title: Case T-310/17: Action brought on 15 May 2017 — Lion’s Head Global Partners v EUIPO — Lion Capital (LION’S HEAD global partners)

text:
               17.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 231/49

         Action brought on 15 May 2017 — Lion’s Head Global Partners v EUIPO — Lion Capital (LION’S HEAD global partners)
   (Case T-310/17)
   (2017/C 231/62)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Lion’s Head Global Partners LLP (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Nöske, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lion Capital LLP (London, United Kingdom)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark including the word elements ‘LION’S HEAD global partners’ — International registration No 996 979

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 February 2017 in Case R 1477/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 28 February 2017 (Case R 1477/2016-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Lion’s Head Global Partners LLP and Lion Capital LLP and reject the opposition;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-585/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 24 December 2008 — Peter Pammer v Reederei Karl Schlüter GmbH & Co KG

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/40

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 24 December 2008 — Peter Pammer v Reederei Karl Schlüter GmbH & Co KG
   (Case C-585/08)
   (2009/C 44/68)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Peter Pammer

      Respondent: Reederei Karl Schlüter GmbH & Co KG
   Questions referred

               1.

               Does a ‘voyage by freighter’ constitute package travel for the purposes of Article 15(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1)?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: Is the fact that an agent's website can be consulted on the internet sufficient to justify a finding that activities are being ‘directed’ within the terms of Article 15(1)(c) of Regulation No 44/2001?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.


title: Case C-310/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Consiglio di Stato in sede giurisdizionale, Quinta Sezione by order of that court of 29 May 2001 in the case of Comune di Udine against Diddi Dino Figli s.r.l. and A.G.E.S.I. — Associazione Nazionale Imprese Gestione and AMGA — Azienda Multiservizi s.p.a. against Diddi Dino Figh s.r.l and A.G.E.S.I.

text:
C 289/16              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    13.10.2001
Appeal brought on 3 August 2001 by Council of the                           did not take account of the interest of the service, contrary
European Union against the judgment delivered on                            to Article 45 of the Staff Regulations.
14 June 2001 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities in Case T-230/99
between Hans Mc Auley and Council of the European
                              Union                                    (1) OJ 2000 C 6, p. 29.
                       (Case C-309/01 P)
                        (2001/C 289/30)
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Consiglio di
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 14 June 2001 by
                                                                       Stato in sede giurisdizionale, Quinta Sezione by order of
the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                       that court of 29 May 2001 in the case of Comune di
European Communities in Case T-230/99 (1) between Hans
                                                                       Udine against Diddi Dino Figli s.r.l. and A.G.E.S.I. —
Mc Auley and Council of the European Union was brought
                                                                       Associazione Nazionale Imprese Gestione and AMGA —
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                       Azienda Multiservizi s.p.a. against Diddi Dino Figh s.r.l
3 August 2001 by the Council of the European Union,
                                                                                and A.G.E.S.I.
represented by Frederic Anton and Alain Pilette, acting as
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                                (Case C-310/01)
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                                     (2001/C 289/31)
—     set aside the judgment in so far as it annuls Ms K’s             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      appointment;                                                     European Communities by order of the Consiglio di Stato in
                                                                       sede giurisdizionale, Quinta Sezione (Fifth Chamber of the
                                                                       Council of State, Judicial Division) of 29 May 2001, which was
—     at the same time dismiss the application at first instance;      received at the Court Registry on 7 August 2001, for a
                                                                       preliminary ruling in the case of Comune di Udine against
                                                                       Diddi Dino Figli s.r.l. and A.G.E.S.I. — Associazione Nazionale
—     make an appropriate order as to costs.                           Imprese Gestione and AMGA — Azienda Multiservizi s.p.a.
                                                                       against Diddi Dino Figh s.r.l and A.G.E.S.I. on the following
                                                                       questions:
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        a)   whether, under Article 2 of Council Directive
                                                                            92/50/EEC (1) of 18 June 1992, the rules laid down in
                                                                            that directive apply to the subject-matter of the present
—     Distortion of the contents of the vacancy notice: to claim            case (concerning a contract for the supply of heat energy
      knowledge of languages and management skills to be the                and the provision of a range of services relating to the
      two decisive and practically only criteria contained in a             running of the heating installations), since the contract
      vacancy notice advertising a post which includes middle-              appears to concern the supply of goods rather than the
      management duties amounts to distortion of the terms of               provision of services, and what construction is to be
      the vacancy notice taken as a whole.                                  placed on that article in order to determine whether the
                                                                            contested measures are compatible with Community law;
—     Error in law inasmuch as the Court of First Instance
      independently carried out its own comparison of the              b)   whether, under Articles 6 and 1(b) of Council Directive
      merits of the candidates and it substituted its assessment            92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992, the rules laid down in that
      for that of the appointing authority, thus going beyond               directive are to be held to apply to the subject-matter of
      verifying whether there was a manifest error of assess-               the present case, and what is the construction to be
      ment. By taking the view that Ms K’s experience was                   placed on that article in order to determine whether the
      ‘limited’, whereas that of the applicant was ‘very great’,            contested measures are compatible with Community law.
      the Court of First Instance encroached directly into ‘value
      judgment’ comparison, which is however the exclusive
      domain of the appointing authority.
                                                                       (1) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1.
—     Error in law when the Court of First Instance examined
      the comparative merits of the candidates, inasmuch as it


title: Case C-209/05: Action brought on 13 May 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
               9.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/10

         Action brought on 13 May 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria
   (Case C-209/05)
   (2005/C 171/18)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 13 May 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Maria Condou and Wolfgang Bogensberger, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               (a)

               declare that, when rejecting visa applications in relation to nationals of third countries who are members of the families of citizens of the Union exercising their right to freedom of movement,

                           —

                           by not stating precise, sufficiently detailed and complete reasons, even though there are no public security grounds preventing their disclosure, and

                           —

                           by not granting the parties concerned the same legal remedies in respect of the decisions rejecting their visa applications as are available to nationals of the State concerned in respect of acts of the administration,

                     the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 6 and 8 of Directive 64/221/EEC; (1)

               (b)

               order the defendant, the Republic of Austria, to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Directive 64/221/EEC imposes various obligations on the Member States in relation to the measures adopted, for persons falling within their personal scope, on the grounds of public policy, public security or public health, in particular as regards the reasons on which decisions are based and legal remedies available against decisions. Pursuant to Article 6 of the directive the person concerned is to be informed of the grounds of public policy, public security, or public health upon which the refusal to issue a visa to a member of the family of a citizen of the Union is based. Article 8 of the directive stipulates that the person whose visa application was rejected must have at least the same legal remedies against the decision as are available to nationals of the State concerned in respect of acts of the administration.
   The Commission is of the view that certain provisions of the Austrian Fremdengesetz (Law on Aliens) do not correspond to the aforementioned Community law requirements contained in the directive.
   Pursuant to Paragraph 93(2) of the Fremdengesetz, a written decision is to be given only on application in writing or by protocol by the party concerned and it is sufficient, in the statement of reasons of the decision, to state only the relevant legal provisions. Under Article 6 of the directive, however, the Member States are under an automatic duty to state reasons: the stating of reasons may not be dependant on urgency, nor on the applications of the person concerned. The mere indication of the legal provisions applied does not, furthermore, satisfy the requirements demanded of a statement of reasons: mere reference to the legal provisions applied in reaching a negative decision does not amount to adequate information on the grounds of rejection. The Court's case-law also shows that a precise, sufficiently detailed and complete statement of reasons for a decision is required so that the person concerned can challenge the decision made against him and protect his interests accordingly.
   Paragraph 94(2) of the Austrian Fremdengesetz does not allow for appeals against refusals or declarations of invalidity of visas. This provision infringes the obligation under Article 8 of the directive, according to which the person concerned must have the same legal remedies as are available to nationals of the State concerned in respect of acts of the administration, regardless of whether these are remedies submitted to administrative authorities or the courts. The Commission considers incorrect the Republic of Austria's arguments that the refusal of legal remedies in this connection is justified by the fact that neither refusals nor declarations of invalidity of visas have any consequential effect beyond the individual act in question and that submitting a new application is a quicker means of reaching one's goal than pursuing a legal remedy against the decision. Submitting a renewed application entails the risk that the objectively incorrect decision may simply be repeated.

      (1)  OJ, English Special Edition 1963-1964, p. 117.


title: Case T-445/08: Action brought on 29 September 2008 — FIFA v OHIM — Ferrero (GERMANY 2006)

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/50

         Action brought on 29 September 2008 — FIFA v OHIM — Ferrero (GERMANY 2006)
   (Case T-445/08)
   (2008/C 313/89)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: D. Alexander QC, A. Barav, Barrister, R. Buchel and C. Rassmann, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ferrero OHG mbH (Stadtallendorf, Germany)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul, in whole or in part, the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 June 2008 in case R 1467/2005-1; and

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The word mark ‘GERMANY 2006’ for goods and services in classes 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark registration No 2 153 005

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Cancellation Division

      Pleas in law: (i) Infringement of Article 73 and 74(1) of Council Regulation No 40/94 in so far as the Board of Appeal has based, largely, its decision on Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation No 40/94, a provision which was neither invoked by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, nor relied upon by the Cancellation Division; (ii) Alternatively, infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal failed to consider the registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity as a whole, through the eyes of the average consumer and to apply the relevant law relating to the assessment of descriptiveness of the goods and/or services applied for; and (iii) Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that the registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity was devoid of the necessary distinctive character; and (iv) Infringement of Articles 7(3) and 51(2) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that the registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity had not acquired a distinctive character for services in class 41 and for all goods which are subject for merchandising.


title: Case F-4/13: Action brought on 15 January 2013 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/38

         Action brought on 15 January 2013 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-4/13)
   2013/C 108/90
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision adopting the applicant’s staff report for the period from 1995 to 1997 and the claim for damages.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Administrative Secretary-General of the European External Action Service of 12 March 2012, adopting the staff report of the applicant for the period from 1995 to 1997;

               —

               insofar as it is necessary, annul the decision of the appointing authority of the Commission of 4 October 2012, rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant on 20 June 2012 under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the sum of EUR 25 000 by way of compensation for non-material damage;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-556/10: Action brought on 26 November 2010 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               5.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/5

         Action brought on 26 November 2010 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-556/10)
   2011/C 38/07
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by G. Braun and H. Støvlbæk, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, in transposing the first railway package, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under

                           —

                           Article 6(3) of and Annex II to Directive 91/440/EEC (1) and Articles 4(2) and 14(2) of Directive 2001/14/EC, (2)

                           —

                           Article 6(2) of Directive 2001/14/EC,

                           —

                           Articles 7(3) and 8(1) of Directive 2001/14/EC, and

                           —

                           Article 30(4) of Directive 2001/14/EC in conjunction with Article 10(7) of Directive 91/440/EEC;

               —

               order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Directives 91/440/EEC and 2001/14/EC aim at equitable and non-discriminatory access to rail infrastructure for all undertakings and promotion of a competition-oriented, dynamic and transparent railway market in Europe. Article 6(3) of Directive 91/440/EEC prescribes that the exercise of ‘essential functions’ of infrastructure managers is to be entrusted to bodies or firms ‘that do not themselves provide any rail transport services’.
   In the Commission’s view, the independence of the infrastructure manager in the exercise of essential functions, prescribed by the directive, is not guaranteed in Germany, since several of those ‘essential functions’ have been entrusted to a company which is legally independent but is a subsidiary of a holding company to which belong inter alia undertakings providing rail transport services.
   The independence laid down in Directive 2001/14/EC must be expressed in terms not only of legal form but also of organisation and decision-making. It follows that an undertaking entrusted with essential functions can be organised within the same holding company as undertakings providing rail transport services only if it not only is legally separate but also can be shown not to form part of an economic unit with them, in other words is also economically independent of them. If, then, within a holding company structure, ‘essential functions’ are performed by a subsidiary company, precautionary measures must be taken to ensure that the parent and the subsidiary cannot act in economic unity, as one undertaking. Those appropriate and adequate precautionary measures, which could also guarantee the economic independence of the infrastructure manager from the rail transport undertakings, have not, however, been adopted in Germany. The precautionary measures cited by Germany are not sufficient to guarantee the independence of the essential functions, avert conflicts of interest, and withdraw control of the body entrusted with essential functions from the holding company.
   First, fulfilment of the requirements of independence is not supervised by an independent authority, and competitors have no redress in the event of breaches of the independence rule. Secondly, the independence from the holding company of persons such as directors and managers of the body entrusted with the essential functions is not guaranteed, for the following reasons:

               —

               Directors of the holding company or of other companies belonging to the holding company are not prevented from also being on the board of the body entrusted with essential functions.

               —

               There is no provision that members of the management of the body entrusted with essential functions and its leading personnel responsible for carrying out the essential functions, after ceasing their activity for the body in question, may not for an appropriate number of years hold a leading position in the holding company or in other institutions controlled by the holding company.

               —

               The managers of the body entrusted with essential functions are not appointed under clearly defined conditions and subject to corresponding legal obligations to ensure complete independence of decision-making.

               —

               The body entrusted with essential functions does not have personnel of its own accommodated in separate or access-controlled premises, whose contacts with the holding company and other undertakings controlled by it are to be limited to the official notices associated with the exercise of essential functions.

               —

               Access to the information systems is not protected, so that it cannot be excluded that the holding company may come to possess information relating to the exercise of essential functions.

         In addition to the above breach of the requirement of independence of the infrastructure manager in the exercise of essential functions, the Federal Republic of Germany has also failed to fulfil its obligations under Directives 91/440 and 2001/14 by:

               —

               not transposing sufficiently clearly the provisions of Directive 2001/14/EC on infrastructure charges and failing to establish the conditions for the proper application of the full-cost principle;

               —

               not adopting the necessary measures to require infrastructure managers to reduce infrastructure costs and the infrastructure charges for access to the rail network;

               —

               failing to empower the regulatory authority to enforce a request to the infrastructure manager for information by means of appropriate sanctions.

      (1)  Council Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991 on the development of the Community’s railways, OJ 1991 L 237, p. 25.

      (2)  Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification, OJ 2001 L 75, p. 29.


title: Case T-362/08: Judgment of the General Court of 13 January 2011 — IFAW Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds v European Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to the carrying out of an industrial project in an area protected under Directive 92/43/EEC — Documents originating from a Member State — Objection on the part of the Member State — Partial refusal of access — Exception relating to the economic policy of a Member State — Article 4(5) to (7) of Regulation No 1049/2001)

text:
               19.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 January 2011 — IFAW Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds v European Commission
   (Case T-362/08) (1)

   (Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to the carrying out of an industrial project in an area protected under Directive 92/43/EEC - Documents originating from a Member State - Objection on the part of the Member State - Partial refusal of access - Exception relating to the economic policy of a Member State - Article 4(5) to (7) of Regulation No 1049/2001)
   2011/C 55/36
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: IFAW Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds gGmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: S. Crosby, Solicitor and S. Santoro, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. O’Reilly and P. Costa de Oliveira, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by J. Bering Liisberg and B. Weis Fogh, Agents); Republic of Finland (represented initially by J. Heliskoski, M. Pere and H. Leppo, and later by J. Heliskoski, Agents); and Kingdom of Sweden (represented by K. Petkovska, A. Falk and S. Johannesson, Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the Commission’s decision of 19 June 2008 partly refusing to grant the applicant access to certain documents transmitted to the Commission by the German authorities in connection with a procedure for the declassification of a site protected under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders IFAW Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds gGmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 22.11.2008.


title: Case C-472/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen — Sweden) — Canadian Oil Company Sweden AB, Anders Rantén v Riksåklagaren (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals — Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH Regulation) — Extent of harmonised field — Registration of chemical substances with the European Chemicals Agency before placing them on the market — Article 5 — National chemical product register — Notification requirement for registration purposes — Compatibility with the REACH Regulation — Articles 34 TFEU and 36 TFEU — Quantitative restriction on imports)

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/11

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen — Sweden) — Canadian Oil Company Sweden AB, Anders Rantén v Riksåklagaren
   (Case C-472/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals - Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH Regulation) - Extent of harmonised field - Registration of chemical substances with the European Chemicals Agency before placing them on the market - Article 5 - National chemical product register - Notification requirement for registration purposes - Compatibility with the REACH Regulation - Articles 34 TFEU and 36 TFEU - Quantitative restriction on imports))
   (2016/C 156/14)
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Högsta domstolen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Canadian Oil Company Sweden AB, Anders Rantén

      Defendant: Riksåklagaren

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 552/2009 of 22 June 2009, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which requires an importer of chemical products to register those products with the competent national authority when that importer is already under an obligation under that regulation to register those same products with the European Chemicals Agency, provided that that registration with the competent national authority does not constitute a pre-condition to the placing of those products on the market, it concerns information different from that required by that regulation and contributes to the achievement of the objectives pursued by that regulation, in particular those of ensuring a high level of protection of human health and the environment and the free movement of such substances in the internal market, in particular, by the implementation of a system of controls of the safe management of such products in the Member State concerned and the evaluation of that management, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

               2.

               The combined provisions of Articles 34 TFEU and 36 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding the notification and registration requirement for chemical products, as provided for in the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 448, 15.12.2014.


title: Case C-41/16 P: Appeal brought on 25 January 2016 by Min Liu against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 18 November 2015 in Case T-813/14: Liu v EUIPO

text:
               5.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/7

         Appeal brought on 25 January 2016 by Min Liu against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 18 November 2015 in Case T-813/14: Liu v EUIPO
   (Case C-41/16 P)
   (2016/C 326/13)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Min Liu (represented by: Y. Zhang, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
   By order of 8 June 2016 the Court of Justice (Eight Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Case T-115/16: Order of the General Court of 13 June 2017 — Sandvik Intellectual Property v EUIPO — Adveo Group International (ADVEON)

text:
               7.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/41

         Order of the General Court of 13 June 2017 — Sandvik Intellectual Property v EUIPO — Adveo Group International (ADVEON)
   (Case T-115/16) (1)

   (2017/C 256/48)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.


title: Case C-105/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’Etat (Belgium) lodged on 20 March 2009 — Terre wallonne v Région wallonne

text:
               6.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’Etat (Belgium) lodged on 20 March 2009 — Terre wallonne v Région wallonne
   (Case C-105/09)
   2009/C 129/14
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’Etat

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Terre wallonne

      Defendant: Région wallonne

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is a nitrogen management plan relating to designated vulnerable zones established pursuant to Article 5(1) of Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (1) a plan or programme under Article 3(2)(a) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, (2) which is prepared for the agriculture, forestry, fisheries, energy, industry, transport, waste management, water management, telecommunications, tourism, town and country planning or land use sectors, and does it set the framework for future development consent of projects listed in Annexes I and II to Directive 85/337/EEC? (3)

               2.

               Is a nitrogen management plan relating to designated vulnerable zones established pursuant to Article 5(1) of Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources a plan or programme under Article 3(2)(b) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment which, in view of the likely effect on sites, requires an assessment pursuant to Article 6 or 7 of Directive 92/43/EEC, (4) in particular when the nitrogen management plan in question applies to all the vulnerable zones designated in the Région wallonne?

               3.

               Is a nitrogen management plan relating to designated vulnerable zones established pursuant to Article 5(1) of Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources a plan or programme other than one of those referred to in Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/42/EC, which sets the framework for future development consent in regard to which the Member States must under Article 3(4) determine that they are likely to have significant environmental effects under paragraph (5)?

      (1)  OJ 1991 L 375, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30.

      (3)  Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40).

      (4)  Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7).


title: Case C-453/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 13 November 2006 — 01051 Telecom GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/41

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 13 November 2006 — 01051 Telecom GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   (Case C-453/06)
   (2006/C 326/85)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: 01051 Telecom GmbH

      Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   Question referred
   Is it consistent with the first sentence of Article 27 of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament [and of the Council] of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (1) and Article 7 of Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council [of 7 March 2002] on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive) (2) if, under national law, a statutory requirement formerly provided for in that law under which interconnection charges are to be calculated by reference to the cost of the efficient provision of services is to be maintained temporarily, even though there is no obligation to do so under Community law?

      (1)  OJ L 108, P.33.

      (2)  OJ L 108, P.7.


title: Case T-321/05: Judgment of the General Court of 1 July 2010 — AstraZeneca v Commission (Competition — Abuse of dominant position — Market in anti-ulcer medicines — Decision finding an infringement of Article 82 EC — Market definition — Significant competitive constraints — Abuse of procedures relating to supplementary protection certificates for medicinal products and of marketing authorisation procedures for medicinal products — Misleading representations — Deregistration of marketing authorisations — Obstacles to the marketing of generic medicinal products and to parallel imports — Fines)

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 1 July 2010 — AstraZeneca v Commission
   (Case T-321/05) (1)

   (Competition - Abuse of dominant position - Market in anti-ulcer medicines - Decision finding an infringement of Article 82 EC - Market definition - Significant competitive constraints - Abuse of procedures relating to supplementary protection certificates for medicinal products and of marketing authorisation procedures for medicinal products - Misleading representations - Deregistration of marketing authorisations - Obstacles to the marketing of generic medicinal products and to parallel imports - Fines)
   2010/C 221/52
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: AstraZeneca AB (Södertälje, Sweden); and AstraZeneca plc (London, United Kingdom) (represented initially by M. Brealey QC, M. Hoskins, D. Jowell, Barristers, F. Murphy, G. Sproul, I. MacCallum and C. Brown, Solicitors, and subsequently by M. Brealey, M. Hoskins, D. Jowell, F. Murphy and C. Brown, and lastly by M. Brealey, M. Hoskins, D. Jowell and F. Murphy)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by F. Castillo de la Torre, É. Gippini Fournier and A. Whelan, and subsequently by F. Castillo de la Torre, É. Gippini Fournier and J. Bourke, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicants: European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) (Geneva, Switzerland)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 1757 final of 15 June 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 82 [EC] and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/A.37.507/F3 — AstraZeneca)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 1(2) of Commission Decision C(2005) 1757 final of 15 June 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 82 [EC] and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/A.37.507/F3 — AstraZeneca) in so far as it finds that AstraZeneca AB and AstraZeneca plc infringed Article 82 EC and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement by requesting the deregistration of the Losec capsule marketing authorisations in Denmark and Norway in combination with the withdrawal from the market of Losec capsules and the launch of Losec MUPS tablets in those two countries, inasmuch as it was found that those actions were capable of restricting parallel imports of Losec capsules in those countries;

               2.

               Sets the fine imposed by Article 2 of that decision jointly and severally on AstraZeneca AB and AstraZeneca plc at EUR 40 250 000 and the fine imposed by that article on AstraZeneca AB at 12 250 000 euros;

               3.

               Dismisses the remainder of the application;

               4.

               Orders AstraZeneca AB and AstraZeneca plc to bear 90 % of their own costs and to pay 90 % of the costs of the European Commission, with the exception of the Commission’s costs incurred in connection with the intervention of the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA);

               5.

               Orders the EFPIA to bear its own costs;

               6.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs incurred in connection with the intervention of the EFPIA, 10 % of the remainder of its own costs and to pay 10 % of the costs of AstraZeneca AB and AstraZeneca plc.

      (1)  OJ C 271, 29.10.2005.


title: Case T-625/11: Judgment of the General Court of 15 January 2013 — BSH v OHIM (ecoDoor) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark ecoDoor — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               23.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/12

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 January 2013 — BSH v OHIM (ecoDoor)
   (Case T-625/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark ecoDoor - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 55/20
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: S. Biagosch, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 September 2011 (Case R 340/2011-1) concerning an application for registration of the word sign ecoDoor as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.


title: Case C-527/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Magyar Köztársaság Legfelsőbb Bírósága (Hungary) lodged on 15 November 2010 — ERSTE Bank Hungary Nyrt v Magyar Állam, B.C.L Trading GmbH, ERSTE Befektetési Zrt.

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Magyar Köztársaság Legfelsőbb Bírósága (Hungary) lodged on 15 November 2010 — ERSTE Bank Hungary Nyrt v Magyar Állam, B.C.L Trading GmbH, ERSTE Befektetési Zrt.
   (Case C-527/10)
   ()
   2011/C 30/34
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Magyar Köztársaság Legfelsőbb Bírósága

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: ERSTE Bank Hungary Nyrt

      Defendants: Magyar Állam, B.C.L Trading GmbH, ERSTE Befektetési Zrt.

      Intervener: dr. Bárándy és Társai Ügyvédi Iroda, Komerční banka a.s.

      Question referred

   Does Article 5(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 (1) of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (‘the Regulation’) govern civil proceedings relating to the existence of rights in rem (security deposits) where the country in which the bond, and subsequently the money it represented, was deposited as a security was not a Member State of the European Union at the time when insolvency proceedings were instituted in another Member State, but was a Member State of the European Union by the time the application initiating the proceedings was submitted?

      (1)  OJ L 160, p. 1,


title: Action brought on 18 December 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic (Case C-429/97)

text:
C 55/18                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   20.2.98
Regulation No 17 which was adopted to implement                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof
Article 86; (ii) infringement of Article 173; and (iii) breach      by order of that court of 2 October 1997 in the case of
of essential procedural requirements.                               Sarclad International Ltd, Wittington, Chesterfield, United
                                                                           Kingdom, against the Bundesamt für Finanzen
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                        (Case C-428/97)
                                                                                (98/C 55/34)
Ð Error in classification
    Ð Erroneous interpretation of Regulation No 17.
                                                                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                    European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
    Ð Erroneous interpretation of Article 169 of the EC             (Federal Finance Court) of 2 October 1997, received at
        Treaty: in order for Article 169 concerning failure         the Court Registry on 18 December 1997, for a
        of a Member State to fulfil obligations to apply, it        preliminary ruling in the case of Sarclad International Ltd,
        is not sufficient that a failure to comply with            Wittington, Chesterfield, United Kingdom, against the
        Directive 93/38' is concerned and was expressly             Bundesamt für Finanzen (Federal Finance Office) on the
        referred to in the complaint, since the complaint           following question:
        was directed only at the conduct of the contracting
        entity, both as regards competition and free
        movement of goods.
                                                                    Is Article 3(a) of the eighth Council Directive 79/1072/
                                                                    EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of the
        Nor does the Court of First Instance establish that
                                                                    laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (1) to
        the procedure followed by the Commission was
                                                                    be interpreted as meaning:
        appropriate by citing the case-law of the Court of
        Justice according to which acts of contracting
        entities are imputable to the Member States to
        which those entities belong. If that case-law is            Ð that the duplicate of a substitute document may also
        applied to the present case, the SNCB has no                    be regarded as the original import document or the
        liability, contrary to the principle set out in                 Member States are allowed in some circumstances to
        Article 222 of the Treaty, even though the same                 treat the duplicate as the original import document, or
        misconduct could be raised against a private
        undertaking.
                                                                    Ð that taxable persons not established in the territory of
    Ð Misinterpretation of the concept of an act against                the country Ð who are covered by the eighth
        which proceedings may be brought.                               Directive 79/1072/EEC Ð are definitively precluded
                                                                        from asserting their right to deduct input tax if the
Ð Breach of essential procedural requirements                           import document originally issued has been lost before
                                                                        the application for a refund of the value added tax is
                                                                        made?
    Ð Manifest violation of the rights as of defence: the
        Court of First Instance acted in breach of this
        fundamental principle by adopting the premise               (1) OJ L 331, 27.12.1979, p. 11.
        that, in the context of a procedure pursuant to
        Article 169 of the Treaty, persons who have lodged
        a complaint have no procedural rights.
    Ð Distortion of the subject-matter of the dispute:
        with regard to the plea of inadmissibility raised by
        the Commission, the Court of First Instance failed
        to find in limine litis that there was no legal basis       Action brought on 18 December 1997 by the Commission
        for the Commission's letter closing the file, as            of the European Communities against the French Republic
        SATEBA, in its application, requested it to do. The                                (Case C-429/97)
        Court of First Instance could not, therefore,
        without exceeding its powers, act in the place of                                    (98/C 55/35)
        the Commission in selecting one of the procedures
        made available to the Commission in the context
        of Article 155 of the Treaty, in order to establish a
        ground for declaring the applicant's action                 An action against the French Republic was brought before
        inadmissible.                                               the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                    18 December 1997 by the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities, represented by HeÂleÁne Michard and Enrico
(1) OJ C 357, 22.11.1997, p. 27.
                                                                    Traversa, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
                                                                    Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
                                                                    Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
 ---pagebreak--- 20.2.98                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 55/19
The Commission claims that the Court should:                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Amtsgericht
                                                                      Köln by order of that court of 3 September 1997 in the
                                                                              case of Jutta Johann against Hartmut Johann
                                                                                (Case C-430/97)
Ð declare that, by refusing to refund VAT to taxable
     persons not established in France, in cases where those                                   (98/C 55/36)
     persons had sub-contracted part of their work to a
     taxable person established in France, the French
     Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     eighth VAT Directive 79/1072/EEC (1), especially                 European Communities by order of the Amtsgericht Köln
     Article 2 thereof,                                               (Local Court, Cologne) of 3 September 1997, received at
                                                                      the Court Registry on 19 December 1997, for a
                                                                      preliminary ruling in the case of Jutta Johann v. Hartmut
                                                                      Johann on the following questions:
Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                      1. Do the Staff Regulations of officials of the European
                                                                          Communities, and in particular Annex VIII thereto
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       (pension scheme) constitute a comprehensive and
                                                                          definitive determination of pension claims by a
                                                                          divorced wife, which excludes further claims under
                                                                          national law (in this case apportionment of pension
The Commission rejects the interpretation of Article 9(2)(c)              rights under the German law of obligations)?
of the sixth Directive (2) by the French authorities, who
reduce' the concept of the supply of services in
eliminating waste to the mere execution of works on                   2. Is it compatible with the Staff Regulations of officials
corporeal movable goods which are to be taxed at the                      of the European Communities and Article 6 of the EC
place where they are physically carried out. Such an                      Treaty for the divorce law of a Member State (in this
interpretation of the supply of services in eliminating                   case Germany), by burdening an official with a claim
waste, where such services are cross-frontier by nature,                  under the law of obligations for pension
results in a unilateral and arbitrary allocation of the right             apportionment, to place a heavier burden on that
to tax to the Member State in which the supplier of                       official solely on the ground that he is of German
services holding the main contract is established.                        nationality?
Moreover, the French authorities' approach generates
considerable legal uncertainty not only for the operator in
question in determining for his clients' purposes the VAT
regime of his supply under the contract, but also for the
tax authorities of the Member State in which that taxable
person is established. Such a conception has the effect of
creating potential situations of double taxation which the            Action brought on 19 December 1997 by the Commission
rules of Article 9, and Article 9(1) in particular, allow to                  of the European Communities against Ireland
be avoided by ensuring uniform, homogeneous and                                              (Case C-431/97)
rational taxation of the supplies of services in question
within the Community. Finally, for the purposes of                                             (98/C 55/37)
determining the place of taxation, the French authorities
effectively re-read or interpret the contract made between
the holder of the main contract and his client, without the           An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
authorities of the Member State in which that supplier of             Justice of the European Communities on 19 December
services is taxable having been in a position to determine            1997 by the Commission of the European Communities,
whether or not that interpretation was capable of                     represented by Mr Berend Jan Drijber, a member of the
adversely affecting their own fiscal competence as defined            Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service
within the scope of Article 9 of the sixth Directive, and             in Luxembourg at the office of Mr Carlos Gómez de la
Article 9(1) in particular.                                           Cruz, a member of its Legal Service, Centre Wagner.
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
(1) Eighth Council Directive on the harmonisation of the laws of
    the Member States relating to turnover taxes Ð arrangements
    for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not
                                                                      Ð declare that, in failing to adopt the laws, regulations
    established in the territory of the country (OJ L 331,
    27.12.1979, p. 11).
                                                                          or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
(2) Sixth Council Directive on the harmonisation of the laws of           Council Directive 94/57/EC of 22 November 1994 on
    the Member States relating to turnover taxes Ð common                 common rules and standards for ship inspection and
    system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ            survey organisations and for the relevant activities of
    L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1).                                              maritime administrations (1), Ireland has failed to fulfil
                                                                          its obligations under this Directive and the Treaty,
                                                                      Ð order Ireland to pay the costs.


title: Case C-248/07: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 November 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Trespa International B.V. v Nova Haven- en Vervoerbedrijf N.V. (Regulation implementing the Community Customs Code — Articles 291 and 297 — Favourable tariff treatment — End-use — Concept of person importing the goods or having them imported for free circulation — Concept of transfer of goods within the Community — Concept of transferee )

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/3

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 November 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Trespa International B.V. v Nova Haven- en Vervoerbedrijf N.V.
   (Case C-248/07) (1)

   (Regulation implementing the Community Customs Code - Articles 291 and 297 - Favourable tariff treatment - End-use - Concept of ‘person importing the goods or having them imported for free circulation’ - Concept of ‘transfer of goods within the Community’ - Concept of ‘transferee’)
   (2008/C 327/05)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hof van beroep te Antwerpen
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Trespa International B.V.

      Defendant: Nova Haven- en Vervoerbedrijf N.V.
   Re:
   Preliminary ruling — Hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Interpretation of Articles 1a, 291 and 297 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1) — Concepts of ‘transfer of goods within the Community’, ‘person importing the goods or having them imported for free circulation’ and ‘transferee’.
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 291(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Commission Regulation No 89/97 of 20 January 1997, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘person importing the goods or having them imported for free circulation’ contained therein refers to the person for whom the goods are destined and who intends to assign them to the prescribed end-use, irrespective of whether he makes the customs declaration himself or has that done by a representative within the meaning of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code. That concept does not refer to the representative of that person before the customs authorities, disregarding those cases in which that person is deemed to act in his own name and on his own behalf pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 5(4) of Regulation No 2913/92 and who must therefore be considered an importer.

               2.

               Article 297(1) of Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by Regulation No 89/97, must be interpreted as meaning that there has been no transfer of goods within the Community in a situation where goods are imported into Belgium then transported to the Netherlands, if the person authorised acts on behalf of the ultimate importer, which is for the national court to ascertain. The mere fact that the goods were imported into and cleared through customs in Belgium then transported to the Netherlands is irrelevant to the establishment of the existence of a transfer within the meaning of that provision. Where goods are transferred, the transferee must hold an authorisation issued in accordance with Article 291 of that regulation.

               3.

               Article 297(1) of Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by Regulation No 89/97, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘transferee’ contained therein does not refer to a customs agent who carries out customs formalities on behalf of the importer.

      (1)  OJ C 170, 21.7.2007.


title: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 October 2004 in Case C-249/03 Commission of the European Communities v Transport Environment Development Systems (Trends) and Others (Arbitration clause — Decision 2004/407/EC, Euratom — Articles 2 and 3 — Reference to the Court of First Instance)

text:
               19.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/2

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 8 October 2004
   in Case C-249/03 Commission of the European Communities v Transport Environment Development Systems (Trends) and Others (1)

   (Arbitration clause - Decision 2004/407/EC, Euratom - Articles 2 and 3 - Reference to the Court of First Instance)
   (2005/C 69/05)
   Language of the case: Greek
   In Case C-249/03: application under Article 238 EC, brought on 10 June 2003, by Commission of the European Communities (Agent: M. Patakia, assisted by M. Bra, K. Kapoutzidou and S. Chatziyiannis) against Transport Environment Development Systems (Trends), a civil partnership with non-profit-making aims, established in Athens (Greece), (Lawyer: V. Christianos), Marios Kontaratos, residing in Athens (Greece), Anastasios Tillis, residing in Neo Irakleio, Attica (Greece), (Lawyer: V. Christianos), Georgios Argyrakos, residing in Athens (Greece), Konstantinos Petrakis, residing in Cholargos, Attica (Greece), Fotini Koutrouba, residing in Glyfada, Attica (Greece) – the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of C. Gulmann, acting for the President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and G. Arestis (Rapporteur), Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 8 October 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:
   Case C-249/03 is referred to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 184 of 02.08.2003.


title: Joined Cases T-305/07 and T-306/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 September 2009 — Offshore Legends v OHIM — Acteon (OFFSHORE LEGENDS in black and white and OFFSHORE LEGENDS in blue, black and green) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for two Community figurative marks OFFSHORE LEGENDS, one in black and white, the other in blue, black and green — Earlier national figurative mark OFFSHORE 1 — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of goods and signs — Absence of request for proof of genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94 in conjunction with Article 15(2)(a) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) and (3) and point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/60

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 September 2009 — Offshore Legends v OHIM — Acteon (OFFSHORE LEGENDS in black and white and OFFSHORE LEGENDS in blue, black and green)
   (Joined Cases T-305/07 and T-306/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for two Community figurative marks OFFSHORE LEGENDS, one in black and white, the other in blue, black and green - Earlier national figurative mark OFFSHORE 1 - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of goods and signs - Absence of request for proof of genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94 in conjunction with Article 15(2)(a) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) and (3) and point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2009/C 267/104
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Offshore Legends (Nevele, Belgium) (represented by: P. Maeyaert and N. Clarembeaux, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Acteon (Saint-Tropez, France) (represented by: M. Milon, lawyer)

      Re:

   Two actions brought against two decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 May 2007 (Case R 1031/2006-2 and Case R 1038/2006-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Acteon and Offshore Legends

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the actions;

               2.

               orders Offshore Legends to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 September 2002 in Case C-336/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Republik Österreich v Martin Huber (Agriculture — Part-financed aid — Repayment — Legal basis — Protection of legitimate expectations — Legal certainty — Procedural autonomy of Member States)

text:
C 274/12                EN                         Official Journal of the European Communities                                           9.11.2002
In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, characterised         and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the
by the absence of obligations freely assumed by one party towards             Treaties on which the European Union is founded (OJ 1994
another on the occasion of negotiations with a view to the formation          C 241, p. 21 and OJ 1995 L 1, p. 1), the Court (Fifth
of a contract and by a possible breach of rules of law, in particular         Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber,
the rule which requires the parties to act in good faith in such              D. A. O. Edward, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) and
negotiations, an action founded on the pre-contractual liability of the       C. W. A. Timmermans, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;
defendant is a matter relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict within the     M.-F. Contet, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
meaning of Article 5(3) of the Convention of 27 September 1968                judgment on 19 September 2002, in which it has ruled:
on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and
Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October
1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the                  1.    Consideration of the first question has not disclosed any factor
Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic                      of such a kind as to affect the validity of Council Regulation
Republic and by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession                      (EEC) No 2078/92 of 30 June 1992 on agricultural
of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic.                                production methods compatible with the requirements of the
                                                                                protection of the environment and the maintenance of the
                                                                                countryside, as amended by the Act concerning the conditions
( 1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.
                                                                                of accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland
                                                                                and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties
                                                                                on which the European Union is founded.
                                                                              2.    Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92, as amended by
                                                                                the abovementioned Act of Accession, must be interpreted as
                                                                                meaning that a Commission decision approving a national aid
                                                                                programme also encompasses its content, without, however,
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                              conferring on that programme the nature of an act of
                                                                                Community law.
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                              3.    A Commission decision approving a national aid programme
                                                                                as referred to in Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92,
                      of 19 September 2002                                          as amended by the Act of Accession, is addressed only to the
                                                                                Member State concerned. It is for the national courts to decide,
                                                                                in the light of national law, whether the publicity given to that
in Case C-336/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                           programme enabled it to become binding on agricultural and
the Oberster Gerichtshof): Republik Österreich v Martin                             rural operators, in particular by ensuring compliance with
                              Huber ( 1)                                            the requirement of appropriate information laid down in
                                                                                Article 3(3)(f) of Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92.
(Agriculture — Part-financed aid — Repayment — Legal
basis — Protection of legitimate expectations — Legal
     certainty — Procedural autonomy of Member States)                        4.    Community law does not preclude the application of the
                                                                                principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal
                                                                                certainty in order to prevent the recovery of aid part-financed by
                          (2002/C 274/19)                                           the Community which has been wrongly paid, provided that the
                                                                                interest of the Community is also taken into consideration. The
                                                                                application of the principle of the protection of legitimate
                   (Language of the case: German)                                   expectations assumes that the good faith of the beneficiary of
                                                                                the aid in question is established.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                             5.    It is open to Member States to implement national aid
                                                                                programmes within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Regulation
                                                                                (EEC) No 2078/92, as amended by the Act of Accession, by
                                                                                private-sector measures or by forms of State action, in so far as
In Case C-336/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234                          the national measures in question do not affect the scope and
EC by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary                          effectiveness of Community law.
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Republik Österreich and Martin Huber, on the validity and
interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 of
30 June 1992 on agricultural production methods compatible                    (1 ) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.
with the requirements of the protection of the environment
and the maintenance of the countryside (OJ 1992 L 215,
p. 85), as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of
accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland


title: Case T-214/11: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — ClientEarth and PAN Europe v EFSA (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Names of experts who submitted comments on a guidance document relating to the scientific documents to be included in applications for authorisation to place plant protection products and the active substances contained in those products on the market — Refusal of access — Exception concerning protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual — Protection of personal data — Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               26.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — ClientEarth and PAN Europe v EFSA
   (Case T-214/11) (1)

   (Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Names of experts who submitted comments on a guidance document relating to the scientific documents to be included in applications for authorisation to place plant protection products and the active substances contained in those products on the market - Refusal of access - Exception concerning protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual - Protection of personal data - Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 - Obligation to state reasons)
   2013/C 313/40
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom) and Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Kirch, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (represented by: D. Detken, Agent)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by P. Oliver, P. Ondrůšek and C. ten Dam, and subsequently by P. Oliver, P. Ondrůšek and B. Martenczuk, Agents)

      Re:

   Application, initially, for annulment of the EFSA decision of 10 February 2011 refusing an application for access, under 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), to certain working documents relating to a guidance document, prepared by EFSA, for the benefit of applicants for authorisation to place plant protection products on the market and, subsequently, for annulment of EFSA’s decision of 12 December 2011 withdrawing the earlier decision and granting the applicants access to all the information requested, except for the names of the external experts who made certain comments on the draft guidance document.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders ClientEarth and Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe), the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Commission each to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 18.6.2011.


title: Case T-177/11: Action brought on 25 March 2011 — PASP and Others v Council

text:
               14.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/36

         Action brought on 25 March 2011 — PASP and Others v Council
   (Case T-177/11)
   2011/C 145/60
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Port autonome de San Pedro (PASP) (San Pedro, Côte d’Ivoire), Port autonome d’Abidjan (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire), Société de gestion du patrimoine du secteur de l'électricité (Sogepe) (Abidjan) (represented by: M. Ceccaldi, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 imposing restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities and in particular as regards the applicants, namely the PORT AUTONOME DE SAN PEDRO, the PORT AUTONOME D’ABIDJAN and the société de gestion du patrimoine du secteur de l’électricité SOGEPE;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments raised by the applicants are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-142/11 SIR v Council.


title: Case T-8/09: Action brought on 6 January 2009 — Dredging International and Ondernemingen Jan de Nul v EMSA

text:
               4.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/27

         Action brought on 6 January 2009 — Dredging International and Ondernemingen Jan de Nul v EMSA
   (Case T-8/09)
   (2009/C 82/48)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Dredging International NV (Zwijndrecht, Belgium) and Ondernemingen Jan de Nul NV (Hofstade-Aalst, Belgium) (represented by: R. Martens, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA)
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul EMSA's decision to reject the tender from the Joint Venture Oil Combat (JVOC) constituted by the applicants and to award the contract to the successful contractor;

               —

               declare that the contract signed between EMSA and the successful contractor pursuant to procurement procedure EMSA/NEG/3/2008 is null and void;

               —

               award damages as compensation for the loss that JVOC has incurred as a consequence of the contested decision, provisionally estimated at 725 500 EUR, to be increased by the moratory interest as from the date of the filing of this application;

               —

               order that the Commission pay the costs of the proceedings, including the expenses for legal counsel incurred by JVOC.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In the present case the applicants seek the annulment of the defendant's decision to reject their bid submitted in response to a call for a tender EMSA/NEG/3/2008 (Lot 2: North Sea) regarding the service contracts for stand-by oil recovery vessel(s) (1) and to award the contract to the successful contractor. The applicant further requests compensation for the alleged damages in account of the tender procedure.
   In support of their claims, the applicants put forward four pleas in law.
   First, they argue that by refusing to provide the applicants with the information they requested regarding the reasons for rejection of the bid submitted by them and on the characteristics and relative advantages of the bid of the successful contractor the defendant infringed Article 135(2) of the Regulation (2), Article 253 EC and the essential procedural requirements of duty to state reasons and of respect for the rights of defence. The applicants further claim that the defendant failed to suspend the signature of the contract with the successful tenderer pending the exchange of relevant information with the applicants by which it violated Article 105(2) of the financial regulation (3) and Article 158a(1) of the Commission Regulation No 2342/2002 (4).
   Second, the applicants submit that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment while evaluating the bid submitted by the successful tenderer by which it infringed the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination as stated in Article 89 of the financial regulation.
   Third, the applicants contend that the defendant committed several manifest errors of assessment in its decision to reject the applicants' bid for the reason of non compliance with Article 12.2 of the tender specifications without further examining the applicants' arguments. In the applicants' opinion, the defendant infringed therefore the principles of proportionality, equal treatment and non-discrimination in violation of Article 89(1) of the financial regulation.
   Fourth, the applicants claim that in the interpretation given by the defendant to Article 12.2 of tender specifications, the budget ceiling is manifestly unreasonable and does not allow that any confirming tenders are submitted.

      (1)  OJ 2008/S 48-065631.

      (2)  The regulation of the European Maritime Safety Agency adopted on 9 December 2003 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the financial regulation of 9 December 2003 which applies to the budget of the European Maritime Safety Agency adopted by the Administrative Board on 3 July 2003.

      (3)  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 L 248, p. 1).

      (4)  Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ L 357, p. 1).


title: Case T-357/05: Action brought on 19 September 2005 — Generalitat Valenciana v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               12.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/33

         Action brought on 19 September 2005 — Generalitat Valenciana v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-357/05)
   (2005/C 281/60)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties:

      Applicant(s): Generalitat Valenciana (Valencia, Spain) (represented by José Vicente Sánchez-Tarazaga Marcelino, lawyer)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision C (2005) 1867 concerning the reduction of the assistance granted from the Cohesion Fund to Project No 97/11/61/028.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   This action arises out of Commission Decision C (97) 3882 of 5 December 1997, by virtue of which assistance of EUR 75 011 715 was granted from the Cohesion Fund to Project No 97/11/61/028 in Spain, called the ‘Project for the collection and treatment of waste water on the Mediterranean coast of the Autonomous Community of Valencia’ (a general project consisting of 12 different schemes). The original amount was later increased to EUR 92 742 913.
   After carrying out an audit mission, the Commission uncovered a series of irregularities in the award procedure followed, essentially the use of experience as a criterion for the award of contracts and the average price method as the procedure for evaluating the price tendered. In the contested decision, which reduces the total assistance granted by EUR 2 217 537, the defendant considers that there have been infringements of Articles 18 and 30 of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, (1) and of Article 2 of the Financial Regulation of 21 December 1977 applicable to the general budget of the European Communities.
   In support of its claims, the applicant argues:

               —

               that the Community legislation expressly refers to experience as a criterion for selection, whereas, although experience is not expressly mentioned in the list of possible implementing criteria, it may readily be observed that the listing of those criteria in the legislation is merely illustrative, and not exhaustive, and does not envisage excluding the possible use of experience as an additional criterion for the award of the contract. This conclusion is reinforced by Community case-law itself;

               —

               that, in any case, it is plainly impossible to consider that including experience as one of the award criteria in the contract documents constitutes a serious and obvious infringement, without which, in accordance with Community legislation and case-law, liability cannot be incurred;

               —

               that application of the ‘average price’ methodology as a means of evaluating the price criterion is not expressly forbidden by Community rules and that the case-law precludes it only when it is the only criterion used, but not where it is used together with others.

         The applicant also alleges breach of the principles of legal certainty, protection of legitimate expectations, non-retroactive effect and proportionality.

      (1)  OJ L 199 of 9 August 1993, p. 54.


title: Case T-160/08 P: Appeal brought on 5 May 2008 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 21 February 2008 in Case F-31/07, Putterie-De-Beukelaer v Commission

text:
               19.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/23

         Appeal brought on 5 May 2008 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 21 February 2008 in Case F-31/07, Putterie-De-Beukelaer v Commission

   (Case T-160/08 P)
   (2008/C 183/45)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and K. Herrmann, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Françoise Putterie-De-Beukelaer (Brussels, Belgium)
   Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               set aside the judgement under appeal;

               —

               refer the case back to the CST;

               —

               reserve the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By this appeal, the Commission requests that the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) of 21 February 2008 in Case F-31/07 Putterie-De-Beukelaer v Commission, in which the CST annulled Ms Putterie-De-Beukelaer's Career Development Report concerning the period from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2005, be set aside in so far as that report does not acknowledge her potential to carry out duties in category B*.
   In support of its appeal, the Commission relies on a single plea in law, alleging, first, infringement by the CST of the principles relating to the scope of the review exercised by the Community judicature of its own motion and, second, infringement of the prohibition on adjudicating ultra petita.
   The Commission submits that the CST was not entitled to raise of its own motion a plea concerning the substantive legality of the contested act alleging infringement of the respective scope of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and Article 10(3) of Annex XIII to those regulations, since substantive pleas are not an absolute bar to proceeding with an action.
   In the alternative, the Commission claims that, in so far as paragraphs 75 and 76 of the judgment under appeal could be considered separable from the plea alleging the substantive legality of the contested measure and be categorised as a separate plea alleging that the author of the contested act exceeded its power, the CST infringed the Commission's rights of defence, since the latter was not heard on that point in accordance with Article 77 of the Rules of Procedure of the CST.


title: Case T-40/07 P: Appeal brought on 14 February 2007 by José António de Brito Sequeira Carvalho against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 13 December 2006 in Case F-17/05, de Brito Sequeira Carvalho v Commission

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/46

         Appeal brought on 14 February 2007 by José António de Brito Sequeira Carvalho against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 13 December 2006 in Case F-17/05, de Brito Sequeira Carvalho v Commission
   (Case T-40/07 P)
   (2007/C 82/98)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: José António de Brito Sequeira Carvalho (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by O. Martins, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               declare this appeal admissible and well founded;

               —

               order the Commission to produce a file containing all the documents concerning the applicant in his administrative file held at the Investigation and Disciplinary Office of the Commission, the medical service and in any other place starting with the procedural documents pertaining to the original proceedings on 2 February 2001 relating to alleged evidence of defamatory acts attributed to the applicant;

               —

               order the Commission to state the legal basis for the initiation of a medical assessment of the appellant's mental health by a Commission official immediately upon his appointment in an administrative investigation into the alleged defamation, and provide a list of documents from the original proceedings;

               —

               annul the judgement of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union in Case F-17/05;

               —

               declare the medical assessment which was substituted for the administrative proceedings still pending since 2001 to be illegal;

               —

               declare that there has been a breach of the principle that a reasonable period of time should be observed in the proceedings, which have not yet been closed;

               —

               declare, on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, lack of reasoning and non-existence, the act of a Commission official of 18 June 2004 to be void and further declare that it is not imputable to the appellant;

               —

               declare both that the Appointing Authority's act of 28 June 2004 is legally non-existent, and that it cannot be raised against the appellant, to whom it was never communicated;

               —

               declare that a parallel file containing false information of a personal nature adversely affecting the appellant is kept by the Commission;

               —

               declare the act of a doctor of 13 July 2004 prohibiting the appellant from access to the Commission's buildings void and illegal on the grounds that it is not a decision of the Appointing Authority;

               —

               declare the act of a Commission official of 22 September 2004 purporting to extend the appellant's medical leave by six months and other subsequent acts referring to earlier documents by an official of the Appointing Authority of June 2004 void;

               —

               the remainder of the claims before the first court;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In his appeal, the appellant claims that the Tribunal committed an error by founding its decision on an incorrect legal basis, namely Article 59 of the Staff Regulations on compulsory medical leave, whereas, the Commission infringed Article 86 of the Staff Rules and Annex IX, together with the texts which regulate the conduct of administrative investigations and disciplinary proceedings. Furthermore, the appellant argues that the Tribunal violated his rights of defence and infringed Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the principle of the right to a fair trial by hearing and determining the case on the basis of an incomplete file and by failing to give a ruling on the alleged existence of a parallel file. The appellant further claims that the Tribunal has infringed Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights by hearing and determining the case on the basis of false evidence. Furthermore, the appellant criticises the Tribunal for failing to adopt a position in the contested judgment on his application to reopen the proceedings. The applicant also submits that the Tribunal unlawfully refused to draw the legal inferences from the alleged lack of competence of the authority which issued the decision to place him on compulsory medical leave which the Tribunal should, the appellant argues, have declared non-existent on the ground of lack of competence and lack of reasoning.


title: Case T-188/05: Action brought on 2 May 2005 by Joël de Bry against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/40

         Action brought on 2 May 2005 by Joël de Bry against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-188/05)
   (2005/C 182/75)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 2 May 2005 by Joël De Bry, residing in Woluwé-St-Lambert (Belgium), represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul the Commission's decision drawing up the applicant's career development report for 2003.

               2.

               order the defendant to pay a symbolic Euro to be increased pending proceedings together with costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of his action, the applicant alleges, first, an objective conflict of interests on the part of his appraiser who is on the same grade.
   Furthermore, he claims that errors were made in assessing his merits and argues that there were inconsistencies between the comments and the marks which he was attributed.
   Finally, the applicant alleges infringement of the general provisions implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and the aims and objectives sought by the establishment of a new system focused on career development, as well as breach of the obligation to state reasons, the rights of the defence, and Article 26 of the Staff Regulations.