title: Judgment of the Court of 15 February 2000 in Case C-169/98: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Social security — Financing — Legislation applicable)

text:
C 122/4                   EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           29.4.2000
legislation, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obli-            who, by virtue of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of
gations under Articles 48 and 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after              14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to
amendment, Articles 39 EC and 43 EC) and Article 13 of the                 employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members
said regulation — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez                  of their families moving within the Community, as amended
Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur),                and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of
D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen (Presidents of Cham-                2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1), are not subject to
bers), C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann, H. Rag-           French social security legislation, the French Republic has
nemalm and M. Wathelet, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate                    failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 48 and 52 of the
General ; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a                   EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 39 EC and 43 EC)
judgment on 15 February 2000, in which it:                                 and Article 13 of the said regulation — the Court, composed
                                                                           of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida
1. Declares that, by applying the social debt repayment contribution       (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen (Presi-
    to the employment income and substitute income of employed             dents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch,
    and self-employed persons resident in France but working in            P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet, Judges; A. La Pergola,
    another Member State who, by virtue of Council Regulation              Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given
    (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of                 a judgment on 15 February 2000, in which it:
    social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed
    persons and to members of their families moving within the             1. Declares that, by applying the general social contribution to the
    Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation                     employment income and substitute income of employed and
    (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, are not subject to French                self-employed persons resident in France but who, by virtue of
    social security legislation, the French Republic has failed to fulfil       Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on
    its obligations under Article 13 of that regulation and under               the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to
    Articles 48 and 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,                  self-employed persons and to members of their families moving
    Articles 39 EC and 43 EC);                                                  within the Community, as amended and updated by Council
                                                                                Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, are not
2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.                                 subject to French social security legislation, the French Republic
                                                                                has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13 of that
                                                                                regulation and under Articles 48 and 52 of the EC Treaty (now,
(1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.                                                       after amendment, Articles 39 EC and 43 EC);
                                                                           2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         of 15 February 2000
in Case C-169/98: Commission of the European Communi-                                           ORDER OF THE COURT
                      ties v French Republic (1)
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
   (Social security — Financing — Legislation applicable)
                                                                                of 16 December 1999
                           (2000/C 122/06)
                                                                           in Case C-170/99 P, Clauni SA and Others v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities (1)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           (Partly manifestly inadmissible and partly manifestly
                                                                                unfounded appeal)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (2000/C 122/07)
In Case C-169/98: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: P. Hillenkamp and H. Michard) v French Republic
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and C. Chavance) — application
for a declaration that, by applying the general social contri-
bution to the employment income and substitute income of                   In Case C-170/99 P, Clauni SA, established at Le Passage
employed and self-employed persons resident in France but                  (France), Jean-Marie Bissières, residing at La Croix Blanche


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 17 March 1998 in Case C-45/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof): Bayerische Hypotheken- und Wechselbank AG v Edgar Dietzinger (Protection of the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises - Guarantees)

text:
30.5.98              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 166/1
                                                                 I
                                                           (Information)
                                             COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                       COURT OF JUSTICE
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  directive where it guarantees repayment of a debt
                      (Fifth Chamber)                                contracted by another person who, for his part, is acting
                                                                     within the course of his trade or profession.
                     of 17 March 1998
in Case C-45/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from             (1) OJ C 95 of 30.3.1996.
   the Bundesgerichtshof): Bayerische Hypotheken- und
          Wechselbank AG v Edgar Dietzinger (1)
(Protection of the consumer in respect of contracts
  negotiated away from business premises Ð Guarantees)
                       (98/C 166/01)                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
              (Language of the case: German)                                               of 17 March 1998
                                                                     in Case C-387/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        Svea Hovrätt): criminal proceedings against Anders
         published in the European Court Reports)                                              Sjöberg (1)
                                                                     (Social legislation relating to road transport Ð Exception
In Case C-45/96: reference to the Court under Article 177            granted for vehicles used by public authorities to provide
of the EC Treaty by the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) for              public services which are not in competition with
a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before               professional road hauliers Ð Obligation on the driver to
that court between Bayerische Hypotheken- und Wechsel-                          carry an extract from the duty roster)
bank AG and Edgar Dietzinger Ð on the interpretation of
                                                                                (98/C 166/02)
Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 to
protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated
away from business premises (OJ L 372 of 31.12.1985,                                (Language of the case: Swedish)
p. 31) Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M.
Wathelet, President of the First Chamber, acting for the               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
President of the Fifth Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de                             published in the European Court Reports)
Almeida, D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann and L. Sevón
(Rapporteur), Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate General;
                                                                     In Case C-387/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
                                                                     of the EC Treaty from Svea Hovrätt (the Svea Court of
given a judgment on 17 March 1998, in which it has
                                                                     Appeal), for a preliminary ruling in the criminal
ruled:
                                                                     proceedings pending before that court against Anders
                                                                     Sjöberg Ð on the interpretation of Articles 13 and 14 of
On a proper construction of the first indent of Article 2 of         Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of 20 December
Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 to protect                  1985 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation
the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from            relating to road transport (OJ L 370 of 31.12.1985, p. 1)
business premises, a contract of guarantee concluded by a            Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann,
natural person who is not acting in the course of his trade          President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, J. C. Moitinho de
or profession does not come within the scope of the                  Almeida, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and L. Sevón, Judges; P.


title: Case F-115/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 28 April 2016 — Silva Rodriguez v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Pension — Calculation of pension rights — Management premium — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure)

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/44

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 28 April 2016 — Silva Rodriguez v Commission
   (Case F-115/15) (1)

   ((Civil service - Officials - Pension - Calculation of pension rights - Management premium - Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure))
   (2016/C 222/57)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: José Manuel Silva Rodriguez (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: N. de Montigny and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and F. Simonetti, Agents)

      Re:

   Application seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision limiting the applicant’s pension rights; a declaration that the Conclusions of the Heads of Administration of 16 June 2005 are inapplicable inasmuch as they limit the bonus applied to the applicant’s pension rights, and that the defendant be ordered to pay the applicant the retirement pension to which he is entitled.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action brought by Mr José Manuel Silva Rodriguez is dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded.

               2.

               Mr Silva Rodriguez shall bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 320 of 28/9/2015, p. 56.


title: Case F-36/13: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 3 December 2013 — CT v EACEA (Civil Service — Temporary staff — Contract for an indefinite period — Termination — Adverse reflection on position — Breakdown in the relationship of trust)

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/39

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 3 December 2013 — CT v EACEA
   (Case F-36/13) (1)

   (Civil Service - Temporary staff - Contract for an indefinite period - Termination - Adverse reflection on position - Breakdown in the relationship of trust)
   2014/C 24/71
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: CT (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) (represented by: H. Monet, acting as Agent, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision to terminate the applicant’s contract of employment on the basis of Article 47(c)(i) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants (CEOS).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders CT to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA).

      (1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013, p. 58.


title: Case T-145/10: Action brought on 24 March 2010 — Solae v OHIM — Délitaste (alpha taste)

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/40

         Action brought on 24 March 2010 — Solae v OHIM — Délitaste (alpha taste)
   (Case T-145/10)
   2010/C 148/67
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Solae Holdings LLC (St. Louis, United States) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Délitaste S.A. Industrielle et Commerciale d’Aliments (Thessaloniki, Greece)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Deem the present appeal and attached documents to have been duly filed;

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 December 2009 in case R 92/2009-2; and

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark “alpha taste”, for goods and services in classes 29, 30, 39 and 43

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

      Mark or sign cited: Community trade mark registration of the mark “ALPHA”, for goods in class 29

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially admitted the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly found that there was only a partial likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.


               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/30

         Removal from the register of Case C-179/04 (1)

   (2005/C 143/53)

      (Language of the case: Greek)

   By order of 10 March 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-179/04 Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic.

      (1)  OJ C 168 of 26.06.2004.


title: Case C-303/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Voghera, by order of that court of 1 July 2004 in the case of Lidl Italia Srl against Comune di Stradella

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/29

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Voghera, by order of that court of 1 July 2004 in the case of Lidl Italia Srl against Comune di Stradella
   (Case C-303/04)
   (2004/C 228/59)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Voghera, of 1 July 2004, received at the Court Registry on 16 July 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Lidl Italia Srl against Comune di Stradella on the following question:

               —

               Are the provisions in Article 1 of Directive 83/189/EEC (now Directive 98/34/EC (1)) on technical standards and regulations to be interpreted as meaning that a national legislative provision such as Article 19 of Law No 93 of 23.3.2001, which prohibits the marketing in Italy of non-biodegradable cotton buds for cleaning ears, comes within the meaning of ‘technical regulation’ in Article 1 of that directive?

               —

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, should the provision in Article 19 of Law No 93 of 23.3.2001 have been notified beforehand to the European Commission on the initiative of the Italian Government in accordance with Article 8 of Directive 83/189/EEC (now Directive 98/34/EC) in order to authorise its application in Italy under Articles 8 and 9 of that directive?

               —

               If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative and if Article 19 of Law No 93 cited above was not notified to the European Commission, do the principles and rules on the free movement of goods laid down in Article 28 of the EC Treaty, in conjunction with the provisions of Directive 83/189/EEC (now Directive 98/34/EC), allow the Italian court not to apply that national provision as being unlawful, in so far as it applies to products coming from another Member State of the European Union?

      (1)  OJ L 204 of 21.7.1998, p.37.


title: Case T-518/13: Action brought on 23 September 2013 — Future Enterprises v OHIM — McDonald's International Property (MACCOFFEE)

text:
               30.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/19

         Action brought on 23 September 2013 — Future Enterprises v OHIM — McDonald's International Property (MACCOFFEE)
   (Case T-518/13)
   2013/C 352/36
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Future Enterprises Pte Ltd (Singapore, Singapore) (represented by: J. Olsen, B. Hitchens, R. Sharma and M. Henshall, Solicitors)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: McDonald’s International Property Co. Ltd (Wilmington, United States)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 13 June 2013 given in Case R 1178/2012-1; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘MACCOFFEE’ for goods in Classes 29, 30 and 32 — Community trade mark registration No 7 307 382

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

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

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The grounds were those laid down in Article 53(1)(a) in conjunction with Articles 8(1)(a) and (b), 8(2)(c) and 8(5) CTMR

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Upheld the request for invalidity in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(5) CTMR.


title: Case T-34/13: Action brought on 23 January 2013 — Meta Group v European Commission

text:
               16.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/27

         Action brought on 23 January 2013 — Meta Group v European Commission
   (Case T-34/13)
   2013/C 79/48
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Meta Group Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Bartolini, V. Colcelli and A. Formica, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Note No 1687862 from the Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry of 11 December 2012;

               —

               annul Financial Audit Report No S12.16817;

         and, in so far as necessary, annul the following notes from the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Budget Execution (Directorate for General Budget and EDF):

               —

               the note of 12 November 2012 concerning ‘Payment by offsetting of debts payable to the Commission’, in which the Commission informed the applicant that the debt of EUR 69 061,80 which META Group claimed to be owed to it by the Commission in relation to the Take-it-Up contract (No 245637) had been offset against the corresponding debt owed by META Group as shown by Debit Note No 32412078833;

               —

               Note No 1380282 of 21 November 2012 concerning offsetting of the debt of EUR 16 772,36 which META Group claimed to be owed to it by the Commission in relation to the BCreative contract (No 245599) against the corresponding debt owed by META Group as shown by Debit Note No 32412078833;

               —

               Note No 1380323 of 21 November 2012 concerning offsetting of the debt of EUR 16 772,36 which META Group claimed to be owed to it by the Commission in relation to the BCreative contract against the corresponding equivalent debt owed by META Group;

               —

               Note No 1387638 of 22 November 2012 concerning offsetting of the debt of EUR 220 518,25 which META Group claimed to be owed to it by the Commission in relation to the Take-it-Up contract (No 245637) and the Ecolink+ contract (No 256224) against the debt of EUR 209 108,92 owed by META Group as shown by Debit Note No 32412078833;

         and, accordingly, order the Commission to:

               —

               pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 424 787,90, plus default interest;

               —

               pay compensation in respect of the consequential loss suffered by the applicant;

         and order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action concerns the grant agreements concluded between the applicant and the Commission under the ‘Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) (2007-2013)’.
   In support of its action, the applicant puts forward six pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a manifest error in the assessment of the facts, breach of Amendment No 1 to the ECOLINK+ contract of 14 October 2011, infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations, and infringement of the principles of protection of acquired rights, legal certainty and duty of care.

                           —

                           On this point, it is maintained that the Commission’s conduct involved a breach of the commitments contractually entered into by it with respect to META, with particular reference to acceptance of the method of calculation proposed by the applicant.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 11 of the grant agreements relating to the CIF Programme (BCreative, Take-IT-Up, Ecolink+), infringement of the principle of reasonableness, and a manifest error in the assessment of the facts.

                           —

                           On this point, it is maintained that the applicant company has provided evidence that the remuneration of its own associate members is fully in line with market values and with the remuneration received by self-employed parasubordinate workers (‘in-house consultants’) and employees pursuing similar activities. Under national law those minima may be increased by 100 % if the required service is ‘particularly important, complex or difficult’ (see Article 6(1) of Ministerial Decree No 169 of 2 September 2010). The employment by META Group of international experts engaged in activities connected with the projects in question on the basis of ‘continuous and coordinated contractual relationships’ is also perfectly legitimate.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality of administrative action and infringement of the principles of sound administration and transparency and the principle that criteria must be determined in advance.

                           —

                           It is submitted in this regard that the existence of a multiplicity of criteria which may be used for the purpose of determining the methods of calculating remuneration should have led the administration to adopt the criterion most favourable to private individuals. Once it was realised that there is significant variation among the rates paid on the Italian and European markets for the same services, the appropriate course of conduct for the administration would have been to adopt a solution liable to cause the least detriment possible to the applicant.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error in the assessment of the facts, breach of Amendment No 1 to the ECOLINK+ contract of 14 October 2011 and infringement of the principles of legitimate expectations, good faith, protection of acquired rights, legal certainty and duty of care.

                           —

                           It is submitted in this regard that the set-off decisions are unlawful, since the sums indicated as META’s outstanding claims concerning the contracts mentioned above are significantly lower than those actually owed. In particular, the Commission, as established by the final audit report at present under challenge, when determining the eligible costs relating to associate members, arbitrarily applied a substantially lower hourly rate than the rate proposed by META.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration and an inadequate statement of reasons.

                           —

                           On this point, it is maintained that the set-off decisions lack any statement of reasons regarding either the criteria or the parameters used for calculation. Therefore, given that the final results of the audit report were not yet available to META at the time when it was notified of the set-off decisions in question, the Commission ought to have provided clarification in respect of the assessments made on the basis of the decision to use a different method for calculating the eligible costs from the method determined in the contracts.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging a manifest error in making the calculations to determine the sums owed to the applicant.

                           —

                           In this regard, it is maintained that the calculations carried out by the Commission for the purposes of the set-off arrangement also appear to be wrong: if the flat rates relating to the ‘Marie Curie’ Programme are applied, the accounts are inconsistent.


title: Case T-625/14: Order of the General Court of 24 June 2015 — Wm. Wrigley Jr. v OHIM (Representation of a sphere) (Community trade mark — Application for Community figurative mark representing a sphere — Absolute grounds for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/47

         Order of the General Court of 24 June 2015 — Wm. Wrigley Jr. v OHIM (Representation of a sphere)
   (Case T-625/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for Community figurative mark representing a sphere - Absolute grounds for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
   (2015/C 311/51)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, S. Brandstätter and C. Schmitt, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 June 2014 (Case R 168/2014-5) relating to an application for registration of a figurative sign representing a sphere as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.


title: Case C-406/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England and Wales) (Queen's Bench Division), Leeds District Registry, made on 18 September 2008 — Uniplex (UK) Ltd v NHS Business Services Authority

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/23

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England and Wales) (Queen's Bench Division), Leeds District Registry, made on 18 September 2008 — Uniplex (UK) Ltd v NHS Business Services Authority
   (Case C-406/08)
   (2008/C 301/36)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   High Court of Justice (Queen's Bench Division)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Uniplex (UK) Ltd

      Defendant: NHS Business Services Authority
   Questions referred
   Where an economic operator is challenging in national proceedings the award of a framework agreement by a contracting authority following a public procurement exercise in which he was a tenderer and which was required to be conducted in accordance with Directive 2004/18/EC (1) (and applicable implementing national provisions), and is in those proceedings seeking declarations and damages for breach of applicable public procurement provisions as regards that exercise and award:

               (a)

               is a national provision such as Regulation 47(7)(b) of the Public Contracts Regulations 2006 which states that those proceedings are to be brought promptly and in any event within 3 months from the date when grounds for the bringing of the proceedings first arose, unless the Court considers that there is good reason for extending the period, to be interpreted, in light of Directive 89/665/EEC (2), Articles 1 and 2, and the Community law principle of equivalence and the Community law requirement for effective legal protection, and/or the principle of effectiveness, and having regard to any other relevant principles of EC law, as conferring an individual and unconditional right upon the tenderer against the contracting authority such that the time for the bringing of proceedings challenging such a tender exercise and award starts running as from the date when the tenderer knew or ought to have known that the procurement procedure and award infringed EC public procurement law or as from the date of breach of the applicable public procurement provisions; and

               (b)

               in either event how is a national court then to apply (i) any requirement for proceedings to be brought promptly and (ii) any discretion as to extending the national limitation period for the bringing of such proceedings?

      (1)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ L 134, p. 114).

      (2)  Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ L 395, p. 33).


title: Case T-217/14: Action brought on 9 April 2014  — Gmina Kosakowo v Commission

text:
               30.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/26

         Action brought on 9 April 2014 — Gmina Kosakowo v Commission
   (Case T-217/14)
   2014/C 202/33
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Gmina Kosakowo (Municipality of Kosakowo) (Kosakowo, Poland) (represented by: M. Leśny, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision taken by the European Commission on 11 February 2014 in Case SA. 35388 by which Poland was ordered to recover from the Gdynia-Kosakowo airport improperly paid State aid;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its action the applicant puts forward three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law:

                           —

                           Mistaken determination of the factual situation taken as the basis on which the contested decision was adopted;

               2.

               Second plea in law:

                           —

                           Breach of Article 107(1) TFEU through the unfounded assumption that the Municipality of Kosakowo had handed over public aid in a manner contrary to that provision in a situation in which the assumption of shares by that entity in the company Port Lotniczy Gdynia-Kosakowo sp. z o.o. constituted the settlement of a transaction relating to a contract for the lease of land; in addition, improper conduct by the European Commission of the private investor test;

               3.

               Third plea in law:

                           —

                           Breach of the following procedural provisions: of Article 107(1) TFEU, in conjunction with Article 5(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, through the improper conduct of the private investor test; of Article 7(5), in conjunction with Article 13(1), of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 by reason of the mistaken determination of the amount of aid to be reimbursed, to which was also added expenditure for security and infrastructure; and also of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU because of the lack of proper reasoning for the contested decision, which lacks elements essential to enable its grounds to be determined.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du Travail de Bruxelles by judgment of that court of 25 April 1996 in the case of Office National des Pensions v. Cirotti (Case C-144/96)

text:
22 . 6 . 96             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 180/25
3 . Can the recipient of a credit note, in the circumstances          Knubben Speditions GmbH v. Hauptzollamt ( Principal
     set out in Question 2, rely on Article 21 ( 1 ) (c ) of the      Customs Office ) Mannheim on the following question :
     Sixth Directive if the value-added tax mentioned in the
     credit note is claimed from him as a tax debt to the             How is subheading 0904 20 of the Common Customs Tariff
     extent of the difference between the tax mentioned and           — combined nomenclature 1989 and 1990 — to be
     the tax owed by reason of taxable transactions ?                 interpreted ? Does the term 'sonst zerkleinert' used therein
                                                                      signify merely a fineness similar to the 'gemahlen' (crushed )
(!) OJ No L 145 , 1977, p . 1 .                                       product, or does it also cover a product cut into pieces, such
                                                                      as a product cut into pieces measuring between 4 and
                                                                      8 mm ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 7 March 1996 in
the case of Hauptzollamt Miinchen v. Wacker Werke                     Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du Travail
                        GmbH & Co . KG                                de Bruxelles by judgment of that court of 25 April 1996 in
                                                                          the case of Office National des Pensions v. Cirotti
                         ( Case C-142/96 )
                                                                                Case C- 1 44/96 )
                           ( 96/C 180/55 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/57)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Seventh                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Chamber of the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal Finance Court) of            European Communities by a judgment of the Cour du
7 March 1996, which was received at the Court Registry on             Travail de Bruxelles ( Higher Labour Court, Brussels ) of
29 April 1996, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                25 April 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on
Hauptzollamt Miinchen ( Principal Customs Office,                     3 May 1 996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Office
Munich ) v . Wacker Werke GmbH & Co . KG on the                       National des Pensions ( National Pensions Office ) v. Cirotti
following questions:                                                  on the following question :
1 . Is the second alternative provided for in the second              Must     Articles     46     and   51     of   Regulation    ( EEC )
     subparagraph of Article 13 ( 2 ) of Council Regulation           No 1408/71 (*) be interpreted as applying in the event of an
     ( EEC ) No 2473/86 of 24 July 1986 on outward                    invalidity benefit, calculated under the legislation of one
     processing relief arrangements ( OJ No L 212 , 1986 ,            Member State, overlapping with an old-age benefit,
     p . 1 ) to be interpreted as meaning that a method of            calculated under the legislation of another Member State,
     determining processing costs is reasonable only if the           that grants a person a share of the employed person's
     resulting value of the temporary export goods                    old-age benefit payable to his or her spouse from whom that
     corresponds approximately to the purchase price paid             person is living apart, even if this would give migrant
     by the holder of an outward processing authorization or          workers an advantage over non-migrant workers, when
     to the production costs ?                                        Article 3 ( 1 ) of the Regulation provides for equal treatment
                                                                      of all nationals of the Member States ?
2 . If the answer to the first question is in the negative, can
     reference be made to the purchase price for the inputs           (') OJ, English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p . 416 .
     inclusive of uplifts paid by the processor to the holder of
     an outward processing authorization in determining the
     processing costs, and does that apply equally where
     there is a tariff anomaly resulting in a higher rate of duty
     for the unprocessed goods than for the compensating              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di
     products ?                                                       Genova, Sezione Prima Civile, by order of that court of
                                                                       11 April 1996 in the case of ICAT FOOD SRL and
                                                                                Amministrazione delle Finanze
                                                                                ( Case C-155/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/58 )
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 7 March 1996 in             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
the case of Leonhard Knubben Speditions GmbH v.                       European Communities by order of the Tribunale di
                    Hauptzollamt Mannheim                             Genova, Sezione Prima Civile ( District Court, Genoa, First
                         ( Case C-143/96 )                            Civil Section ) of 11 April 1996 which was received at the
                                                                      Court Registry on 7 May 1996, for a preliminary ruling in
                            ( 96/C 180/56                             the case of ICAT FOOD SRL and Amministrazione delle
                                                                      Finanze on the same questions as in Joined Cases C-47/95
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                and Others ( 1 ).
European Communities by order of the Seventh Chamber of
the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal Finance Court) of 7 March               (!) OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 5 .
 1996, which was received at the Court Registry on 29 April
 1996, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Leonhard


title: Case C-436/99 P: Appeal brought on 16 November 1999 by Karl L. Meyer against the order made on 27 October 1999 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-106/99 between Karl L. Meyer and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
5.2.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 34/13
     — Article 6(1) and (2) of Council Directive                        before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
         86/280/EEC (10) of 12 June 1986 on limit values and            on 16 November 1999 by Karl L. Meyer, represented by
         quality objectives for discharges of certain dangerous         Jean-Dominique des Arcis, with an address for service in
         substances included in List I of the Annex to Directive        Luxembourg at the office of Mr Pakowski, Ambassador of the
         76/464/EEC, as last amended by Directive                       Federal Republic of Germany, 20-22 Avenue Emile Reuter.
         90/415/EEC (11),
     having regard to the wording of those provisions inserted          The appellant claims that the Court should:
     by Article 2(1) of Directive 91/692/EEC (12), the Portuguese
     Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the            — Declare all his claims admissible and well founded;
     abovementioned directives or under the first paragraph of
     Article 10 and the third paragraph of Article 249 of the           — Hold that the Commission’s fax of 30 March 1999 is an
     EC Treaty;                                                             act against which an action may be brought, corresponding
                                                                            to a measure affecting the legal situation of the applicant
(b) Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.                         as a private European investor in French Polynesia;
                                                                        — Remit the case to the Court of First Instance for the
Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support                      procedure on the substance to be continued.
By virtue of the first paragraph of Article 10 and the third
paragraph of Article 249 of the EC Treaty, Member States are            Pleas in law and main arguments
to take all appropriate measures to ensure fulfilment of the
obligations arising out of acts adopted by the Community
institutions and facilitate the achievement of the Community’s          Breach of Community law: The contested act was the final act
tasks, and they are required to achieve the results pursued by          of an enquiry procedure for finding out the Community
directives within the periods appointed by those directives. In         provisions and information on the conditions of Community
the present case, the Commission finds that, even though                financing, concerning the applicant’s investment in a tropical
the appointed period expired on 30 September 1995, the                  fruit plantation in Polynesia. The Court of First Instance
Portuguese Republic has still not forwarded to it the reports           wrongly declined to regard the Commission’s refusal to
on the application of the directives listed above.                      provide that documentation and information as a decision.
(1) OJ 1976 L 129, p. 23.
(2) OJ 1978 L 54, p. 19.
(3) OJ 1983 L 32, p. 28.
(4) OJ 1978 L 222, p. 1.
(5) OJ 1980 L 20, p. 43.
(6) OJ 1982 L 81, p. 29.
(7) OJ 1983 L 291, p. 1.                                                Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta
(8) OJ 1984 L 74, p. 49.
(9) OJ 1984 L 274, p. 11.
                                                                        Domstolen, by order of that court of 11 November 1999,
(10) OJ 1986 L 181, p. 16.                                                in the case of Riksskatteverket v Soghra Gharehveran
(11) OJ 1990 L 219, p. 49.
(12) OJ 1991 L 377, p. 48.                                                                      (Case C-441/99)
                                                                                (2000/C 34/25)
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by order of the Högsta Domstolen of
Appeal brought on 16 November 1999 by Karl L. Meyer                     11 November 1999, which was received at the Court Registry
against the order made on 27 October 1999 by the Third                  on 19 November 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                  Riksskatteverket v Soghra Gharehveran on the following
Communities in Case T-106/99 between Karl L. Meyer                      questions:
    and the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                        1. Is the exception which applies to Sweden under Article 1(2)
                        (Case C-436/99 P)                                   of Council Directive 80/987/EEC (1) of 20 October 1980
                                                                            on the approximation of the laws of the Member States
                                                                            relating to the protection of workers in the event of the
                          (2000/C 34/24)                                    insolvency of their employer to be interpreted as meaning
                                                                            that, in accordance with Swedish case-law as it had
An appeal against the order made on 27 October 1999 by the                  developed and was applicable until 1 July 1994, the
Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                exception is applicable to an employee who did not himself
Communities in Case T-106/99 between Karl L. Meyer and the                  own any share of the undertaking but whose close relative
Commission of the European Communities was brought                          owned an essential share of that undertaking?


title: Case T-318/13: Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2015 — Vita Phone v OHIM — (LIFEDATA) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark LIFEDATA — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) and Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Lack of specific assessment — Duty to state reasons)

text:
               30.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/26

      Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2015 — Vita Phone v OHIM — (LIFEDATA)
      (Case T-318/13) (1)

      ((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark LIFEDATA - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) and Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Lack of specific assessment - Duty to state reasons))
      (2015/C 107/34)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Vita Phone GmbH (Mannheim, Germany) (represented by: P. Ruess and A. Doepner-Thiele, lawyers)

         Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Marten and G. Schneider, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 March 2013 (Case R 1072/2012-1) concerning an application for registration of the word mark LIFEDATA as a Community trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Vita Phone GmbH to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 226, 3.8.2013.


title: Joined Cases T-4/94, T-73/94, T-372/94, T-52/97, T-60/97, T-64/97 and T-144/97: Order of the Court of First Instance of 23 July 2009 — Wilman and Others v Council and Commission

text:
               26.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 233/21

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 23 July 2009 — Wilman and Others v Council and Commission
   (Joined Cases T-4/94, T-73/94, T-372/94, T-52/97, T-60/97, T-64/97 and T-144/97) (1)

   2009/C 233/40

      Language of the case: Dutch

   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the joined cases be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 43, 12.2.1994.


title: Case C-240/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on  29 May 2006  — Fortum Project Finance SA

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 29 May 2006 — Fortum Project Finance SA
   (Case C-240/06)
   (2006/C 178/39)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   Referring court
   Korkein hallinto-oikeus
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Fortum Project Finance SA
   Question referred
   Are Article 56 EC and Article 12(1)(c) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC (1) of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital to be interpreted as precluding the charging of transfer tax where securities are transferred, as described above, as a contribution to a share company which gives new shares of its own in return?

      (1)  OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412.


title: Case C-189/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Eparkhiako Dikastirio Lefkosias (District Court, Nicosia, Cyprus) lodged on 16 April 2014  — Bogdan Chain v Atlanco Ltd

text:
               30.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Eparkhiako Dikastirio Lefkosias (District Court, Nicosia, Cyprus) lodged on 16 April 2014 — Bogdan Chain v Atlanco Ltd
   (Case C-189/14)
   2014/C 202/14
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Eparkhiako Dikastirio Lefkosias (District Court, Nicosia, Cyprus)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bogdan Chain

      Defendant: Atlanco Ltd

      Questions referred

               1)

               Should the fact that the scope of Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (1) and of Article 14(5)(b) of the implementing Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 (2) covers ‘a person who normally pursues an activity as an employed person in two or more Member States’ be interpreted as meaning that it also covers the situation where a person is employed, under an employment contract with only one employer who is established in a Member State of the European Union, with a view to working in two other Member States even if:

                           i.

                           the second Member State in which the person is to be employed has not yet been determined and is not foreseeable when an application is made for the issue of the A1 form [statement of applicable legislation] due to the specific nature of the work, i.e. the temporary employment of workers for short periods of time in various Member States?
                           or

                           ii.

                           the duration of employment in the first and/or second Member State cannot yet be determined or is unforeseeable due to the specific nature of the work, i.e. the temporary employment of workers for short periods of time in various Member States?

               2)

               If the answer to the questions stated under point 1 above is in the affirmative, is it possible to interpret Article 14(5)(b) of the implementing Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 in such a way that, for the purpose of applying Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, the reference to ‘a person who normally pursues an activity as an employed person in two or more Member States’ also applies to a situation in which there are periods of inactivity between two jobs undertaken in different Member States, during which periods the employee is still covered by the same employment agreement?

               3)

               If the answer to the questions stated under point 1 above is in the affirmative, should the fact that the competent Member State does not issue the A1 form preclude application of Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004?

               4)

               Do Articles 16(5) and/or 20(1) or any other article of the implementing Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 require the Member State, based on a preliminary decision relating to the applicable law from the Member State of stay, to issue the A1 form on its own initiative without the need for the employer concerned to file an additional application to the competent Member State?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2009 L 284, p. 1).


title: Case T-637/16: Action brought on 6 September 2016 — Wabco Europe v Commission

text:
               14.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 419/48

         Action brought on 6 September 2016 — Wabco Europe v Commission
   (Case T-637/16)
   (2016/C 419/64)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Wabco Europe (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: E. Righini and S. Völcker, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the application for annulment admissible;

               —

               annul, in whole or in part, the decision (1); and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the decision must be annulled because it is vitiated by errors in law and in fact in identifying the alleged State aid measure and categorising it as an aid scheme;

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the decision must be annulled because the Commission has erred in law and in fact in considering the measure selective under Article 107 TFEU;

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the decision must be annulled because the Commission has erred in law and in fact in considering that the measure grants the applicant an advantage under Article 107 TFEU;

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the decision must be annulled because the Commission’s inadequate and contradictory statement of reasons infringes Article 296 TFEU;

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the decision must be annulled because the Commission has breached the principle of good administration in failing to assess carefully and impartially all the elements of the case;

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the decision must be annulled because the Commission has misused of its power in establishing its own arm’s length principle through a State aid decision.

      (1)  Commission’s Decision C(2015) 9837 final of 11 January 2016 in State aid case SA.37667 — Excess Profit exemption in Belgium (the ‘decision’)


title: Case C-349/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 21 July 2014  — Minister delegate for the budget v Marlène Pazdziej

text:
               29.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 339/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 21 July 2014 — Minister delegate for the budget v Marlène Pazdziej
   (Case C-349/14)
   2014/C 339/12
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Minister delegate for the budget

      Defendant: Marlène Pazdziej

      Question referred

   Do the provisions of the second paragraph of Article [13] of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union preclude any account being taken, for the purposes of calculating a tax household’s notional income, of the remuneration received by an official or other servant of the European Union who is a member of that tax household, where such taking into account is capable of influencing the amount of taxation payable by that tax household? Alternatively, is it necessary to apply the judgment in Case C-229/98 Vander Zwalmen and Massart (1) by analogy, when the purpose of taking such remuneration into account, with a view to the possibility of applying a social measure designed to (a) exempt payment from tax, (b) grant a reduction in the basis of its assessment or, more generally, (c) grant a tax reduction, is only to ascertain whether or not the notional income of the tax household is less than the threshold laid down by national tax law for the grant of the benefit — possibly adjusted by reference to the notional income — of that social measure?

      (1)  EU:C:1999:501.


title: Action brought on 4 October 1995 by Giuseppe Carraro against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-183/95)

text:
9 . 12 . 95           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 333/ 17
Action brought on 4 October 1995 by 'P' against                      an abusive breach of the legitimate expectation which it
         Commission of the European Commmunities                     consistently induced her to nurture .
                       ( Case T-181 /95 )
                         ( 95/C 333/32 )
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     Action brought on 4 October 1995 by Giuseppe Carraro
                                                                       against the Commission of the European Communities
An action against the Commission of the European                                            Case T-l 83/95
Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                                ( 95/C 333/33 )
Instance of the European Communities on 4 October 1995
by ' P', represented by Marie Vicelli and Jean-Pierre Spitzer,
of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg                         (Language of the case: Italian)
at the office of Aloyse May, 30 Grand-Rue .
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
The applicant claims that the Court should:                          Instance of the European Communities on 4 October 1994
                                                                     by Giuseppe Carraro, an official employed at the Joint
— annul the decision taken on 10 February 1995 by the                Research Centre at Ispra and resident at Varese, represented
     office responsible for settling claims,                         by Giuseppe Marchesini, avvocato at the Court of Cassation
                                                                     of the Italian Republic, with an address for service in
— annul the decision taken on 5 January 1995 by the office           Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8-10 Rue
     responsible for settling claims, as clarified and               Mathias Hardt .
     supplemented by the letter of 30 June 1995 ,
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should :
— declare that the applicant is entitled to 100%
     reimbursement of her medical expenses, including the            — annul the measure implicitly refusing him assistance in
     residential expenses of her stay in a psychiatric hospital          contravention of the first subparagraph of Article 24 of
     and checks made subsequent to hospitalization up to                 the Staff Regulations, which gives rise to all the grounds
     31 December 1999 ,                                                  in this case .
— order the Commission to pay retroactively all of the               — order the Commission to pay compensation for the
     amounts which the applicant has been required to                    non-material damage suffered by the applicant as a
                                                                         result of the circulation of the defamatory letter the
     pay ,
                                                                         contents of which have never as yet been officially denied
                                                                         by the administration, which he assesses at ECU 10 000,
— order the Commission to pay all of the costs .                         and also to pay the legal costs to be incurred by the
                                                                         applicant in claiming damages in criminal proceedings
Pleas in law and main arguments:                                         before the national court, assessed at ECU 3 000,
                                                                     — order the Commission to pay the costs and expenses of
The applicant, who is the widow of a Community official                  these proceedings.
and has been in hospital since 1984 by reason of a serious
mental illness, contests two decisions reducing the duration
and scope of the reimbursements hitherto made in                     Pleas in law and main arguments:
connection with her stay in a psychiatric hospital .
                                                                     The applicant is an official of the Commission employed in
                                                                     the Infrastructure Division of the Joint Research Centre at
The applicant first takes the view that the administrative           Ispra where he performs the duties of a design engineer in
procedure which resulted in the adoption of the contested            renovation, maintenance and alteration works for the
decisions suffers from serious irregularities . She claims that      buildings at the Centre and also the task of supervising
the defendant did not take care to obtain in advance the
                                                                     contracted works . In carrying out those duties, the applicant
opinion of the institution's medical officer regarding the           had responsibility for inspecting the work done and
state of the applicant's health and that it manifestly failed to     checking whether the costs relating to the renovation
enable her to express her views in an effective manner . By          contract for the west wing of building 20/A, entered into by
acting in this way, the defendant infringed essential                the Commission and a local outside undertaking, were
procedural requirements and failed to respect the                    appropriate .
applicant's rights of defence .
                                                                     When the works were finished, after checking that they had
The applicant also pleads a breach of the applicable rules,          been carried out in a workmanlike manner and examining
arguing that the fact of basing the contested decisions on           the quantities indicated by the contractor and the payments
Point XV ( 3 ) of Annex I to the Rules on Sickness Insurance         made while the work was in progress, the applicant
for Officials of the European Communities implies a                  informed the administration that because of work which
mistaken interpretation of that provision. She also submits          had either not been carried out at all or of which less had
that the administration's conduct towards her amounts to             been done than stipulated, the works must be considered to
 ---pagebreak--- No C 333/ 18          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     9 . 12 . 95
have been paid for already by the sums paid during the               publication, the general implementing provisions applicable
course of the contract and that therefore nothing further            did not provide that the abovementioned six-month period
was due to the undertaking.                                          had to be complied with 'on pain of a request being declared
                                                                     time-barred '.
The legal representative of the undertaking then wrote to the
authorities of the Centre, making counter-allegations highly         The applicant based the request giving rise to the contested
insulting to the applicant. At the same time the applicant           decision on, first, the fact that he had been unable to comply
received a great many anonymous telephone calls which                with the six-month period laid down by the general
openly threatened him and his family .                               implementing provisions because he was on leave on
                                                                     personal grounds when the agreement with the Italian
The applicant perceived that those facts constituted the             authority was published and, second, the fact that he had
situation envisaged by the first subparagraph of Article 24          not been informed before 15 March 1994 , the date on which
of the Staff Regulations and on 28 July 1994 he submitted            the judgment in Case T- 100/92 La Pietra was delivered, that
a request to the appointing authority for the assistance             this period allowed account to be taken of circumstances
provided for in such circumstances. The appointing                   excusing delay in making a request other than force
authority has made no reply to that request.                         majeure .
                                                                     The applicant first of all contends that it was open to the
                                                                     Commission to notify its officials of the agreement in
                                                                     question through the medium of the Administrative Notices
                                                                     as well as through the Official Journal of the European
Action brought on 8 October 1995 by Giovanni Sergio                  Communities. In view of the fact that the defendant chose
     against Commission of the European Communities                  the former option, the applicant cannot then be deemed to
                       ( Case T-185 /95 )                            have been aware of the texts thus published, with the result
                                                                     that the time-limit provided for by the general implementing
                         ( 95/C 333/34 )                             provisions and the dies a quo resulting from the publication
                                                                     of the agreement or from his reinstatement in his post after
                (Language of the case: French)                       leave on personal grounds can operate against him only
                                                                     from the date on which he became aware of them .
An action against the Commission of the European                     Furthermore, as follows from the judgment in Case T-70/91
Communities was brought before the Court of First                    Moretto, it is now established that a failure to comply with
Instance of the European Communities on 8 October 1995               the six-month period may be justified by facts, other than
by Giovanni Sergio, residing in Brussels ( Belgium ),                force majeure, which are not attributable to fault on the part
                                                                     of the official concerned .
represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liege Bar.
                                                                     Finally, the applicant claims that he cannot be deemed to
The applicant claims that the Court should :                         have been aware of the judgment in Moretto on the date of
                                                                     its delivery or of its publication in the European Court
— annul the Commission decision 7 July 1994 ,                        Reports, since the Commission has the duty to inform its
                                                                     staff of the consequences of judgments having particular
— recognize the applicant's option, under Article 11 ( 2 ) of        significance for Community officials .
     Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, to transfer pension
     rights acquired in Italy from 22 November 1961 to
     21 November 1964 in respect of his service with the
     authorities of the Commune of Cutro,
— order the defendant to pay the costs .
                                                                            Action brought on 6 October 1995 by Marco
Pleas in law and main arguments:                                         Mazzocchi-Alemanni against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
The applicant, an official working with the Commission,
                                                                                ( Case T- 186/95 )
 contests the refusal to grant his request for the transfer of
 pension rights which he had acquired prior to his                                             ( 95/C 333/35 )
 appointment, when he was working in Italy.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
 Pursuant to Article 11 ( 2 ) of Annex VIII to the Staff
 Regulations, the Commission adopted a number of general
 implementing provisions, which laid down a six-month                 An action against the Commission of the European
 period within which such a transfer had to be requested; at          Communities was brought before the Court of First
 the time when agreement was reached with the competent               Instance of the European Communities on 6 October 1995
 Italian authority which made this transfer possible, the             by Marco Mazzocchi-Alemanni, residing in Libreville
 applicant was on leave on personal grounds and was                   ( Gabon ), represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar,
 therefore unable to be aware of this. This agreement was             with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
 published in the Administrative Notices. At the time of this         Fiduciaire Myson S.ar.l., 1 Rue Glesener.


title: Case T-3/12: Judgment of the General Court of 10 July 2013 — Kreyenberg v OHIM — Commission (MEMBER OF €e euro experts) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Figurative Community trade mark MEMBER OF €e euro experts — Absolute ground for refusal — Symbols of the European Union and its spheres of activity — Euro symbol — Article 7(1)(i) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               24.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/9

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 July 2013 — Kreyenberg v OHIM — Commission (MEMBER OF €e euro experts)
   (Case T-3/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Figurative Community trade mark MEMBER OF €e euro experts - Absolute ground for refusal - Symbols of the European Union and its spheres of activity - Euro symbol - Article 7(1)(i) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 245/12
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Heinrich Kreyenberg (Ratingen, Germany) (represented by: J. Krenzel, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: European Commission

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 October 2011 (Case R 1804/2010-2) concerning invalidity proceedings between the European Commission and Mr Heinrich Kreyenberg.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Heinrich Kreyenberg to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

      (1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.


title: Case T-453/10: Action brought on 24 September 2010 — Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture and Rural Development v Commission

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/38

         Action brought on 24 September 2010 — Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture and Rural Development v Commission
   (Case T-453/10)
   ()
   2010/C 328/65
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (Belfast, United Kingdom), (represented by: K. Brown, Solicitor and D. Wyatt QC, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision No 2010/399/EU (1) (notified under document C(2010) 4894) of 15 July 2010, to the extent of the entry relating to a 5 % flat-rate correction of expenditure amounting to 18 600 258,71 Euro incurred in Northern Ireland during the financial year 2007; and

               —

               Award costs against the defendant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of the present application, the applicant seeks, pursuant to Article 263 TFUE, the partial annulment of Commission Decision No 2010/399/EU (notified under document C(2010) 4894) of 15 July 2010, to the extent it excluded from European Union financing the entry relating to a 5 % flat-rate correction of expenditure amounting to 18 600 258,71 Euro incurred in Northern Ireland during the financial year 2007.
   In support of his appeal, the applicant submits the following pleas in law:

               Firstly, the Commission reached its decision as regards the contested entry on the basis errors of law and fact since the deficiencies in the key controls identified by it and the possible consequences on the declaration of eligible hectares during the 2006 claim year could not have posed a risk of 5 % to the entirety of relevant expenditures in Northern Ireland during that year. Such over-declarations could not have increased the reference amounts derived from payments to farmers during the years 2000-2002, and accordingly, could only have increased the number, and not the value, of the payments entitlements established in 2005. Approximately 78 % of the amount of the payment entitlements to be allocated and divided between eligible hectares declared by farmers in 2005 was determined by payments to the farmers concerned during the years 2000-2002 and would remain unaffected by errors in determining the number of eligible hectares in 2005 which were repeated in 2006. Furthermore, the provisions for reductions and exclusions, or penalties, apply subject to the principle of retrospective adjustment of payment entitlements, and subject to the principle that where a farmer makes an over-declaration of eligible hectares and payment entitlements, but the area of land determined to be eligible is sufficient to activate all the payment entitlements to which he is actually entitled, no penalty is payable. The Commission has misinterpreted the provisions which lay down these principles, and accordingly significantly over-estimated the amounts recoverable from farmers in Northern Ireland in respect of over-declaration during the claim year 2006.

               In addition, the Commission infringed the principle of proportionality since it has assessed the probable loss as being 5 % of the entirety of the expenditure incurred, even though the underlying principle to be applied in cases where it is not possible to make a precise assessment of losses to the relevant European Union funding funds is that the rate of correction must be clearly related to the probable loss. That assessment made by the Commission has been based on two erroneous premises; the first erroneous premise is that it is irrelevant hat errors in over-determination of eligible land in 2005 and 2006 could have had no adverse effect upon approximately 78 % of the total payment entitlements to be allocated to farmers, and accordingly could not to this extent have posed a risk to the funding. In addition, the second erroneous premise is that the Commission significantly over-estimated the amounts recoverable from farmers in Northern Ireland in the event of over-declarations in 2006. Finally, since the Commission’s application of a 5 % flat-rate reduction is based on a significant over-estimate of the actual probable loss to the European Union funding funds, it follows that in the circumstances of the case a 5 % flat-rate reduction was excessive, and thus disproportionate.

      (1)  Commission Decision of 15 July 2010 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (notified under document C(2010) 4894) (OJ 2010 L 184, p. 6).


title: Case T-435/09: Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — GL2006 Europe Ltd v Commission (Arbitration clause — Contracts for financial assistance concluded in the context of the Fifth and Sixth Framework Programmes for Community activities in the field of research and technological development and in the context of the eTEN Programme — Highway, J WeB, Care Paths, Cocoon, Secure-Justice, Qualeg, Lensis, E-Pharm Up, Liric, Grace, Clinic and E2SP projects — Termination of contracts — Reimbursement of amounts paid — Debit notes — Counterclaim — Representation of the applicant)

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — GL2006 Europe Ltd v Commission
   (Case T-435/09) (1)

   (Arbitration clause - Contracts for financial assistance concluded in the context of the Fifth and Sixth Framework Programmes for Community activities in the field of research and technological development and in the context of the eTEN Programme - Highway, J WeB, Care Paths, Cocoon, Secure-Justice, Qualeg, Lensis, E-Pharm Up, Liric, Grace, Clinic and E2SP projects - Termination of contracts - Reimbursement of amounts paid - Debit notes - Counterclaim - Representation of the applicant)
   2013/C 325/34
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: GL2006 Europe Ltd (Birmingham, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Gardenal and E. Bélinguier-Raiz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: S. Delaude and N. Bambara, and subsequently by S. Delaude, Agents, and by R. Van der Hout, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought by GL2006 Europe Ltd pursuant to Article 238 EC, on the basis of arbitration clauses, whereby the applicant disputes the checks carried out by OLAF at its premises in December 2008, the decision in the letter of 10 July 2009 whereby the Commission terminated the applicant’s participation in two research and technological development projects, and 12 debit notes issued by the Commission on 7 August 2009, seeking the reimbursement of the sums paid by the Commission to the applicant for its participation in 12 research and development projects, and a counterclaim for the reimbursement of those sums

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action brought by GL2006 Europe Ltd;

               2.

               Orders GL2006 Europe to pay to the European Commission the sum of EUR 2 258 456,31, along with interest calculated from the time-limits set out in the debit notes of 7 August 2009;

               3.

               Orders GL2006 Europe to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 11, 16.1.2010.


18.12.1999              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 366/23
Action brought on 28 October 1999 by the Commission                              Removal from the register of Case C-116/99 (1)
of the European Communities against the Republic of
                                 Austria
                                                                                (1999/C 366/40)
                           (Case C-411/99)
                                                                          By order of 21 September 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                          Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                           (1999/C 366/38)
                                                                          from the register of Case C-116/99: Commission of the
                                                                          European Communities v Italian Republic.
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 28 October 1999 by the Commission of the European
                                                                          (1) OJ No C 188 of 3.7.1999.
Communities, represented by Josef Christian Schieferer, of its
Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
(1) declare that, by failing to adopt and communicate to
     the Commission the laws, regulations and administrative
     measures necessary in order to comply with Directive
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-349/98 (1)
     95/47/EC (1) of the European Parliament and the Council
     of 24 October 1995 on the use of standards for the
     transmission of television signals, the Republic of Austria                                  (1999/C 366/41)
     has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
(2) order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.                       By order of 22 September 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                          Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                          from the register of Case C-349/98: Commission of the
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case               European Communities v Italian Republic.
C-386/99 (2); the time-limit laid down in Article 8 of the
directive expired on 23 August 1996.
                                                                          (1) OJ No C 340 of 7.11.1998.
( 1) OJ L 281 of 23.11.1995, p. 51.
(2) See p. 20 of this Official Journal.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-12/99 (1)
        Removal from the register of Case C-474/98 (1)
                           (1999/C 366/39)                                                        (1999/C 366/42)
By order of 20 September 1999 the President of the Court of               By order of 23 September 1999 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal               Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-474/98 (reference for a preliminary           from the register of Case C-12/99: Commission of the Euro-
ruling by the Tribunal Administratif de Lille): Clinique Grégoire         pean Communities v Portuguese Republic.
SA v Direction Régionale des Impôts du Nord-Pas-de-Calais.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
(1) OJ No C 71 of 13.3.1999.


title: Case T-370/16: Action brought on 12 July 2016 — Anheuser-Busch Inbev and Ampar v Commission

text:
               10.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/9

         Action brought on 12 July 2016 — Anheuser-Busch Inbev and Ampar v Commission
   (Case T-370/16)
   (2016/C 371/11)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Anheuser-Busch Inbev (Brussels, Belgium) and Ampar (Leuven, Belgium) (represented by: A. von Bonin, O. Brouwer and A. Haelterman, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN);

               —

               order the Commission to pay the Applicants’ costs pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an error of law and a manifest error of assessment in the identification of the alleged state aid measure and its classification as an aid scheme within the meaning of Article 1(d) of Regulation 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 107 TFUE.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an error in law and misapplication of Article 107(1) TFUE in holding that the Excess Profits Adjustments system constitutes State aid.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in identifying the groups as beneficiaries of the alleged aid and violation of the principle of legality and Article 16(1) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of the principles of legal certainty, protection of legitimate expectations and sound administration.


title: Case C-482/06: Order of the President of the Sixth Chamber of the Court of 20 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/38

         Order of the President of the Sixth Chamber of the Court of 20 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-482/06) (1)

   (2008/C 51/64)

      Language of the case: Portuguese

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

      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.


title: Case T-258/14: Order of the General Court of 12 January 2015  — Luxembourg v Commission

text:
               9.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 81/29

         Order of the General Court of 12 January 2015 — Luxembourg v Commission
   (Case T-258/14) (1)

   (2015/C 081/37)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Fifth Chamber (extended composition) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.