title: Case T-791/14: Action brought on 4 December 2014  — Bensarsa v European Commission and EDPS

text:
               2.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 34/43

         Action brought on 4 December 2014 — Bensarsa v European Commission and EDPS
   (Case T-791/14)
   (2015/C 034/51)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Faouzi Bensarsa (Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: S.A. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendants: European Commission and European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 25 February 2014 adopted by the Security Directorate;

               —

               Annul the decision of 24 October 2014 impliedly adopted by the EDPS;

               —

               Order the defendants to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons for the Commission’s decision of 25 February 2014.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons for the decision of the EDPS, since it was implied and its reasons could not be deduced either from its context or the decision of 25 February 2014.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 (1).
               The applicant argues that the lack of response from the EDPS constitutes a breach of the duty to inform the data subject, provided for in Articles 46(a) and 20(4) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).


title: Action brought on 22 February 1995 by Fratelli Buzzi SpA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-51/95)

text:
No C 119/16             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    13 . 5 . 95
      (c ) the exchange of information on prices;                    — in the alternative, annul Article 9 of that decision in so
                                                                         far as it imposes the fine on the applicant,
      (d ) the agreement to set up a 'European Task
            Force ';                                                 — reduce the amount of the fine imposed on the
                                                                         applicant;
      (e ) the agreement to set up a 'Joint Trading
            Company';
                                                                     — order the Commission to pay the costs,
      ( f) the agreement and certain concerted practices
            adopted to protect the Italian market;                   — order the Commission to reimburse the whole of the
                                                                         costs incurred by the applicant in respect of the
      (g) the alleged concerted practices within the                     administrative procedure,
            European Cement Export Committee ( ECEC).
                                                                     — order the Commission to reimburse the whole of the
III. As regards the fine, the applicant claims that:                     costs incurred in providing a security for the payment of
                                                                         the fine payable under the Decision.
      (a ) Unicem did not possess the degree of knowledge
            attributed to it by the Commission: its conduct
            could not have been 'intentional';                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      ( b ) the time for prosecuting some of the infringements       The applicant relies on the following grounds in support of
            imputed to Unicem had expired; others were not           its application:
            charged against Unicem in the Statement of
            Objections; some could not have been of the              1 . Serious infringement of the rights of the defence and of
            alleged duration;                                             procedural rules as follows:
      (c ) the infringements allegedly committed by Unicem                ( a ) inconsistency between the charges and the
            are much less serious than the Commission                           Decision;
            considers; there has been a breach of the principle
            of proportionality and of the principle of equal              ( b ) insufficiently specific and incomplete charges;
            treatment;
      ( d ) the fine has been calculated on various erroneous             (c ) failure to give the applicant a reasonable period in
            bases, which creates substantial disparity in                       which to submit its observations in its defence;
            treatment .
                                                                          ( d ) failure to forward to the Consultative Committee
(!) OJ No L 343 , 30 . 12 . 1994, p . 1 .                                       essential and relevant parts of the draft Decision.
                                                                     2 . Infringement of Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty as a
                                                                         result of erroneous or inadequate assessment and legal
                                                                         characterization of the facts .
Action brought on 22 February 1995 by Fratelli Buzzi SpA
  against the Commission of the European Communities                 3 . Breach of the principle personal liability.
                          Case T-51/95 )
                                                                    4. Breach of the principle ne bis in idem.
                          ( 95/C 119/37)
                                                                    5 . Breach of the principle in dubio pro reo.
                 (Language of the case: ltalian)
                                                                     6. Infringement of Articles 1 ( b ) and 2 ( 3 ) of Council
An action against the Commission of the European                         Regulation ( EEC ) No 2988/74 of 26 November
Communities was brought before the Court of First                         1974 .
Instance of the European Communities on 22 February
1995 by Fratelli Buzzi SpA, whose registered office is at           7. Infringement of Article 15 ( 2 ) of Council Regulation
Casale Monferrato (Italy), represented by Messrs Brosio                  No 17/62 of 6 February 1962 inasmuch as:
and Pavesio, of the Turin Bar, Dr Crescenza, of the Rome
Bar, and Dr. Ceraolo, of the Turin Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Mr Faltz,                       (a ) sales not relating to the preceding financial year
                                                                                were taken into account;
Avocat, 6 Rue Heine .
                                                                         ( b) the subjective element was not considered;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul in whole or in part the Decision of the                          (c ) the duration and seriousness of the infringement
    Commission 94/815/EC (IV/33.126 and 33.322 —                                were incorrectly assessed.
    Cement) ( a ) of 30 November 1994 in so far as concerns
    the applicant,                                                  8 . Breach of the principle of equal treatment.
 ---pagebreak--- 13 . 5 . 95           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 119/17
9 . Breach of the principle of proportionality.                          7. A new objection, not contained in the Statement of
                                                                              Objections, was made;
(M OJ No L 343 , 30 . 12 . 1994, p . 1 .
                                                                         8 . Irregular consulting of the Advisory Committee.
                                                                     II. Errors in interpreting the evidence available and
                                                                         undervaluation of the evidence favourable to the
                                                                         applicant:
    Action brought on 22 February 1995 by Comparua
     Valenciana de Cementos Portland SA against the                      1 , as regards the so-called 'Cembureau Agreement',
          Commission of the European Communities                              the Decision failed to take account of the fact that
                        ( Case T-52/95 )                                      the applicant is not a member of 'Cembureau';
                          95/C 119/38
                                                                         2 , as regards the participation of the applicant in the
                                                                              'European     Export     Policy   Committee',      the
                (Language of tbe case: Spanish)                               Commission      failed  to   take  account    of the
                                                                              non-participation of the applicant as from 1986,
An action against the Commission of the European                              when it began to concentrate all its exports in the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                             USA; neither did it demonstrate the connection
Instance on 22 February 1995 by Compania Valenciana de                        between cooperation for exporting to non-member
Cementos Portland SA, represented by Santiago Martinez                        countries and the rule of respecting national
Lage and Jaime Pérez-Bustarnente Kôster, of the Madrid                        markets;
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand Rue,                                    3 , as regards the applicant's participation in the
                                                                              'White Cement Committee ', the Decision failed to
                                                                              take into account the fact that there is no evidence
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                  whatsoever that the meetings at which the
                                                                              applicant was present adopted or applied any
— declare in whole or in part Articles 1 to 11 of                             rule of respecting national markets and that
    Commission Decision 94/815/EC of 30 November 1994
                                                                              cooperation between the members of the
    to be void as far as the applicant is concerned,                          Committee did not give rise, at least in so far as the
                                                                              applicant is concerned, to any solidarity.
— in the alternative, alter Articles 9 and 10 of the
    aforementioned Decision so as to reduce the amount of
    the fine imposed on Compania Valenciana, and                    III. Misapplication of Article 85 of the EC Treaty to the
                                                                         facts in issue through the finding that, through
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                                cooperation over exports to non-member countries,
                                                                         the supply of Community production surpluses was
                                                                         hindered, without the effect on Community trade as a
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                         result of such cooperation being established.
The applicant relies upon the following grounds:
                                                                    IV. As regards the fine, the applicant argues that its amount
  I. Breach of essential procedural requirements during                  is excessive since the Decision failed to take into
      examination of the file before the Commission and                  account the mitigating circumstances in its favour
      once the Decision was adopted . Those defects, which               which would have justified a significantly reduced
      prevented the applicant from defending itself                      fine .
      adequately against the objections raised against it, are
      as follows :
      1 . Improper notification of the decision;
      2 . The objections raised were not sufficiently
           precise;                                                    Action brought on 22 February 1995 by The Rugby
                                                                        Group pic against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
      3 . Inadequate notification of the Statement of
           Objections and inadequate access to the file;                                   (Case T-53/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 119/39 )
     4. Absence of a real table of documents;
      5 . Breach of the fundamental right to the heard;                            (Language of the case: English)
      6 . Absence of a complete translation of the Statement       An action against the Commission of the European
           of Objections, the documents cited therein and the       Communities was brought before the Court of First
           minutes of the hearing;                                  Instance of the European Communities on 22 February by


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 5 June 1997 in Case C-56/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State van België): VT4 Ltd v. Vlaamse Gemeenschaap (Free movement of services - Television broadcasting - Establishment - Evasion of domestic legislation)

text:
26 . 7. 97             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 228/3
Agreement between the European Economic Community                     broadcasting activities is to be interpreted as meaning that
and Turkey, is to be interpreted as meaning that a Turkish            a television broadcaster comes under the jurisdiction of
worker does not satisfy the condition of having been in               the Member States in which it is established. If a television
legal employment, within the meaning of that provision,               broadcaster is established in more than one Member State,
in the host Member State, where he has been employed                  the Member State having jurisdiction over it is the one in
there under a residence permit which was issued to him                whose territory the broadcaster has the centre of its
only as a result of fraudulent conduct in respect of which            activities, in particular where decisions concerning
he has been convicted.                                                programme policy are taken and the programmes to be
                                                                      broadcast are finally put together.
(') OJ No C 268 , 14 . 10 . 1995 .
                                                                      o OJ No C 133 , 4 . 5 . 1996.
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        ( Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                          of 5 June 1997
                                                                                of 5 June 1997
in Case C-56/96 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Raad van State van België): VT4 Ltd v. Vlaamse                    in     Case   C-107/96: Community of the European
                        Gemeenschaap (*)                                           Communities v. Kingdom of Spain (')
(Free movement of services — Television broadcasting —                    (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/156/EEC)
       Establishment — Evasion of domestic legislation)
                                                                                ( 97/C 228/06 )
                           ( 97/C 228/05 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                  published in the European Court Reports)
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                      In Case C-107/96 : Commission of the European
In Case C-56/96 : reference to the Court under Article 177            Communities ( Agents : Richard Wainwright and Fernando
of the EC Treaty by the Raad van State van Belgie, for                Castillo de la Torre ) v. Kingdom of Spain (Agent: Luis
a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before                Perez de Ayala Becerril ) — application for a declaration
that court between VT4 Ltd and Vlaamse Gemeenschap                    that, by failing to adopt and bring into force or to notify
(third parties : Intercommunale Maatschappij voor Gas en              within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
Elektriciteit van het Westen ( Gaselwest) and Others,                 administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Vlaamse Uitgeversmaatschappij NV (VUM), Integan                       Council     Directive    91 /156/EEC     of  18  March    1991
Intercommunale CV and Others and Vlaamse Televisie                    amending Directive 75/442/EEC on waste ( OJ No L 78,
Maatschappij NV (VTM)) — on the interpretation of                     26 . 3 . 1991 , p. 32 ), the Kingdom of Spain has failed to
Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the                 fulfil its obligations under that Directive and under
coordination of certain provisions laid down by law,                  Articles 5 and 189 of the EC Treaty —the Court ( Fifth
regulation or administrative action in Member States                  Chamber), composed of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities          President of the Chamber, L. Sevon ( Rapporteur ), D. A. O.
 ( OJ No L 298 , 17. 10 . 1989, p. 23 ), — the Court                  Edward, P. Jann and M. Wathelet, Judges; P. Leger,
composed of G. F. Mancini, President of the Chamber, J. L.            Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
Murray, C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur)                judgment on 5 June 1997, in which it:
and H. Ragnemalm, Judges, Advocate-General; C. O.
Lenz, Registrar: H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has
given a judgment on 5 June 1997, in which it rules :
                                                                       1 . declares that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
                                                                            within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
                                                                            administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Article 2 (1 ) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of                           Council Directive 91 /156/EEC of 18 March 1991
3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions                    amending Directive 75/442/EEC on waste, the
laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in                    Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations
Member States concerning the pursuit of television                          under Article 2 (1 ) of that Directive;


title: Case C-228/09: Action brought on 24 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

text:
               26.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 233/3

         Action brought on 24 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-228/09)
   2009/C 233/04
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by including the amount of the ‘opłata rejestracyjna’ (registration charge) within the taxable amount for VAT levied in Poland on the supply, intra-Community acquisition or import of a passenger car, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 78, 79, 83 and 86 of Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax; (1)

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The plea advanced in the present case concerns the Republic of Poland’s inclusion of the amount of the registration charge in the taxable amount for VAT when the supply, intra-Community acquisition and import of unregistered passenger cars take place in that Member State.
   In the Commission’s view, there is a fundamental similarity between the Polish tax/charge at issue in the present case and the Danish tax/charge in Case C-98/05 De Danske Bilimportører. In that case, the Court held that the relevant tax/registration charge does not fall within the taxable amount for VAT.
   The Commission takes the view that the operation of the Polish registration charge in the case of successive transactions concerning the same vehicle prior to its registration shows that it is in essence a registration tax/charge, and not a tax on sales as the Republic of Poland maintains. The taxable person can deduct the amount of the registration charge from the amount of tax chargeable. This means that ultimately, through the system of deduction of the tax paid previously, the tax/charge is levied only once.
   The Commission does not concur with the Republic of Poland’s argument that the person liable for payment of the registration charge is the seller, the intra-Community acquirer or the importer of the vehicle and not the person in whose name the car is registered.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 October 2002 in Case T-104/01: Claudia Oberhauser v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Earlier figurative mark containing the term "miss fifties" — Application for Community word mark "Fifties" — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
C 19/32                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     25.1.2003
1.     Dismisses the applications;                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.                                                       of 23 October 2002
                                                                            in Case T-104/01: Claudia Oberhauser v Office for Har-
( 1) OJ C 186 of 30.6.2001.                                                 monisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                                Designs) (OHIM) ( 1)
                                                                            (Community trade mark — Opposition — Earlier figurative
                                                                            mark containing the term ‘miss fifties’ — Application for
                                                                            Community word mark ‘Fifties’ — Relative ground for
                                                                            refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of
                                                                                Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (2003/C 19/60)
                       of 26 November 2002                                                     (Language of the case: German)
in Case T-103/01: Michael Cwik v Commission of the
                                                                            In Case T-104/01, Claudia Oberhauser, established in Munich
                    European Communities ( 1)
                                                                            (Germany), represented by M. Graf, lawyer, v Office for
                                                                            Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
(Officials — Reorganisation of the Commission’s adminis-                    Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: G. Schneider), the other party to the
trative structures — Redeployment — Reasons — Interest                      proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for
       of the service — Misuse of power — Duty of care)                     Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                            Designs) being Petit Liberto, SA, established in Vidreres (Spain):
                                                                            Action brought against the decision of the Second Chamber
                           (2003/C 19/59)                                   Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                            Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 February
                                                                            2001 (Case R 757/1999-2), the Court of First Instance (Fourth
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            Chamber), composed of: M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and
                                                                            P. Mengozzi, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the
                                                                            Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 October 2002, in which
                                                                            it:
In Case T-103/01: Michael Cwik, an official of the Commission
of the European Communities, residing in Tervuren (Belgium),                1.     Dismisses the application;
represented by N. Lhoëst, avocat, with an address for service
in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Com-                      2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
munities (Agents: J. Currall, D. Waelbroeck and J. Waldron) —
application, in the first place, for annulment of the Commission
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 227 of 11.8.2001.
decision transferring the applicant from the ‘Economic Infor-
mation, Publications and Documentation’ Unit, which first
became the ‘Information: EURO, EMU’ Unit and subsequently
became Unit 4 ‘Communications Policy in regard to Monetary
Union’, to the ‘General Coordination, Human Resources and
Administration’ Unit, which became Unit 1 ‘Human Resources
Coordination; Information and Administration’, within the                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
‘Economic and Financial Affairs’ Directorate-General, and,
second, for compensation — the Court of First Instance                                             of 7 November 2002
(Second Chamber), composed of: R.M. Moura Ramos, Presi-
dent, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; D. Christensen,                   in Case T-199/01: G v Commission of the European
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                                             Communities ( 1)
26 November 2002, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                            (Officials — Social security — Refusal to reimburse medical
                                                                                expenses — Inefficacious treatment)
1.     The application is dismissed;
                                                                                (2003/C 19/61)
2.     The parties shall bear their own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
( 1) OJ C 227 of 11.08.2001.
                                                                            In Case T-199/01: G, an official of the Commission of the
                                                                            European Communities, residing in Ispra (Italy), represented by


title: Case T-474/12: Action brought on 31 October 2012 — Giorgis v OHIM — Comigel (Shape of goblets)

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/40

         Action brought on 31 October 2012 — Giorgis v OHIM — Comigel (Shape of goblets)
   (Case T-474/12)
   2013/C 9/72
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Giorgio Giorgis (Milan, Italy) (represented by: I. Prado and A. Tornato, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Comigel SAS (Saint- Julien-lès-Metz, France)

      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 26 July 2012 in case R 1301/2011-1; and

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The three-dimensional mark representing a shape of goblets, for goods in class 30 — Community trade mark registration No 8132681

      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 request for a declaration of invalidity was based on grounds for refusal pursuant to Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Articles 7(1)(b) and (d) of Council Regulation No 207/2009

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the contested CTM invalid

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-478/01: Action brought on 11 December 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
6.4.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 84/45
Appeal brought on 6 December 2001 by Procter &                         the Commission of the European Communities, represented
Gamble Company against the judgment delivered on                       by M. Patakia, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
19 September 2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court                   Luxembourg.
of First Instance of the European Communities in case
T-129/00 (1) between Procter & Gamble Company and
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
                 Marks and Designs) (OHIM).                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
                       (Case C-474/01 P)
                                                                       (1) declare that, by maintaining the obligation for patent
                                                                             agents, when providing services, either to maintain an
                         (2002/C 84/77)                                      official place of business on Luxembourg territory or,
                                                                             failing that, to maintain an official address care of an
                                                                             approved agent, and by failing to supply information
                                                                             concerning the precise conditions for the application of
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 19 September                     Article 85(2) of the Law of 20 July 1992 and Articles 19
2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of                 and 20 of the Law of 28 December 1988, the Grand
the European Communities in case T-129/00 between Procter                    Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations
& Gamble Company and Office for Harmonisation in the                         under Article 49 et seq. EC and Article 10 EC respectively;
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 6 December 2001 by Procter & Gamble Company,                   (2) order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
established in Cincinnati, Ohio (United States of America),
represented by C.J.J.C. van Nispen and G. Kuipers, lawyers.
The Appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
—     annul the judgment; insofar as the remainder of the
      action was dismissed;
                                                                       —     The obligation to maintain an official address, imposed
—     order the OHIM to pay the costs both at first instance                 by Article 83(4) of the Law of 20 July 1992, constitutes a
      and on appeal.                                                         restriction on the principle of freedom to provide services
                                                                             as laid down by Article 49 EC, since it impedes the
                                                                             activities of the service provider by causing him to bear
                                                                             additional costs and obliging him to create professional
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              links with a local operator in the same sector, who may
                                                                             even be a competitor. Moreover, that obligation is likely
                                                                             to prompt foreign applicants to have recourse to the
See case C-473/01 P.                                                         services of patent agents established in Luxembourg.
(1) OJ C 192, 8.7.2000, p. 25.                                         —     The fact that the detailed information requested by the
                                                                             Commission has not been supplied means that it is
                                                                             impossible to establish whether it is justified, even as
                                                                             regards straightforward acts of an administrative nature,
                                                                             to require industrial property advisers in other Member
                                                                             States to fulfil the criteria for recognition of their
                                                                             professional        qualifications     (Council     Directive
                                                                             89/48/EEC (1)). That lack of any response constitutes a
Action brought on 11 December 2001 by the Commission                         failure to collaborate within the meaning of Article 10
of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy                          EC.
                        of Luxembourg
                        (Case C-478/01)
                                                                       (1) Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general
                                                                           system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded
                         (2002/C 84/78)                                    on completion of professional education and training of at least
                                                                           three years’ duration (OJ L 19 of 21.1.1989, p. 16).
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
brought before the Court of Justice on 11 December 2001 by


title: Case C-192/15: Order of the President of the Court of 9 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — T.D. Rease, P. Wullems v College bescherming persoonsgegevens

text:
               29.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/11

         Order of the President of the Court of 9 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — T.D. Rease, P. Wullems v College bescherming persoonsgegevens
   (Case C-192/15) (1)

   (2016/C 078/16)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 236, 20.7.2015.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 6 May 2003 in Case T-321/02: Paul Vannieuwenhuyze-Morin v European Parliament and Council of the European Union (Application for annulment — Directive 2002/58/EC — Natural or legal persons — Standing to bring proceedings — Inadmissibility)

text:
23.8.2003                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 200/23
represented by W. Schuler, lawyer, against Commission of the                2.    The applicants shall bear their own costs and those incurred by
European Communities (Agents: G. zur Hausen and B. Eggers)                        the Commission.
— application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC)
No 560/2002 of 27 March 2002 imposing provisional safe-
guard measures against imports of certain steel products (OJ                (1) OJ C 289, 23.11.2002.
2002 L 85, p. 1) — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber),
composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, R.M. Moura Ramos and
H. Legal, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 30 April
2003, in which it:
1.    Dismissed the action as inadmissible.
2.    Ordered the applicants to bear their own costs and those of the              ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      Commission, including the costs relating to the procedure for
      interim relief.
                                                                                of 6 May 2003
( ) OJ C 191 of 10.8.02.
 1
                                                                            in Case T-321/02: Paul Vannieuwenhuyze-Morin v
                                                                            European Parliament and Council of the European
                                                                                Union (1)
                                                                            (Application for annulment — Directive 2002/58/EC —
                                                                            Natural or legal persons — Standing to bring proceedings
                                                                                — Inadmissibility)
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (2003/C 200/42)
                            of 9 April 2003
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
in Case T-280/02: Johannes Jacobus Pikaart and Others v
        Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                            In Case T-321/02: Paul Vannieuwenhuyze-Morin, residing in
                                                                            Grigny (France), represented by G. Dupaigne, lawyer, against
                                                                            the European Parliament (Agents: H. Duintjer Tebbens and
(Application for annulment — Actionable measures — Inad-
                                                                            A. Caiola) and the Council of the European Union (Agent:
                               missibility)
                                                                            M.-C. Giorgi Fort) — application for partial annulment of
                                                                            Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the
                                                                            Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal
                            (2003/C 200/41)                                 data and the protection of privacy in the electronic commu-
                                                                            nications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic commu-
                                                                            nications) (OJ 2002 L 201, p. 37) — the Court of First
                      (Language of the case: Dutch)                         Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, President,
                                                                            P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made
                                                                            an order on 6 May 2003, the operative part of which is as
                                                                            follows:
In Case T-280/02: Johannes Jacobus Pikaart, residing in Papen-
drecht (Netherlands), Johanna Cornelia Pikaart-Leeuwestein,
residing in Papendrecht, Scheepvaartonderneming ‘Factotum’                  1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
vof, established in Papendrecht, represented by J. van Dam
and D. Ouwerling, lawyers, against the Commission of the
European Communities (Agent: W. Wils) — application for                     2.    It is unnecessary to rule on the applications for leave to
annulment of the decision of the Commission contained in                          intervene lodged by the Kingdom of Spain and the Commission.
the letter addressed to the applicants by its services on 16 July
2002 (D (2002) 11796) — the Court of First Instance (Third
                                                                            3.    The applicant shall bear his own costs and those incurred by
Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi and
                                                                                the Parliament and the Council.
M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 9 April
2003, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                            (1) OJ C 7, 11.1.2003.
1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.


title: Case T-184/05: Action brought on 4 May 2005 by Dypna Mc Sweeney and Pauline Armstrong against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/40

         Action brought on 4 May 2005 by Dypna Mc Sweeney and Pauline Armstrong against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-184/05)
   (2005/C 182/74)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 4 May 2005 by Dypna Mc Sweeney, residing in Brussels, and Pauline Armstrong, residing in Overijse (Belgium), represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Xavier Martin, Albert Coolen, Jean Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               1.

               annul the decisions of 6 and 7 September 2004 refusing to admit the applicants to the EPSO/C/11/03 competition tests;

               2.

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants participated in the EPSO/C/11/03 competition organised for the purposes of drawing up a reserve list of English-language secretaries at grade C5/C4. The selection board in that competition decided to exclude them from the tests of that competition, on the ground that their diplomas did not correspond to the level required by the competition notice.
   In support of their action, the applicants submit that that decision infringes the competition notice and stems from a manifest error of assessment.


title: Case T-281/16: Action brought on 2 June 2016 — Solelec and Others v Parliament

text:
               18.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/48

         Action brought on 2 June 2016 — Solelec and Others v Parliament
   (Case T-281/16)
   (2016/C 260/60)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Solelec SA (Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg), Mannelli & Associés SA (Bertrange, Luxembourg), Paul Wagner et fils SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Socom SA (Foetz, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Marx, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Decision No D(2016)14480 of 27 May 2016 of the Directorate-General for Infrastructure and Logistics of the European Parliament by which the tender of the consortium ‘ELECTRO KAD’, formed by the companies SOLELEC S.A., MANNELLI & ASSOCIÉS S.A., PAUL WAGNER & FILS S.A. and SOCOM S.A., with regard to Lot 75 ‘electricity — high-voltage’ presented on 14 January 2016 in the context of call for tenders INLO-D-UPIL-T-15-AO6 concerning the extension project and upgrade of the Konrad Adenauer Building in Luxembourg was rejected and the decision that awarded the contract at issue to another tenderer;

               —

               Order production of the documents of the procurement file in which the contacts which were made between the Parliament and the tenderers were reported in accordance with Article 160(3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging failure to observe the selection criteria, which were not fulfilled by the consortium that was awarded the contract in so far as one of its members did not have legal personality for the entire duration of the work and it was, it is claimed, impossible for the consortium awarded the contract to have the references relating to technical and professional capacity as required in the tender specifications.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging failure to comply with the award criteria. By comparing the tender submitted by the applicants to that of the consortium that was awarded the contract, the latter would have been revealed to be abnormally low, which would have led the defendant to reject that tender and to award the contract to the applicants.


title: Case T-35/11: Action brought on 24 January 2011 — Kyocera Mita Europe v Commission

text:
               12.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/25

         Action brought on 24 January 2011 — Kyocera Mita Europe v Commission
   (Case T-35/11)
   2011/C 80/49
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Kyocera Mita Europe BV (represented by: P. De Baere and P. Muñiz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare the action admissible;

               —

               annul Commission Regulation (EU) No 861/2010 of 5 October 2010 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1) and in particular to the extent that it introduces the subdivisions under Harmonized System (‘HS’) subheading 8443 31 and the corresponding duty rates; and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on pleas in law that are identical to the ones relied on by the applicant in Case T-34/11, Canon Europa v Commission.

      (1)  OJ 2010 L 284, p.1


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 April 2000 in Case C-286/95 P: Commission of the European Communities v Imperial Chemical Industries plc (ICI) (Appeal — Action for annulment — Pleas in law — Infringement of essential procedural requirements — Failure to authenticate a decision adopted by the college of Commissioners — Issue that may be raised of the Court's own motion)

text:
8.7.2000                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 192/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       1. Dismisses the appeal;
                                                                             2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                costs.
                          of 6 April 2000
                                                                             (1) OJ C 268 of 14.10.1995.
in Case C-286/95 P: Commission of the European Com-
    munities v Imperial Chemical Industries plc (ICI) (1)
(Appeal — Action for annulment — Pleas in law —
Infringement of essential procedural requirements — Failure
to authenticate a decision adopted by the college of Com-                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
missioners — Issue that may be raised of the Court’s own
                               motion)                                                                 (Fifth Chamber)
                          (2000/C 192/01)                                                              of 6 April 2000
                                                                             in Joined Cases C-287/95 P and C-288/95 P: Commission
                   (Language of the case: English)                                   of the European Communities v Solvay SA (1)
                                                                             (Appeal — Actions for annulment — Pleas in law —
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       Infringement of essential procedural requirements — Failure
                   in the European Court Reports)                            to authenticate decisions adopted by the college of Com-
                                                                             missioners — Issue that may be raised of the Court’s own
In Case C-286/95 P: Commission of the European Communi-                                                     motion)
ties (Agents: J. Currall and B.J. Drijber) — appeal against the
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European                                                (2000/C 192/02)
Communities (First Chamber, Extended Composition) of
29 June 1995 in Case T-37/91 ICI v Commission [1995] ECR
II-1901, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other                                      (Language of the case: French)
party to the proceedings being Imperial Chemical Industries
plc (ICI), established in London, represented by D. Vaughan
QC, G. Barling QC and D. Anderson, Barrister, instructed by                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
V.O. White, R.J. Coles and S.M. Turner, Solicitors, with an                                     in the European Court Reports)
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Lambert
H. Dupong, 14a Rue des Bains — the Court (Fifth Chamber),                    In Joined Cases C-287/95 P and C-288/95 P: Commission of
composed of: L. Sevón (Rapporteur), President of the First                  the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and B.J. Drijber)
Chamber, acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber,                      — appeals against the judgments of the Court of First Instance
P.J.G. Kapteyn, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet, Judg-                 of the European Communities (First Chamber, Extended
es; N. Fennelly, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,                Composition) of 29 June 1995 in Cases T-31/91 and T-32/91
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 April 2000, in                  Solvay v Commission [1995] ECR II-1821 and II-1825,
which it:                                                                    seeking to have those judgments set aside, the other party to


title: Case C-212/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 November 2011 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 43 EC and 56 EC — Free movement of capital — Golden shares held by the Portuguese State in GALP Energia SGPS SA — Participation in the management of a privatised company)

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/3

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 November 2011 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
      (Case C-212/09) (1)

      (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 43 EC and 56 EC - Free movement of capital - Golden shares held by the Portuguese State in GALP Energia SGPS SA - Participation in the management of a privatised company)
      (2012/C 25/03)
      Language of the case: Portuguese

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braun, M. Teles Romão and P. Guerra e Andrade, Agents)

         Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, Agent, and by C. Botelho Moniz, M. Rosado da Fonseca and P. Gouveia e Melo, advogados)

         Re:

      Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 43 EC and 56 EC — Special rights of the State and other public bodies in the company GALP Energia, SGPS SA (‘golden shares’)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court (First Chamber):

                  1.

                  Declares that, by maintaining in favour of the Portuguese State and other public bodies special rights in GALP Energia SGPS SA, such as those provided for in the present case by Law No 11/90 of 5 April 1990 concerning the Framework Law on Privatisations (Lei no 11/90, Lei Quadro das Privatizações), by Decree-Law No 261-A/99 of 7 July 1999 approving the first phase of the privatisation of the share capital of GALP — Petróleos e Gás de Portugal SGPS SA (Decreto-Lei no 261-A/99 aprova a 1.a fase do processo de privatização do capital social da GALP — Petróleos e Gás de Portugal, SGPS, SA), and by the articles of association of that company, granted in connection with the Portuguese State’s golden shares in the share capital of that company, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 EC;

                  2.

                  Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 180, 1.8.2009.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 November 1999 in Case C-442/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidsrechtbank, Bruges): Jozef Van Coile v Rĳksdienst voor Pensioenen (Social security — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92)— Benefits of the same kind payable under the legislation of two or more Member States — Provision on reduction, suspension or withdrawal laid down by the legislation of a Member State — National legislation acknowledging periods in accordance with a legal presumption ("war years presumption") where no pension right payable under another scheme (including a foreign scheme) is established for them)

text:
C 47/4                  EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                          19.2.2000
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                                              (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 18 November 1999
                       of 11 November 1999
                                                                             in Case C-442/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling
in Case C-350/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                    from the Arbeidsrechtbank, Bruges): Jozef Van Coile v
the Diikitiko Protodikio, Piraeus): Henkel Hellas ABEE v                                     Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen (1)
                           Greek State (1)
                                                                             (Social security — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (as
 (Directive 69/335/EEC — Indirect taxes on the raising of                    amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92) — Benefits of
capital — Tax on the capitalisation of undistributed profits)                the same kind payable under the legislation of two or more
                                                                             Member States — Provision on reduction, suspension or
                                                                             withdrawal laid down by the legislation of a Member State
                                                                             — National legislation acknowledging periods in accordance
                           (2000/C 47/05)
                                                                             with a legal presumption (‘war years presumption’) where
                                                                             no pension right payable under another scheme (including a
                                                                                foreign scheme) is established for them)
                    (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                                (2000/C 47/06)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
In Case C-350/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Diikitiko                                           in the European Court Reports)
Protodikio (Administrative Court of First Instance), Piraeus,
Greece, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Henkel Hellas ABEE and Greek State                 In Case C-442/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
— on the interpretation of Articles 4 and 7 of Council                       the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Arbeidsrechtbank
Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect                     (Labour Court), Bruges, (Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in
taxes on the raising of capital (OJ, English Special Edition 1969            the proceedings pending before that court between Jozef Van
(11), p. 412), as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of                 Coile and Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen — on the interpretation
10 June 1985 (OJ 1985 L 156, p. 23) — the Court (Sixth                       of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on
Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the Second                 the application of social security schemes to employed persons,
Chamber, acting as President of the Sixth Chamber, G. Hirsch                 to self-employed persons and to members of their families
and H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur), Judges; N. Fennelly, Advo-                    moving within the Community, as amended by Council
cate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the                     Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92 of 30 April 1992 (OJ 1992
Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 November 1999, in                      L 136, p. 7) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
which it has ruled:                                                          D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,
                                                                             J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, L. Sevón, J.-P. Puissochet and
                                                                             M. Wathelet, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect             Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive             18 November 1999, in which it has ruled:
85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, is to be interpreted as preventing a
tax from being levied on the capitalisation by a capital company of
                                                                             A national provision such as that at issue in the main proceedings
undistributed profits, such as the tax at issue in the main proceedings.
                                                                             under which an employed person who, between 1 January 1938 and
                                                                             1 January 1945, was in employment in respect of which minimum
                                                                             contributions were paid under a social security scheme of the State
                                                                             concerned is to be deemed to have paid sufficient contributions to
(1) OJ C 358 of 21.11.1998.                                                  establish that he was normally and principally employed throughout
                                                                             the period between the date on which the period of employment
                                                                             established came to an end and 1 January 1946, but under which
                                                                             that presumption is not applicable to periods of employment for
                                                                             which the person concerned receives a pension under a scheme of
                                                                             another State, does not constitute a provision on reduction, suspension
 ---pagebreak--- 19.2.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 47/5
or withdrawal within the meaning of Council Regulation (EEC)                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security
schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to
members of their families moving within the Community, as amended                                       (Fifth Chamber)
by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92 of 30 April 1992.
                                                                                of 18 November 1999
(1) OJ C 55 of 20.2.1998.
                                                                           in Case C-107/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                           the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per l’Emilia-
                                                                           Romagna): Teckal Srl v Comune di Viano, Azienda Gas-
                                                                                Acqua Consorziale (AGAC) di Reggio Emilia (1)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                           (Public service and public supply contracts — Directives
                                                                           92/50/EEC and 93/36/EEC — Award by a local authority of
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                   a contract for the supply of products and provision of
                                                                             specified services to a consortium of which it is a member)
                      of 18 November 1999
in Case C-209/97: Commission of the European Communi-                                                    (2000/C 47/08)
           ties v Council of the European Union (1)
(Regulation (EC) No 515/97 — Legal basis — Article 235                                            (Language of the case: Italian)
of the EC Treaty (now Article 308 EC) or Article 100a of the
      EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 95 EC))
                          (2000/C 47/07)                                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           In Case C-107/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                           the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunale
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     Amministrativo Regionale per l’Emilia-Romagna (Regional
                   in the European Court Reports)                          Administrative Court for Emilia Romagna), Italy, for a prelimi-
                                                                           nary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
In Case C-209/97: Commission of the European Communities                   between Teckal Srl and Comune di Viano, Azienda Gas-Acqua
(Agents: M. Nolin and P. van Nuffel), supported by the Euro-               Consorziale (AGAC) di Reggio Emilia — on the interpretation
pean Parliament, (Agents: J. Schoo and J.-L. Rufas Quintana) v             of Article 6 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992
Council of the European Union (Agents: B. Hoff-Nielsen,                    relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of
M.C. Giorgi and F. Anton), supported by the French Republic                public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1) — the Court
(Agents: M. Perrin de Brichambaut and F. Pascal) — application             (Fifth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the
for the annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 515/97 of                  Chamber, L. Sevón, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and
13 March 1997 on mutual assistance between the administrat-                M. Wathelet, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,
ive authorities of the Member States and cooperation between               Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
the latter and the Commission to ensure the correct application            on 18 November 1999, in which it has ruled:
of the law on customs and agricultural matters (OJ 1997 L 82,
p. 1) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: P.J.G. Kap-
teyn, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, G. Hirsch             Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating pro-
(Rapporteur) and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate                 cedures for the award of public supply contracts is applicable in the
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 Nov-              case where a contracting authority, such as a local authority, plans to
ember 1999, in which it:                                                   conclude in writing, with an entity which is formally distinct from it
                                                                           and independent of it in regard to decision-making, a contract for
1. Dismisses the application;                                              pecuniary interest for the supply of products, whether or not that
                                                                           entity is itself a contracting authority.
2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the
    costs and the European Parliament and the French Republic to
    bear their own costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.
(1) OJ C 228 of 26.7.1997.


title: Case T-307/00: Action brought on 25 September 2000 by Anne Puers against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
25.11.2000             EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 335/47
Action brought on 15 September 2000 by Cooperativa                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
Ducale fra Gondolieri di Venezia s.c.a r.l. and Others
    against Commission of the European Communities                         —     annul the decision not to pay the applicant the allowance
                                                                                to which he is entitled following termination of his
                                                                                service as a member of the temporary staff with CEDEFOP
                         (Case T-252/00)
                                                                                in Thessaloniki;
                         (2000/C 335/89)                                   —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                        Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  The applicant is an official in the Secretariat-General of the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 Council. He was seconded by his institution to the European
European Communities on 15 September 2000 by Cooperati-                    Centre for Development and Occupational Training (CEDE-
va Ducale fra Gondolieri di Venezia s.c.a r.l. and Others,                 FOP) in Thessaloniki, where he served as a member of the
represented by Mario Giantin, of the Venice Bar.                           temporary staff. After subsequently terminating his service
                                                                           with CEDEFOP and being reinstated at the Council, he
                                                                           requested a (re)installation allowance, which was refused by
The applicants claim that the Court should:                                the contested decision.
—     annul Commission Decision 2000/394/EEC;                              By the present action the applicant seeks annulment of that
                                                                           decision on the ground that it infringes Article 25 of the Staff
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                               Regulations, Article 24(2) of the Rules of Employment of
                                                                           Other Servants and Article 5(2) of Annex VII to the Staff
                                                                           Regulations.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and main arguments are those relied upon in
Cases T-234/00 Fondazione Opera S. Maria della Carità v
Commission and T-235/00 Codess Sociale and Others (1).
The applicants point out that they have standing, as two                   Action brought on 25 September 2000 by Anne Puers
cooperatives operating gondoliers, to claim that there is no                 against the Commission of the European Communities
anti-competitive effect arising from the alleged ‘aid measure’,
as well as the need for their business to survive, for the sake of                                 (Case T-307/00)
the environment, culture and tourism of the area concerned.
                                                                                (2000/C 335/91)
(1) not yet published.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 25 September 2000 by Anne
                                                                           Puers, of Brussels, represented by J.-N. Louis and V. Peere, of
                                                                           the Brussels Bar.
Action brought on 18 September 2000 by Michel Hend-
rickx against the European Centre for Development and                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
              Occupational Training (CEDEFOP)
                                                                           —     annul the decision of the Commission notified on
                         (Case T-298/00)                                         25 November 1999 refusing to award an orphan’s pen-
                                                                                sion to the applicant’s child;
                         (2000/C 335/90)                                   —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                    (Language of the case: French)                         Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against CEDEFOP was brought before the Court of                  The applicant, an official of the Commission, applied under
First Instance of the European Communities on 18 September                 Article 80 of the Staff Regulations for an orphan’s pension for
2000 by Michel Hendrickx, residing in Brussels, represented                her daughter following the death of the child’s father, with
by J.-N. Louis and V. Peere, of the Brussels Bar.                          whom the applicant cohabited.
 ---pagebreak--- C 335/48              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      25.11.2000
By the contested decision that application was rejected on the          Pleas in law and main arguments
ground that the fourth paragraph of Article 80 of the Staff
Regulations was not applicable, since it refers solely to the
                                                                        In Article 1 of the contested decision the Commission finds
death of the official’s spouse and the pension scheme of
                                                                        that the application of certain tax provisions in the former
officials does not provide for an orphan’s pension in the case
                                                                        German Zonenrandförderungsgesetz (Law on the Promotion
of the death of a cohabitee.
                                                                        of Zone Boundary Areas, ZRFG), namely special write-offs and
                                                                        tax-free reserves, taken advantage of in the past by the
By the present action, the applicant claims that her daughter’s         applicant, is incompatible with the common market.
status as an acknowledged child and an orphan must mean
that she is entitled to the orphan’s pension on the same                In its application, the applicant complains that:
conditions as when that pension is awarded to the orphaned
children of married parents.
                                                                        —     the Commission did not classify the tax measures taken
                                                                              advantage of by the applicant as general provisions of tax
She observes that it follows from Article 8 of the European                   law (to be dealt with under Article 67 CS, if at all) but as
Convention on Human Rights and from the principle of the                      aid within the meaning of Article 4(c) CS;
unicity of the civil status of persons that the Commission is
bound to have regard to all aspects of the child’s personal             —     the Commission failed to apply Article 95 CS to the tax
status, and in particular to recognise the legal effects attaching            measures at issue — if they were aid — by granting
thereto.                                                                      retrospective approval;
                                                                        —     the Commission assessed the making of special write-offs
Furthermore, the Commission has acted in breach of the
                                                                              on the acquisition of investment assets for the sectors of
principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination.
                                                                              the applicant’s business which do not serve the pro-
                                                                              duction of ECSC products under Article 4(c) CS and not
                                                                              under the EC Treaty;
                                                                        —     the Commission did not recognise that the making of
                                                                              special write-offs on environment protection investments
                                                                              under Paragraph 3 of the ZRFG up to 31 December 1990
                                                                              had the same conditions and financial consequences as
                                                                              the making of special write-offs on environment protec-
Action brought on 21 September 2000 by Salzgitter AG                          tion investments under Paragraph 7d of the Einkommen-
  against the Commission of the European Communities                          steuergesetz (Law on Income Tax), which is a general
                                                                              provision of tax law applicable in the entire territory of
                        (Case T-308/00)                                       Germany;
                                                                        —     the Commission failed to state, in a form in compliance
                        (2000/C 335/92)                                       with the requirements of the Treaty, the reasons for
                                                                              which it does not regard the making of special write-offs
                                                                              on environment protection investments in the period
                  (Language of the case: German)                              after 1 January 1991 as capable of approval;
                                                                        —     the Commission used as a basis for ascertaining the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                     amount of aid objected to, with respect to interest,
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                    not the actual liquidity and interest situation of the
European Communities on 21 September 2000 by Salzgitter                       undertaking but a rate of interest determined by it in
AG, of Salzgitter, Germany, represented by Jochim Sedemund,                   the abstract without taking account of the individual
Rechtsanwalt, of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Berlin.                      circumstances of the undertaking;
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             —     the Commission, in breach of the general legal principle
                                                                              of legal certainty, also included in the scope of its decision
—     annul Commission Decision C(2000) 1963 fin. of 28 June                  the making of special write-offs which occurred in a
      2000 on State aid from Germany in favour of Salzgitter                  period which, applying Article 15 of Council Regulation
      AG, Preussag Stahl AG and the subsidiaries of the group                 (EC) No 659/1999 (1) (ten-year period) by analogy, is no
      in the iron and steel industry, now Salzgitter AG — Stahl               longer subject to recovery.
      und Technologie (SAG);
                                                                        (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying
—     order the Commission to pay the costs;                                down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC
                                                                            Treaty (OJ L 83 of 27.3.1999, p. 1).
—     order the Commission to give the applicant access to all
      procedural documents under Article 23 of the ECSC
      Statute of the Court of Justice.


title: Case C-192/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Niederösterreich (Austria) lodged on 17 April 2014  — OMV Refining & Marketing GmbH v Bundesminister für Land-, Forst-, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft

text:
               8.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Niederösterreich (Austria) lodged on 17 April 2014 — OMV Refining & Marketing GmbH v Bundesminister für Land-, Forst-, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft
   (Case C-192/14)
   2014/C 303/07
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landesverwaltungsgericht Niederösterreich

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: OMV Refining & Marketing GmbH

      Respondent authority: Bundesminister für Land-, Forst-, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Decision 2013/448/EU (1) invalid and does it infringe Article 10a(5) of Directive 2003/87/EC (2) in so far as it excludes from the basis of calculation pursuant to subparagraphs (a) and (b) of Article 10a(5) of that directive emissions associated with waste gases produced by installations falling within Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC and heat used by installations falling within Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC and which comes from combined heat and power installations, for which a free allocation is granted pursuant to Article 10a(1) and 10a(4) of Directive 2003/87/EC and Decision 2011/278/EU? (3)

               2.

               Is Decision 2013/448/EU invalid and does it infringe Article 3e and 3u of Directive 2003/87/EC, alone and/or in conjunction with Article 10a(5) of Directive 2003/87/EC, in so far as it provides that CO2 emissions associated with waste gases — which are produced by installations falling within Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC — and heat used in installations falling within Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC and which was acquired by combined heat and power installations are emissions from ‘electricity generators’?

               3.

               Is Decision 2013/448/EU invalid and does it infringe the objectives of Directive 2003/87/EC in so far as it creates an asymmetry by excluding emissions associated with the combustion of waste gases and with heat produced in cogeneration from the basis of calculation in subparagraphs (a) and (b) of Article 10a(5), whereas free allocation with regard to them is due in accordance with Article 10a(1) and 10a(4) of Directive 2003/87/EC and Decision 2011/278/EU?

               4.

               Is Decision 2011/278/EU invalid and does it infringe Article 290 TFEU and Article 10a(5) of Directive 2003/87/EC in so far as Article 15(3) of that decision amends subparagraphs (a) and (b) of Article 10a(5) of Directive 2003/87/EC to the effect that it replaces the reference to ‘installations which are not covered by paragraph 3’ by the reference to ‘installations that are not electricity generators’?

               5.

               Is Decision 2013/448/EU invalid and does it infringe Article 23(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC in so far as that decision was not adopted on the basis of the regulatory procedure with scrutiny which is laid down in Article 5a of Council Decision 1999/468/EC and Article 12 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011?

               6.

               Is Article 17 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights to be understood as precluding the retention of free allocations on the basis of the wrongful calculation of a cross-sectoral correction factor?

               7.

               Is Article 10a(5) of Directive 2003/87/EC, on its own and/or in conjunction with Article 15(3) of Decision 2011/278/EU, to be understood as precluding the application of a provision of national law which provides for the application of the wrongfully calculated uniform cross-sectoral correction factor, as determined in Article 4 of Decision 2013/448/EU and in Annex II thereto, to the free allocations in a Member State?

               8.

               Is Decision 2013/448/EU invalid and does it infringe Article 10a(5) of Directive 2003/87/EC in so far as it includes only emissions from installations which were contained in the Community scheme from 2008, with the result that it excludes those emissions which are associated with activities which were contained in the Community scheme from 2008 (in the amended Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC) if those activities took place in installations which were already contained in the Community scheme prior to 2008?

               9.

               Is Decision 2013/448/EU invalid and does it infringe Article 10a(5) of Directive 2003/87/EC in so far as it includes only emissions from installations which were contained in the Community scheme from 2013, with the result that it excludes those emissions which are associated with activities which were contained in the Community scheme from 2013 (in the amended Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC) if those activities took place in installations which were already contained in the Community scheme prior to 2013?

      (1)  Commission Decision of 5 September 2013 concerning national implementation measures for the transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2013 L 240, p. 27).

      (2)  Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).

      (3)  Commission Decision of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 130, p. 1).


title: Case T-117/00: Action brought on 3 May 2000 by The Procter & Gamble Company against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market.

text:
8.7.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 192/21
Action brought on 3 May 2000 by The Procter & Gamble                    European Communities on 3 May 2000 by The Procter &
Company against the Office for Harmonization in the                     Gamble Company, represented by C.J.J.C. van Nispen and
                        Internal Market.                                G. Kuipers of De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek, The Hague,
                                                                        Netherlands.
                        (Case T-117/00)
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        (2000/C 192/38)
                                                                        — annul Decision R516/1999-1 of the First Board of Appeal
                                                                            of the OHIM of 3 March 2000, in so far as it finds that the
                  (Language of the case: English)                           Mark does not satisfy the conditions as laid down in
                                                                            Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94; and
An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the            — order the OHIM to pay the costs.
European Communities on 3 May 2000 by The Procter &
Gamble Company, represented by C.J.J.C. van Nispen and
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
G. Kuipers of De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek, The Hague,
Netherlands.
                                                                        Trademark concerned:          Three dimensional trademark in
                                                                                the form of tablets — Application
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                No 954404
— annul Decision R509/1999-1 of the First Board of Appeal               Product or Service:           Products in Class 3 of the Nice
    of the OHIM of 8 March 2000, in so far as it finds that the                                       Agreement (in particular, washing
    Mark does not satisfy the conditions as laid down in                                              and bleaching preparations for
    Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94; and                                                       laundry use; preparations for the
                                                                                washing of dishes, soaps)
— order the OHIM to pay the costs.
                                                                        Contested        decision     Refusal of registration by the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         before the Board of           examiner
                                                                        Appeal:
Trademark concerned:          Three dimensional trademark in            Grounds for appeal:           Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of
                              the form of tablets — Application                                       Regulation 40/94.
                              No 954099
Product or Service:           Products in Class 3 of the Nice
                              Agreement (in particular, washing
                              and bleaching preparations for
                              laundry use; preparations for the
                              washing of dishes, soaps)
                                                                        Action brought on 3 May 2000 by The Procter & Gamble
Contested        decision     Refusal of registration by the            Company against the Office for Harmonization in the
before the Board of           examiner                                                          Internal Market.
Appeal:
                                                                                (Case T-119/00)
Grounds for appeal:           Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of
                              Regulation 40/94.                                                 (2000/C 192/40)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                        An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
                                                                        Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Action brought on 3 May 2000 by The Procter & Gamble                    European Communities on 3 May 2000 by The Procter &
Company against the Office for Harmonization in the                     Gamble Company, represented by C.J.J.C. van Nispen and
                        Internal Market                                 G. Kuipers of De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek, The Hague,
                                                                        Netherlands.
                        (Case T-118/00)
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        (2000/C 192/39)
                                                                        — annul Decision R519/1999-1 of the First Board of Appeal
                                                                            of the OHIM of 29 February 2000, in so far as it finds that
                  (Language of the case: English)                           the Mark does not satisfy the conditions as laid down in
                                                                            Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94; and
An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the            — order the OHIM to pay the costs.