title: Case C-313/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte dei conti, sezione giurisdizionale per la Regione Siciliana — Italy) — Giuseppa Romeo v Regione Siciliana (National administrative procedure — Purely internal situation — Administrative acts — Obligation to state reasons — Whether it is possible for failure to state reasons to be remedied during legal proceedings against an administrative act — Interpretation of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
               11.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/11

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte dei conti, sezione giurisdizionale per la Regione Siciliana — Italy) — Giuseppa Romeo v Regione Siciliana
   (Case C-313/12) (1)

   (National administrative procedure - Purely internal situation - Administrative acts - Obligation to state reasons - Whether it is possible for failure to state reasons to be remedied during legal proceedings against an administrative act - Interpretation of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
   2014/C 9/15
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte dei conti, sezione giurisdizionale per la Regione Siciliana

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Giuseppa Romeo

      Defendant: Regione Siciliana

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Corte dei conti, sezione giurisdizionale per la Regione Siciliana — Interpretation of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — National legislation allowing public authorities not to state the reasons for their acts in certain circumstances or to remedy the failure to state reasons for an administrative act during judicial proceedings brought against that act — National law which makes a renvoi to European Union law in order to regulate purely internal situations — Whether it is possible for the national courts to interpret and apply the provisions and principles of national law in a manner which is at variance with the interpretation provided by the Court of Justice

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The first question referred by the Corte dei conti, sezione giurisdizionale per la Regione Siciliana (Italy), by decision of 19 June 2012 is inadmissible.

               2.

               The Court of Justice of the European Union has no jurisdiction to answer the second and third questions referred by the Corte dei conti, sezione giurisdizionale per la Regione Siciliana by decision of 19 June 2012.

      (1)  OJ C 295, 29.9.2012


title: Case T-16/08: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 July 2009 — Perfetti Van Melle v OHIM — Cloetta Fazer (CENTER SHOCK) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark CENTER SHOCK — Earlier national word marks CENTER — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               15.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/20

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 July 2009 — Perfetti Van Melle v OHIM — Cloetta Fazer (CENTER SHOCK)
   (Case T-16/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark CENTER SHOCK - Earlier national word marks CENTER - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2009/C 193/31
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Perfetti Van Melle SpA (Lainate, Italy) (represented by: P. Perani and P. Pozzi, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Cloetta Fazer AB (Ljungsbro, Sweden) (represented by: J. Runsten and S. Sparring initially, and subsequently by M. Treis, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 November 2007 (Case R 149/2006-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Cloetta Fazer AB and Perfetti Van Melle SpA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Perfetti Van Melle SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 1 June 1995 in Case C-182/94: Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic (Failure to fulfil obligations - Failure to transpose Council Directives 89/392/EEC and 91/368/EEC)

text:
No C 189/4             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        22 . 7 . 95
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                   (Agent: Umberto Leanza ) — application for a declaration
                         ( Third Chamber)                               that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the
                                                                        laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
                           of 1 June 1995                               comply with Council Directive 89/392/EEC of 14 June 1989
in Case C-l 19/94 P: Dimitrios Coussios v. Commission of                on the approximation of the laws of the Member States
                 the European Communities ( l )                         relating to machinery ( 2) and Council Directive 91/368/EEC
(Appeal — Official — Failure to give reasons for a decision             of 20 June 1991 amending Directive 89/392/EEC (3 ), the
rejecting an application — Award of compensation —                      Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
          Waiver of rights under the Staff Regulations)                 Community law — the Court ( Fifth Chamber), composed
                                                                        of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, P.
                            ( 95/C 189/07 )                             Jann, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet and L. Sevôn,
                                                                        Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar,
                 (Language of the case: Frencb)                         has given a judgment on 1 June 1995 , in which it:
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be            1 , declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
           published in the European Court Reports)                            period the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                               provisions necessary in order to comply with Council
In Case C-l 1 9/94 P : Dimitrios Coussios ( lawyer: Georges                    Directive 89/392/EEC of 14 June 1989 on the
Sakellaropoulos ) — appeal against the judgment of the                         approximation ofthe laws ofthe Member States relating
Court of First Instance of the European Communities ( Fifth                    to machinery and Council Directive 91 /368/EEC of
Chamber ) of 23 February 1994 in Joined Cases T-18/92 and                      20 June 1991 amending Directive 89/392/EEC, the
T-68/92 Coussios v . Commission [ 1994] ECR-SC II, p . 171 ,                   Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party to                    Community law;
the proceedings being: Commission of the European
Communities (Agents : Gianluigi Valsesia and Ana Maria
Alves Vieira ) — the Court (Third Chamber ), composed of:               2 , orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
C. Gulmann ( Rapporteur ), President of the Chamber, J. C.
Moitinho de Almeida and J. -P. Puissochet, Judges; F. G.                 t 1 ) OJ No C 233 , 20 . 8 . 1994 .
Jacobs, Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,                           ( 2 ) OJ No L 183 , 29 . 6 . 1989 , p . 9 .
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                 ( 3 ) OJ No L 198 , 22 . 7. 1991 , p . 16.
judgment on 1 June 1995 , in which it:
 1 , dismisses the appeal;
2, orders the appellant to pay the costs.
 f 1 ) OJ No C 174, 25 . 6 . 1994 .                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 8 June 1995
                                                                         in Case C-3 89/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                        the Verwaltungsgericht, Frankfurt am Main): Anton
                                                                               Dürbeck GmbH v. Bundesamt für Ernährung und
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                             Forstwirtschaft f 1 )
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                (Bananas — Import arrangements — Category of new
                                                                                operators)
                            of 1 June 1995
                                                                                ( 95/C 189/09 )
        in Case C-182/94 : Commission of the European
               Communities v. Italian Republic i 1 )
 (Failure to fulfil obligations — Failure to transpose Council                            (Language of the case: German)
            Directives 89/392/EEC and 91/368/EEC)
                             ( 95/C 189/08 )
                                                                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
                  (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                         In Case C-389/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)                      of the EC Treaty from the Verwaltungsgericht
                                                                          (Administrative Court), Frankfurt am Main ( Germany), for
                                                                         a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
 In Case C-182/94: Commission of the European                            court between Anton Durbeck GmbH and Bundesamt fiir
 Communities (Agent: Antonio Aresu ) v . Italian Republic                Ernâhrung und Forstwirtschaft (Federal Office for Food


title: Case C-332/13: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Ferenc Weigl v Nemzeti Innovációs Hivatal (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — No implementation of European Union law —  — Court manifestly lacking jurisdiction)

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/20

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Ferenc Weigl v Nemzeti Innovációs Hivatal
   (Case C-332/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - No implementation of European Union law - Court manifestly lacking jurisdiction))
   2014/C 112/24
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Kúria

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ferenc Weigl

      Defendant: Nemzeti Innovációs Hivatal

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Kúria — Interpretation of Article 6 TEU and of Articles 30 and 51 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Protection in the event of unjustified dismissal — Dismissal without any reason given — Official of a body of the public authorities having been dismissed on the basis of a provision of the national legislation laying down the civil service code.

      Operative part of the order

   The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Kúria (Hungary), by decision of 5 June 2013, as supplemented by an additional decision of 18 July 2013.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.


title: Case C-52/06: Action brought on  1 February 2006  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

text:
               25.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 74/9

         Action brought on 1 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-52/06)
   (2006/C 74/17)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by F. Simonetti and S. Pardo Quintillán, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/42/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment or, in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposing Directive 2001/42 into national law expired on 21 July 2004.

      (1)  OJ L 197 of 21.7.2001, p. 30.


title: Case C-374/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 6 August 2012 — Valimar OOD v Nachalnik na Mitnitsa — Varna

text:
               13.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 6 August 2012 — Valimar OOD v Nachalnik na Mitnitsa — Varna
   (Case C-374/12)
   2012/C 311/07
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Varhoven administrativen sad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Valimar OOD

      Respondent: Nachalnik na Mitnitsa — Varna

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 11(9) and the first sentence of Article 11(10) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/1996 (1) of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (now Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (2) of 30 November 2009) (‘the Basic Regulation’) in conjunction with Article 2(8) and (9) of that regulation to be interpreted as meaning that, if no change in circumstances is proved for the purpose of Article 11(9), those provisions take precedence over any implicit powers of the institutions arising from Article 11(3) of the Basic Regulation for determining the export price, including — as in the case of Council Regulation (EC) No 1279/2007 (3) — the implicit power of the institutions to assess the reliability of the export prices of Severstal-Metiz in the future by making a comparison with the minimum prices according to the price undertaking and the selling prices in third countries? Is the reply to that question affected if, as in the case of Severstal-Metiz and Council Regulation (EC) No 1279/2007, the institutions decide, when exercising their powers in connection with assessing the stability of the change in circumstances regarding the existence of dumping in accordance with Article 11(3) of the Basic Regulation, to vary the anti-dumping measure (reduce the duty rate)?

               2.

               Does it follow from the reply to the first question that, in the circumstances which are described in the part of Council Regulation (EC) No 1279/2007 relating to the determination of the export price of Severstal-Metiz, and in view of the fact that in that regulation a change for the purpose of Article 11(9) of the Basic Regulation was not expressly proved which would justify the application of a new methodology, the Commission ought to have applied the method for determining the export price which was used in the context of the original investigation, in the present case in accordance with Article 2(8) of the Basic Regulation?

               3.

               Taking into consideration the replies to the first and second questions: Was that part of Council Regulation (EC) No 1279/2007 which concerns the determination and imposition of individual anti-dumping measures in relation to imports of steel ropes and cables manufactured by Severstal-Metiz adopted contrary to Article 11(9) and (10) in conjunction with Article 2(8) of the Basic Regulation or on an invalid legal basis and, as such, is Council Regulation (EC) No 1279/2007 to be regarded as invalid in that part?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51).

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1279/2007 of 30 October 2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on certain iron or steel ropes and cables originating in the Russian Federation, and repealing the anti-dumping measures on imports of certain iron or steel ropes and cables originating in Thailand and Turkey (OJ 2007 L 285, p. 1).


title: Case C-642/15 P: Appeal brought on 2 December 2015 by Toni Klement against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 24 September 2015 in Case T-211/14 Toni Klement v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               22.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 68/22

         Appeal brought on 2 December 2015 by Toni Klement against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 24 September 2015 in Case T-211/14 Toni Klement v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-642/15 P)
   (2016/C 068/30)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Toni Klement (represented by: J. Weiser, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal of the General Court of 24 September 2015 in Case T-211/14;

               —

               order the defendant to the pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The appellant relies on three grounds of appeal:

               1.

               It is not disputed that the trade mark at issue was used exclusively with the additional word element ‘Bullerjan’. The appellant claims that, in determining the distinctive character of the added element ‘Bullerjan’, the evidence was distorted. The General Court deemed the character of the added element to be (only) normally distinctive. There is no basis in the evidence presented for a finding of (only) normally distinctive character, since the evidence contains no detail on the extent, duration and intensity of the element ‘Bullerjan’, which itself is registered as a trade mark.

               2.

               In the second ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court contradicted itself in its reasoning for finding that the trade mark at issue was highly distinctive. On the one hand, the General Court stated that the trade mark at issue has an ‘unusual form’ yet, on the other hand, confirmed that other manufacturers sell ovens of a very similar form. There is a further contradiction in the General Court’s finding, on the one hand, that the highly distinctive character of the trade mark at issue is independent of its possible functionality whereas, on the other hand, the highly distinctive character is not called into question by the very similar form of other ovens, since this such similarity could be attributed to the pursuit of a particular technical result. The reasoning of the General Court is therefore contradictory from two points of view and is thus vitiated by errors of law.

               3.

               In the third ground of appeal, the appellant claims that Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1) was, in several respects, incorrectly interpreted and applied. First, in the context of the examination of the distinctiveness of the trade mark required under Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009, the General Court did not follow Court of Justice’s case-law on determining the distinctiveness of three-dimensional product trade marks. The General Court did not in that regard compare the trade mark at issue with the oven forms commonly used in the sector, as required by the Court of Justice’s case-law. Second, the General Court assumed that the possible functionality of the form of the trade mark at issue was irrelevant for determining its distinctiveness. The General Court thereby infringed the recognised principle that account must be taken of all the relevant circumstances of the case at issue in determining the distinctiveness of a trade mark. Third, the General Court did not follow the Court of Justice’s case-law on use so as to preserve the rights of a trade mark proprietor in connection with a registered trade mark used as part of a composite trade mark. The General Court considered it sufficient in that regard that a trade mark used as part of a composite trade mark is still recognised as a reference of origin to the former trade mark. The General Court failed to have regard to the obligation laid down clearly in Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 and the Court of Justice’s case-law always to assess whether the distinctiveness of the registered trade mark has been influenced. The General Court failed to conduct that assessment.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court of First instance of 26 February 2003 in Cases T-344/00 and T-345/00: CEVA Santé animale SA and Pharmacia Entreprises SA v Commission of the European Communities (Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 — Veterinary medicinal products — Application for the inclusion of "progesterone" in the list of substances for which it does not appear necessary to fix a maximum residue limit — Opinion of the Committee for Veterinary Medicinal Products (CVMP) — Re-examination by the CVMP — Failure by the Commission to adopt a draft of measures to be taken — Action for failure to act — Definition of a position putting an end to a failure to act — No need to adjudicate — Actions in damages — Liability of the Community — Causal link — Interlocutory judgment)

text:
10.5.2003                EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 112/27
A. Pisaneschi and S. Zunarelli, lawyers, with an address for                   2.     Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: initially by L. Visaggio and subsequently
by C. Cattabriga, assisted by M. Moretto) — application for                    (1 ) OJ C 372 of 23.12.00.
annulment of Commission Decision C (2000) 1099 of 3 May
2000 discontinuing aid from the Guidance Section of the
European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund for
Project No 9 (beneficiary: Massalombarda Colombani SpA)
in the context of operational programme No 91.CT.IT.01,
approved by Commission Decision C (91) 2255/6 of 28 Octo-
ber 1991 — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),
composed of R. García-Valdecasas, President, P. Lindh and
J.D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Adminis-                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 March
2003, in which it:
                                                                                of 26 February 2003
1.     Dismisses the application;
                                                                               in Cases T-344/00 and T-345/00: CEVA Santé animale SA
2.     Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and pay those of the         and Pharmacia Entreprises SA v Commission of the
       Commission.                                                                                European Communities (1)
( 1) OJ C 285 of 7.10.00.                                                      (Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 — Veterinary medicinal
                                                                               products — Application for the inclusion of ‘progesterone’
                                                                               in the list of substances for which it does not appear
                                                                               necessary to fix a maximum residue limit — Opinion of the
                                                                               Committee for Veterinary Medicinal Products (CVMP) —
                                                                               Re-examination by the CVMP — Failure by the Commission
                                                                               to adopt a draft of measures to be taken — Action for failure
                                                                               to act — Definition of a position putting an end to a failure
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   to act — No need to adjudicate — Actions in damages —
                                                                               Liability of the Community — Causal link — Interlocutory
                        of 27 February 2003                                                                judgment)
in Case T-329/00, Bonn Fleisch Ex- und Import GmbH v                                                   (2003/C 112/51)
         Commission of the European Communities ( 1)
(Customs duties — Imports of beef from South America —                                            (Language of the case: English)
Article 13(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 — Appli-
cation for recovery of import duties — Rights of the defence
                        — Special situation)
                                                                               In Joined Cases T-344/00 and T-345/00, CEVA Santé animale
                           (2003/C 112/50)                                     SA, established in Libourne (France), and Pharmacia Entreprises
                                                                               SA, formerly Pharmacia & Upjohn SA, established in Luxem-
                                                                               bourg, represented by D. Waelbroeck and D. Brinckman,
                    (Language of the case: German)                             lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, supported
                                                                               by Fédération européenne de la santé animale (Fedesa), estab-
                                                                               lished in Brussels, represented by A. Vandencasteele, lawyer,
                                                                               with an address for service in Luxembourg; Intervener: in Case
In Case T-329/00, Bonn Fleisch Ex- und Import Gmbh,                            T-345/00, Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
established in Troisdorf (Germany), represented by D. Ehle,                    T. Christoforou and M. Shotter): Application for (1) a declar-
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against                     ation under Article 232 EC that, by failing to take the necessary
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: X. Lewis                       measures for the inclusion of progesterone in Annex II to
and Núñez-Müller) — application for annulment of the                           Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 of 26 June 1990 laying
Commission Decision of 25 July 2000 finding that the                           down a Community procedure for the establishment of
recovery of import duties is not justified in a special case (REM              maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in
49/99) — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),                          foodstuffs of animal origin (OJ 1990 L 224, p. 1), the
composed of M. Jaeger, President and K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi,                 Commission has failed to comply with its obligations under
Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has                  Community law and (2) damages under Article 235 EC and
given a judgment on 27 February 2003, in which it:                             the second paragraph of Article 288 EC, the Court of First
                                                                               Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: R.M. Moura Ramos,
1.     Annuls the Decision of the Commission of 25 July 2000                   President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Plingers,
       finding that recovery of import duties is not justified in a special    Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
       case (REM 49/99);                                                       26 February 2003, in which it has ruled:
 ---pagebreak--- C 112/28                   EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                              10.5.2003
1.     There is no longer any need to give judgment on the actions for        1.     Dismisses the application;
       failure to act.
                                                                              2.     Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and the costs of the
2.     The Commission’s inaction between 1 January 2000 and                          Council.
       25 July 2001 is such as to render the Community liable.
3.     Within six months of the date of delivery of the present               (1 ) OJ C 79 of 10.3.01.
       judgment the parties shall inform the Court of the amount of
       damages which they claim, as agreed with the Commission.
4.     In the event of failure to agree the amount, the parties shall
       submit to the Court, within the same period, their calculations
       of the amount of damages attributable to the Commission’s
       inaction between 1 January 2000 and 25 July 2001.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
5.     The costs are reserved.
                                                                                of 5 March 2003
( 1) OJ C 45 of 10.02.2001.
                                                                               in Case T-24/01: Claire Staelen v European Parliament ( 1)
                                                                              (Officials — Open competition — Eliminating tests —
                                                                              Power of the selection board to change the minimum number
                                                                              of points required in the Notice of Competition — Tests of a
                                                                                comparative nature — Admissibility)
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (2003/C 112/53)
                          of 25 February 2003
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
in Case T-4/01, Renco SpA v Council of the European
                                Union ( 1)
                                                                              In Case T-24/01: Claire Staelen, a member of the temporary
                                                                              staff of the European Parliament, residing in Bridel (Luxem-
(Public works contracts — Directive 93/37/EEC — Tender                        bourg) represented by J. Chocroun, lawyer, against the Euro-
specification — Statement of reasons for the decision to                      pean Parliament (Agents: J. F. de Wachter and D. Moore) —
award the contract — Manifest errors of assessment — Non-                     application, principally, for the annulment of the decision of
              contractual liability of the Community)                         the selection board in Competition EUR/A/151/98 refusing to
                                                                              allow the applicant to take part in the tests subsequent to Test
                            (2003/C 112/52)                                   VII.A.(d) of that competition and, in the alternative, a claim for
                                                                              compensation for the non-material damage allegedly suffered,
                                                                              — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of:
                       (Language of the case: French)                         M. Vilaras, President, and V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges;
                                                                              J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
                                                                              has given a judgment on 26 February 2003, in which it:
In Case T-4/01: Renco SpA, established in Milan (Italy)                       1.     Annuls the decision of the selection board in Competition EUR/
represented by D. Philippe and F. Apruzzi, lawyers, with an                          A/151/98 refusing to allow the applicant to take part in the
address for service in Luxembourg, against Council of the                            tests subsequent to Test VII.A.(d) of that competition;
European Union (Agents: F. van Craeyenest, M. Arpio Santac-
ruz and J. Stuyck) — application for damage allegedly suffered                2.     Orders the Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay the
by the applicant following the decision of the Council not to                        applicant’s costs, including those relating to the application for
award it the contract for invitation to tender No 107865                             interim measures.
issued on 30 July 1999 (OJ S 146) for refitting and general
maintenance of the Council’s buildings — the Court of First
Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of J.D. Cooke, President,                  (1 ) OJ C 95 of 24.3.01.
and R. García-Valdecasas and P. Lindh Judges; D. Christensen,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
25 February 2003, in which it:


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 October 2004 in Case C-341/03: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to transpose Directive 98/49/EC)

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/22

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 7 October 2004
   in Case C-341/03: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (1)

   (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Failure to transpose Directive 98/49/EC)
   (2004/C 300/45)
   Language of the case: Greek
   In Case C-341/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: H. Michard and D. Martin) v Hellenic Republic (Agent: N. Dafniou) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 1 August 2003 — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: A. Rosas (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, A. Borg Barthet, F. Macken, S. von Bahr and J. Malenovský, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 October 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 98/49/EC of 29 June 1998 on safeguarding the supplementary pension rights of employed and self-employed persons moving within the Community, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 226 of 20.9.2003.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 October 2002 in Case C-455/00: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Article 9(3) of Directive 90/270/EEC — Protection of workers' eyes and eyesight — Special corrective appliances appropriate for the work concerned — Incomplete transposition)

text:
C 323/18                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        21.12.2002
nary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
between Geha Naftiliaki EPE, Total Scope NE, Stavros Geor-
giou, Charalambis Bros OE, Anastasios Charalambis, Nikolaos
Sarlis, Dimitrios Kattidenios, Antonios Charalambis, Vasilios                                          (Sixth Chamber)
Dimitrakopoulos and NPDD Limeniko Tamio Dodekanisou,
Elliniko Dimosio, on the interpretation of Article 1 of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986 applying
the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime                                             of 24 October 2002
transport between Member States and between Member States
and third countries (OJ 1986 L 378, p. 1), the Court
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur),                 in Case C-455/00: Commission of the European Communi-
President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, F. Macken, N. Colneric                                      ties v Italian Republic (1)
and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 November
2002, in which it has ruled:                                                 (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                             Article 9(3) of Directive 90/270/EEC — Protection of
                                                                             workers’ eyes and eyesight — Special corrective appliances
                                                                             appropriate for the work concerned — Incomplete transpo-
                                                                                sition)
1.    Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of
      22 December 1986 applying the principle of freedom to
                                                                                (2002/C 323/22)
      provide services to maritime transport between Member States
      and between Member States and third countries precludes the
      application in a Member State of different harbour dues for
      domestic or intra-Community traffic and traffic between a                                  (Language of the case: Italian)
      Member State and a third country if that difference is not
      objectively justified.
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
2.    The imposition on passengers of vessels that call at or whose
      final destination is a port in a third country of different harbour
      dues from those imposed on passengers of vessels whose
      destination is domestic or in another Member State, without            In Case C-455/00, Commission of the European Communities
      there being any correlation between that difference and the cost       (agent: A. Aresu) v Italian Republic (agent: U. Leanza, assisted
      of the harbour services enjoyed by those categories of passengers,     by D. Del Gaizo, avvocata dello Stato): Application for a
      amounts to a restriction on the freedom to provide services            declaration that:
      contrary to Article 1 of Regulation No 4055/86.
                                                                             —     by failing to ensure regular eye and eyesight tests for all
                                                                                workers who use display screen equipment for the
                                                                                purposes of Article 2(c) of Council Directive 90/270/EEC
3.    Article 1 of Regulation No 4055/86 does not permit the                       of 29 May 1990 on the minimum safety and health
      imposition, for journeys to ports in third countries, of harbour             requirements for work with display screen equipment
      dues that vary according to criteria relating to the distance of             (fifth individual Directive within the meaning of
      those ports or their geographical location if the difference in the          Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (OJ 1990 L 156,
      dues is not objectively justified by differences in the way                  p. 14);
      passengers are treated on account of their destination or the
      place from which they have come.
                                                                             —     by failing to ensure a supplementary opthalmological
                                                                                examination in all cases where regular eye and eyesight
                                                                                tests show that this is necessary; and
                                                                             —     by failing to specify the circumstances in which the
( 1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.                                                         workers concerned are to be provided with special
                                                                                corrective appliances appropriate for the work concerned,
                                                                                the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                                under Article 9(1), (2) and (3) of that directive,
                                                                             the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen,
                                                                             President of the Second Chamber, acting as President of the
                                                                             Sixth Chamber, V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric (Rapporteur)
 ---pagebreak--- 21.12.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 323/19
and J.N. Cuhna Rodrigues, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,                   Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), President
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment                 of the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. La Pergola, P. Jann
on 24 October 2002, in which it:                                            and S. von Bahr, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass,
                                                                            Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 November 2002, in
                                                                            which it:
1.    Declares that, by failing to specify the circumstances in which
      the workers concerned are to be provided with special corrective
      appliances appropriate for the work concerned, the Italian            1.    Dismisses the appeals;
      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9(3)
      of Council Directive 90/270/EEC of 29 May 1990 on the                 2.    Orders Glencore Grain Ltd to pay the costs in Case C-24/01 P
      minimum safety and health requirements for work with display                and Compagnie Continentale (France) SA to pay the costs in
      screen equipment (fifth individual Directive within the meaning             Case C-25/01 P.
      of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC);
2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                         (1 ) OJ C 108 of 7.4.2001.
( 1) OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 24 October 2002
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                            in Case C-81/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                        of 7 November 2002                                  the Cour de cassation): Borie Manoux SARL v Directeur
                                                                             de l’Institut national de la propriété industrielle (INPI) (1)
In Joined Cases C-24/01 P and C-25/01 P: Glencore Grain
       Ltd and Compagnie Continentale (France) SA (1)                       (Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets —
                                                                            Wine — Description and presentation of wines — Quality
                                                                            wines produced in specific regions — Brand name printed on
(Appeal — Emergency aid provided by the Community to                        label — Restrictions — Articles 11 and 40 of Regulation
the States of the former Soviet Union — Invitation to tender                                            No 2392/89)
          — Free competition — Hearing of witnesses)
                                                                                (2002/C 323/24)
                           (2002/C 323/23)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                         in the European Court Reports)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            In Case C-81/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
In Joined Cases C-24/01 P and C-25/01 P, Glencore Grain Ltd,                by the Cour de cassation (France) for a preliminary ruling in
formerly Richco Commodities Ltd, established in Hamilton                    the proceedings pending before that court between Borie
(Bermudes) (Agents: P. Bos and J. van Zuuren), Compagnie                    Manoux SARL and Directeur de l’Institut national de la
Continentale (France) SA, established in Labège (France)                    propriété industrielle (INPI), on the interpretation of Article 40
(Agents: P. Bos and P. Chabrier): Two Appeals against the                   of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2392/89 of 24 July 1989
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European                     laying down general rules for the description and presentation
Communities (Second Chamber) of 8 November 2000 in                          of wines and grape musts (OJ 1989 L 232, p. 13), as amended
Joined Cases T-485/93, T-491/93, T-494/93 and T-61/98                       by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3897/91 of 16 December
Dreyfus and Others v Commission [2000] ECR II-3659,                         1991 (OJ 1991 L 368, p. 5), the Court (Second Chamber),
seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other parties                  composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the Chamber, V. Skou-
to the proceedings being: Commission of the European                        ris and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed,
Communities (Agents: M.-J. Jonczy and T. van Rijn), Louis                   Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
Dreyfus & Cie SA, established in Paris (France), the Court (Fifth           on 24 October 2002, in which it has ruled:


title: Case T-147/17: Action brought on 2 March 2017 — Anastassopoulos and Others v Council and Commission

text:
               26.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/20

         Action brought on 2 March 2017 — Anastassopoulos and Others v Council and Commission
   (Case T-147/17)
   (2017/C 202/34)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Nikolaos Anastassopoulos (Nea Erythraia, Greece), Aristeidis Anastassopoulos (Nea Erythraia), Alexia Anastassopoulos (Nea Erythraia), Maria-Myrto Anastassopoulos (Nea Erythraia), Sophie Velliou (Kifissia, Greece) (represented by: K. Floros and M. Meng-Papantoni, lawyers)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union and European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the present application admissible and well-founded;

               —

               Uphold the applicants’ claims for damages by awarding the sum of EUR 123 442 to the first applicant, the sum of EUR 61 721 to the three following applicants and the sum of EUR 120 900 to the fifth applicant or, in the alternative, the sums of EUR 38 227,20, EUR 19 107,60 and EUR 37 440 respectively, together with default interest in each case;

               —

               Order the defendant[s] to pay the costs, whatever the outcome of the dispute.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants allege an infringement of the fundamental principle of prohibition of discrimination insofar as it requires different treatment of different situations, and of Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), which gives effect to that principle.
   They complain, claiming significant financial losses as a result of their State obligations being subject to Law 4050/12, also known as ‘PSI’ (Private Sector Investment), that they received the same treatment (including the same rate of ‘haircut’) as legal persons, in particular banks and specialised funds, despite their fundamental differences.
   They hold, firstly, the Eurogroup President and/or the Eurogroup as such responsible for this, since they prohibited not only the exemption of natural persons from the ‘haircut’ but also from any later compensatory measure, and, secondly, the Commission, which gave its agreement and consent to such an infringement of the abovementioned principle and of Article 21 of the Charter, despite the obligation place on it by Article 17 TEU, as interpreted by the judgment of 20 September 2016, Ledra Advertising and Others v Commission and ECB (C-8/15 P to C-10/15 P, EU:C:2016:701).


title: Case T-436/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 November 2006 — Sanchez Ferriz v Commission (Officials — Promotion — 2003 promotion procedure — Refusal of promotion — Award of promotion points — Action for annulment — Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/41

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 November 2006 — Sanchez Ferriz v Commission
   (Case T-436/04) (1)

   (Officials - Promotion - 2003 promotion procedure - Refusal of promotion - Award of promotion points - Action for annulment - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - Manifest inadmissibility)
   (2006/C 331/91)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Carlos Sanchez Ferriz (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: initially G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers, then F. Frabetti)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and H. Krämer, Agents)
   Re:
   Application, first, for annulment of the list of officials promoted to a higher grade under the 2003 promotion procedure, in so far as that list does not contain the applicant's name, and, incidentally, the formal measures leading to that decision and, secondly, in the alternative, for annulment of the allocation of promotion points made under the 2003 procedure in relation to the applicant
   Operative part of the order
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 8.1.2005.


title: Case C-189/07: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure to fulfil obligations — Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 — Articles 2(1) and 31(1) and (2) — Regulations (EC) No 2406/96 and 850/98 — Control system in the fisheries sector — Common marketing standards for certain fishery products — Unsatisfactory monitoring, inspection and surveillance — Failure to adopt adequate measures to penalise infringements — Enforcement of penalties — General failure to fulfil the provisions of a regulation — Production before the Court of additional evidence intended to support the proposition that the failure is general and consistent — Whether permissible)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/9

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-189/07) (1)

   (Failure to fulfil obligations - Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 - Articles 2(1) and 31(1) and (2) - Regulations (EC) No 2406/96 and 850/98 - Control system in the fisheries sector - Common marketing standards for certain fishery products - Unsatisfactory monitoring, inspection and surveillance - Failure to adopt adequate measures to penalise infringements - Enforcement of penalties - General failure to fulfil the provisions of a regulation - Production before the Court of additional evidence intended to support the proposition that the failure is general and consistent - Whether permissible)
   (2009/C 44/15)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Oliver and F. Jimeno Fernández, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 2(1) and 31(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy (OJ 1993 L 261, p. 1) — Infringement of Council Regulation (EC) No 2406/96 of 26 November 1996 laying down common marketing standards for certain fishery products (OJ 1996 L 334, p. 1) and Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 of 30 March 1998 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms (OJ 1998 L 125, p. 1) — Unsatisfactory monitoring — Failure to adopt adequate measures to penalise the infringements
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that,

                           —

                           by failing to carry out satisfactorily the monitoring, inspection and surveillance of fishing activities within its territory and within maritime waters subject to its sovereignty or jurisdiction, including the landing and marketing of species subject to rules on minimum size under Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 of 30 March 1998 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms, and Council Regulation (EC) No 2406/96 of 26 November 1996 laying down common marketing standards for certain fishery products and by failing to devote the necessary human resources to the monitoring, inspection and surveillance of fishing; and

                           —

                           by failing to act with sufficient diligence to ensure the adoption of appropriate measures against those responsible for infringing Community provisions in relation to fisheries, in particular by bringing administrative actions or criminal proceedings and imposing penalties which have a deterrent effect on those responsible;

                     the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2(1) and 31(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2846/98 of 17 December 1998;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.


title: Case C-241/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus (Estonia) lodged on 21 May 2007 — JK Otsa Talu OÜ v Põllumajanduse Registrite ja Informatsiooni Amet (PRIA)

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus (Estonia) lodged on 21 May 2007 — JK Otsa Talu OÜ v Põllumajanduse Registrite ja Informatsiooni Amet (PRIA)
   (Case C-241/07)
   (2007/C 170/24)
   Language of the case: Estonian
   Referring court
   Riigikohus
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: JK Otsa Talu OÜ

      Defendant: Põllumajanduse Registrite ja Informatsiooni Amet (PRIA)
   Questions referred

               1.

               ‘Is it compatible with the objective of agri-environmental support laid down in Articles 22 to 24 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 (1) of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations:

                           (a)

                           to give continued support only to applicants for whom, within the framework of that programme, a decision awarding agri-environmental support has already been made in the previous budgetary year, and who have entered into an environmental commitment,
                           or

                           (b)

                           to support in each budgetary year also new applicants who are prepared to give a commitment of environment-friendly production and accordingly organise their production to comply with the requirements?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is variant (b), does Article 24(1) in conjunction with Article 37(4) and Article 39 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 authorise a Member State, if in the context of the programme it becomes clear that there are no longer sufficient budgetary means for granting first-time support:

                           (a)

                           to amend the original rules and requirements for applications for and grants of agri-environmental support and determine that support may be applied for only if the applicant has been the subject of a decision granting support in the previous budgetary year and an environment-friendly production obligation is therefore in force for him,
                           or

                           (b)

                           to reduce proportionately the support of all applicants meeting the requirements for agri-environmental support?’

      (1)  OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 80.


title: Case C-4/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 4 January 2008 — Michael Mario Karl Kerner v Land Baden-Württemberg

text:
               29.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 4 January 2008 — Michael Mario Karl Kerner v Land Baden-Württemberg
   (Case C-4/08)
   (2008/C 79/28)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Michael Mario Karl Kerner

      Respondent: Land Baden-Württemberg
   Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 8(4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (1) preclude the application of a provision of national law which, in the event of a previous withdrawal of a driving licence in the Member State in question, makes possible recognition of a driving licence issued by another Member State on condition that it is established that the facts which originally led to the withdrawal of the driving licence no longer exist, even if

                           —

                           recognition of that driving licence is not required in the interest of giving effect to the fundamental freedom of free movement on the part of citizens of the Union,

                           —

                           the driving licence was issued in the other Member State in clear breach of the provisions of the Directive (residence requirement),

                           —

                           the issuing Member State itself, when issuing the driving licence, must have been aware of this clear breach of the provisions of the Directive,

                           —

                           according to the Member State of residence, the issuing Member State generally refuses to annul driving licences issued in breach of Community law,

                           —

                           the driving licence was obtained by the person concerned in the other Member State through an abusive exercise of rights in order to circumvent the provisions of the Member State of residence, which, according to the Directive, are the provisions which determine reissue, and the issuing Member State must have been aware of that abusive exercise of rights,

                           —

                           and the medical examination to determine the fitness of the person concerned to drive, carried out before issue of the driving licence in knowledge of the reasons for the original withdrawal of the driving licence in the issuing Member State, clearly did not meet the requirements imposed on it in view of the grounds for the earlier withdrawal of the driving licence, with the result that the continued presence on the roads of the person involved represents a significant danger to the life and physical safety of other road users?

                     In the event that the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:

               2.

               Is Article 8(2) of Directive 91/439/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that while, in the circumstances described in Question 1, the Member State of residence is obliged to recognise the driving licence issued in another Member State of the European Union, with the result that, within its national territory, the holder is in principle entitled to drive motor vehicles, the Member State of residence is, in the interests of road safety, none the less at the very least empowered, in order to safeguard against the significant danger presented by this licence holder, to verify his fitness to drive in view of the circumstances which previously led to the withdrawal of the driving licence in the Member State of residence and which, because of the subsequent issue of the driving licence in another Member State of the European Union, precisely cannot be regarded as having been overcome?

      (1)  OJ L 237, p. 1.


title: Joined Cases C-71/09 P, C-73/09 P and C-76/09 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 June 2011 — Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’ (C-71/09 P), Hotel Cipriani Srl (C-73/09 P), Società Italiana per il gas SpA (Italgas) (C-76/09 P) v Coopservice — Servizi di fiducia Soc. coop. rl, European Commission, Italian Republic (Appeals — Actions for annulment — Admissibility — Locus standi — Interest in bringing an action — Objection of lis alibi pendens — State aid — Multisectoral aid scheme — Reductions in social security contributions — Decision 2000/394/EC — Compensatory nature — Whether intra-Community trade affected — Impact on competition — Extent of control — Burden of proof — Duty to state reasons — Article 87(2)(b) and (3)(b) to (d) EC — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Articles 14 and 15)

text:
               30.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/3

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 June 2011 — Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’ (C-71/09 P), Hotel Cipriani Srl (C-73/09 P), Società Italiana per il gas SpA (Italgas) (C-76/09 P) v Coopservice — Servizi di fiducia Soc. coop. rl, European Commission, Italian Republic
   (Joined Cases C-71/09 P, C-73/09 P and C-76/09 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Actions for annulment - Admissibility - Locus standi - Interest in bringing an action - Objection of lis alibi pendens - State aid - Multisectoral aid scheme - Reductions in social security contributions - Decision 2000/394/EC - Compensatory nature - Whether intra-Community trade affected - Impact on competition - Extent of control - Burden of proof - Duty to state reasons - Article 87(2)(b) and (3)(b) to (d) EC - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Articles 14 and 15)
   2011/C 226/03
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellants: Comitato «Venezia vuole vivere» (represented by: A. Vianello, avvocato) (C-71/09 P), Hotel Cipriani Srl (represented by: A. Bianchini and F. Busetto, avvocati) (C-73/09 P), Società Italiana per il gas SpA (Italgas) (represented by: M. Merola, M. Pappalardo and T. Ubaldi, avvocati) (C-76/09 P)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Coopservice — Servizi di fiducia Soc. coop. rl (represented by: A. Bianchini, avvocato), European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and E. Righini, Agents, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, avvocato), Italian Republic (represented by: I. Bruni, and subsequently by G. Palmieri, Agents, assisted by P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment in Joined Cases T-254/00, T-270/00 and T-277/00 Hotel Cipriani SpA and Others v Commission by which the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) dismissed the actions for annulment of Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995 (OJ 2000 L 150, p. 50)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeals of the Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’, Hotel Cipriani Srl and Società Italiana per il gas SpA (Italgas) and the cross-appeal of Coopservice — Servizi di fiducia Soc. coop. rl;

               2.

               Dismisses the cross-appeal of the European Commission;

               3.

               Orders the Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’, Hotel Cipriani Srl, Società Italiana per il gas SpA (Italgas) and Coopservice — Servizi di fiducia Soc. coop. rl to pay in equal shares the costs relating to the main appeals and to the cross-appeal of the latter;

               4.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs in relation to its cross-appeal;

               5.

               Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 16.5.2009.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 June 2004 in Case C-255/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Free movement of goods — Measures having equivalent effect — Label of quality and origin — ‘Walloon label of quality’)

text:
               22.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/5

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 17 June 2004
   in Case C-255/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Free movement of goods - Measures having equivalent effect - Label of quality and origin - ‘Walloon label of quality’)
   (2005/C 19/08)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-255/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C.-F. Durand and F. Simonetti) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: E. Dominkovits) – application for a declaration that, by adopting and maintaining in force rules under which the ‘Walloon label of quality’ is granted to finished products of a certain quality manufactured or processed in Wallonie, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC – the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr and R. Silva de Lapuerta, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 June 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force rules under which ‘the Walloon label of quality’ is granted to finished products of a certain quality manufactured or processed in Wallonie, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 200 of 23.8.2003.


title: Case C-668/16: Action brought on 23 December 2016 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               6.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 70/11

         Action brought on 23 December 2016 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-668/16)
   (2017/C 070/18)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Hermes, A.C. Becker, D. Kukovec, Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that:

                           —

                           by failing to take the measures necessary to restore the conformity of vehicles of types 246, 176 and 117 with their approved types (Articles 12 and 30 of the Framework Directive);

                           —

                           by failing to take the measures necessary to implement penalties (Article 46, in conjunction with Articles 5 and 18, of the Framework Directive); and

                           —

                           by upholding on 17 May 2013 an application by Daimler AG for extension of the existing vehicle type 245G to vehicles for which a different type-approval had been granted previously, to which the new requirements of the MAC Directive are applicable, and thereby circumventing the MAC Directive;

                     the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2006/40/EC (1) (MAC Directive) and Directive 2007/46/EC (2) (Framework Directive),

               —

               order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Under Article 12 of and Annex X to the Framework Directive, Member States are required, in the event of non-conformity of production, to take the measures necessary to ensure that production vehicles conform to the approved type. Under Article 30 of the Framework Directive, the necessary measures are also to be taken to restore conformity where new vehicles deviate from approved types. The production and completed new vehicles of some of Daimler AG’s vehicle types have deviated from their approved type with regard to the use of a certain refrigerant. The German authorities did not take the measures necessary to restore conformity, contrary to Articles 12 and 30 of the Framework Directive.
   Furthermore, the German authorities infringed Article 46 of the Framework Directive insofar as they imposed no penalties in respect of Daimler AG’s infringements of Article 5(1) and Article 18 of the Framework Directive.
   Lastly, the German authorities circumvented the MAC Directive in an impermissible way by extending an earlier vehicle type to the abovementioned vehicle types.

      (1)  Directive 2006/40/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 relating to emissions from air conditioning systems in motor vehicles and amending Council Directive 70/156/EEC, OJ 2006 L 161, p. 12.

      (2)  Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles, OJ 2007 L 263, p. 1.


title: Case C-386/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 14 July 2004 in the case of Centro di Musicologia Walter Stauffer against Finanzamt München für Körperschaften

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 14 July 2004 in the case of Centro di Musicologia Walter Stauffer against Finanzamt München für Körperschaften
   (Case C-386/04)
   (2004/C 262/47)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof of 14 July 2004, received at the Court Registry on 8 September 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Centro di Musicologia Walter Stauffer against Finanzamt München für Körperschaften on the following question:
   Is it contrary to Article 52 EC, in conjunction with Article 58 EC, Article 59 EC, in conjunction with Articles 66 EC and 58 EC, and Article 73b EC for a charitable foundation established under private law in another Member State, with limited liability to tax on its rental income in Germany, unlike a charitable foundation established in Germany, with unlimited liability to tax and receiving similar income, not to be entitled to exemption from corporation tax?


title: Case T-415/04: Action brought on 6 October 2004 by Vittoria Tebaldi and Others against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/52

         Action brought on 6 October 2004 by Vittoria Tebaldi and Others against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-415/04)
   (2004/C 300/101)
   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 6 October 2004 by Vittoria Tebaldi, residing in Tervuren (Belgium), Vicente Tejero Gazo, residing in Sterrebeek (Belgium), Victor González Martínez, residing in Brussels, and Alessandro Giovannetti, residing in Ernster (Luxembourg), represented by Gilles Bounéou and Fréderic Frabetti, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the list of officials promoted in the 2003 promotions procedure insofar as that list does not include the names of the applicants and, by way of an ancillary measure, annul the preparatory measures for that decision;
               in the alternative,

               —

               annul the award of promotion points in the 2003 promotions procedure inter alia following recommendations from the promotion committees;

               —

               make an order as to costs, expenses and fees and order the Commission of the European Communities to pay them.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants in this case challenge the refusal of the appointing authority to promote them to a higher grade in the 2003 promotions procedure.
   In support of their claims they plead the infringement:

               —

               of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and its general implementing rules;

               —

               of the administrative guide entitled ‘Appraisal and Promotion of Officials’;

               —

               of the principles of non-discrimination and the prohibition on arbitrary procedures and of the obligation to state reasons for measures;

               —

               of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and

               —

               of the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials.


title: Case T-63/08: Judgment of the General Court of 1 July 2010 — Cementir Italia v Commission (State aid — Compensation for expropriation on grounds of public interest — Temporal extension of a preferential tariff for the supply of electricity — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery — Concept of advantage — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations — Aid measure put into effect)

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/37

         Judgment of the General Court of 1 July 2010 — Cementir Italia v Commission
   (Case T-63/08) (1)

   (State aid - Compensation for expropriation on grounds of public interest - Temporal extension of a preferential tariff for the supply of electricity - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Concept of advantage - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - Aid measure put into effect)
   2010/C 221/59
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Cementir Italia Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: T. Salonico, G. Pellegrino, G. Pellegrino and G. Barone, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito and G. Conte, agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Decision 2008/408/EC of the Commission of 20 November 2007 on the State aid C 36/A/06 (ex NN 38/06) implemented by Italy in favour of ThyssenKrupp, Cementir and Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche (OJ 2008 L 144, p. 37)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application.

               2.

               Orders Cementir Italia Srl to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.


title: Case C-361/04 P: Appeal brought on 19 August 2004 (Fax: 18 August 2004) by Claude Ruiz-Picasso, Paloma Ruiz-Picasso, Maya Widmaier-Picasso, Marina Ruiz-Picasso and Bernard Ruiz-Picasso against the judgment delivered on 22 June 2004 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-185/02 Claude Ruiz-Picasso, Paloma Ruiz-Picasso, Maya Widmaier-Picasso, Marina Ruiz-Picasso and Bernard Ruiz-Picasso v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), supported by DaimlerChrysler AG, which was also a party before the Board of Appeal

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/21

         Appeal brought on 19 August 2004 (Fax: 18 August 2004) by Claude Ruiz-Picasso, Paloma Ruiz-Picasso, Maya Widmaier-Picasso, Marina Ruiz-Picasso and Bernard Ruiz-Picasso against the judgment delivered on 22 June 2004 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-185/02 Claude Ruiz-Picasso, Paloma Ruiz-Picasso, Maya Widmaier-Picasso, Marina Ruiz-Picasso and Bernard Ruiz-Picasso v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), supported by DaimlerChrysler AG, which was also a party before the Board of Appeal
   (Case C-361/04 P)
   (2004/C 262/36)
   An appeal was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 August 2004 (Fax: 18 August 2004) against the judgment delivered on 22 June 2004 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-185/02 Claude Ruiz-Picasso, Paloma Ruiz-Picasso, Maya Widmaier-Picasso, Marina Ruiz-Picasso and Bernard Ruiz-Picasso v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), supported by DaimlerChrysler AG, which was also a party before the Board of Appeal. The appellants are represented by Prof. C. Gielen, Rechtsanwalt, c/o Anwaltskanzlei Nauta Dutilh, Strawinskylaan 1999, NL-1077 XV Amsterdam.
   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the judgment delivered on 22 June 2004 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-185/02; (1)

               —

               annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 March 2002 in Case R 247/2001-3 in so far as the opposition entered by the appellant against the application lodged by the trade mark applicant for registration of the word mark PICARO as a Community trade mark was rejected;

               —

               order OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the appellant both at first instance and in the appeal proceedings.

         Pleas and main arguments

               —

               The appeal is brought on the ground of misapplication of the term ‘likelihood of confusion’.
               In the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance laid down a rule according to which conceptual differences can in certain circumstances counteract the visual and phonetic similarities between the signs concerned. According to the Court of First Instance, for there to be such a counteraction, at least one of the signs at issue must have, from the point of view of the relevant public, a clear and specific meaning so that the public is capable of grasping it immediately.
               For the purpose of establishing whether visual and phonetic similarities are counteracted by the conceptual differences, it is irrelevant that the sign has a meaning which can be grasped by the public immediately. The degree of visual, phonetic and conceptual similarity must be determined in the light of the categories of goods in question and of the circumstances in which those goods are marketed.
               Moreover, the meaning or reputation of the name Picasso, divorced from the goods in respect of which that trade mark was registered, cannot be used as an argument to support the claim that there are conceptual differences and that, as a result of such a meaning or reputation, the conceptual differences cancel out the phonetic and visual similarities.

               —

               The appeal is brought on the ground of misapplication of the term ‘likelihood of confusion’ and, in particular, the rule that the greater the degree of inherent distinctiveness or distinctiveness resulting from the reputation of the mark the greater the protection must be.
               Whilst the Court of First Instance referred to that rule, it failed to ascertain whether the mark PICASSO is per se or inherently distinctive, which, in the appellants' view, is indeed the case.
               The judgment under appeal is wrongly based on the premiss that, when assessing the likelihood of confusion, account need be taken solely of the degree of attention at the time when the consumer considers whether and then chooses to purchase a particular product. However, it is a generally recognised principle of trade mark law that the proprietor of a trade mark is to be protected against potential confusion both before and after the purchase of his product.
               Moreover, the Court of First Instance wrongly held that, when ascertaining in opposition proceedings whether there is a likelihood of confusion, there is no need to take account of the possibility of post-sale confusion. That applies only in cases of infringement such as that in the Arsenal case.

      (1)  Not yet published in the Official Journal of the European Communities.


title: Case T-99/06: Action brought on  30 March 2006  — Phildar v OHIM

text:
               20.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/15

         Action brought on 30 March 2006 — Phildar v OHIM
   (Case T-99/06)
   (2006/C 121/27)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Phildar SA (Roubaix, France) (represented by: E. Baud, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Comercial Jacinto Parera SA (Barcelona, Spain)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of January 16, 2006 in Case R 245/2004-2;

               —

               subsidiarily, and if the Court decides not to annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Marked (Trade Marks and Designs) of January 16, 2006 in Case R 245/2004-2, it should remit the case to the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) for consideration of the opposition against the registration of the CTM application ‘FILDOR’ No 831 834 notably on the basis of the earlier French word trade mark ‘FILDOR’ No 744 927 owned by the applicant;

               —

               order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant and, if appropriate, the intervener.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Applicant for the Community trade mark: Comercial Jacinto Parera SA

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘FILDOR’ for goods in classes 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 — application No 831 834
   Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited: The national and international word and figurative marks ‘FILDOR’ and ‘PHILDAR’ for goods in classes 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the application for the trade mark in question

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Opposition Division's decision

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b), 62 and 73 of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the conflicting trade marks are visually and phonetically similar, as the applicant did not have the opportunity to present its comments on the assessment of the modes of purchase of the goods in question, and as the Board of Appeal rejected the opposition on the basis of the earlier national figurative mark ‘PHILDAR’ without examining the earlier national word mark ‘FILDOR’.


title: Case C-357/05: Action brought on 23 September 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

text:
               12.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/14

         Action brought on 23 September 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-357/05)
   (2005/C 281/27)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 September 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by B. Schima and S. Pardo Quintillán, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by having failed to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/55/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC or, in any case, by having failed to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 33 of that directive;

               2.

               order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposition of the directive into the domestic legal system expired on 1 July 2004.

      (1)  OJ L 176 of 15 July 2003, p. 57


title: Case T-56/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 December 2008 — Stichting IEA Secretariaat Nederland and Others v Commission

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/48

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 December 2008 — Stichting IEA Secretariaat Nederland and Others v Commission
   (Case T-56/08) (1)

   (2009/C 32/93)

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.


title: Case F-17/10: Action brought on 15 March 2010 — Daake v OHIM

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/56

         Action brought on 15 March 2010 — Daake v OHIM
   (Case F-17/10)
   2010/C 134/93
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Simone Daake (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

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

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of OHIM’s decision of 4 December 2009 rejecting the applicant’s claims for compensation

      Form of order sought

               —

               Order OHIM to compensate the applicant for material damage amounting to the difference between:

                           —

                           on the one hand, her actual salary according to her formal classification as a member of the contract staff under Article 3a of the Conditions of Employment of other Servants (‘CEOS’) from 1 November 2005 until 31 October 2008 and the unemployment benefits paid to her from 1 November 2008 until today, and

                           —

                           on the other hand, the salary to which she was entitled as a member of the temporary staff under Article 2(a) of the CEOS from 1 November 2005 until 31 October 2008 and the unemployment benefits to which she was entitled from 1 November 2008 until today, calculated according to her salary for October 2008 under Article 2(a) of the CEOS –

                           —

                           together with the resulting losses to retirement pension and other indemnities, salary and benefits taking into account appropriate promotion based on her performance until 1 April 2008,

                           —

                           and — to the extent required in order for the compensation applied for to be granted — annul the decisions of OHIM of 6 May 2009 and 4 December 2009;

               —

               order OHIM to compensate the applicant for the non-material damage caused by the discrimination vis-à-vis other OHIM employees in an amount to be determined by the Tribunal;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.