006 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2006 L 355, p. 96), in so far as it relates to certain expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic in the sectors of olive oil, dried grapes, citrus fruit and financial control.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.


title: Case T-484/07: Order of the General Court of 11 July 2012 — Romania v Commission

text:
               25.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 258/27

         Order of the General Court of 11 July 2012 — Romania v Commission
   (Case T-484/07) (1)

   2012/C 258/49
   Language of the case: Romanian
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 51, 23.2.2008.