title: Case C-401/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Schleswig-Holstein Oberverwaltungsgericht by order of that court of 22 September 1999 in the case of Peter Heinrich Thomsen against Amt für ländliche Räume, Husum, joined as parties: 1. Helga Henningsen, 2. Ute Henningsen, 3. Peter Henningsen

text:
C 6/16                  EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        8.1.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties                 (2) If the answer to question (1) is in sense (i), must the retailer
Tribunal, Manchester Tribunal Centre, by decision of that                     adjust his input tax in his returns of VAT in relation to the
court of 12 October 1999, in the case of Yorkshire                            supply of the goods by the manufacturer (or, as the case
Co-operatives Ltd against Commissioners of Customs and                        may be, by the wholesaler) to him, where the manufacturer
                               Excise                                         or other supplier has not issued a credit note to the retailer
                                                                              for the reimbursement of the reduction?
                          (Case C-398/99)
                                                                         (1) Directive 77/388/EEC of the Council of 17 May 1977 on the
                                                                             harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
                           (2000/C 6/29)                                     turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
                                                                             basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1).
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a decision of the VAT and Duties
Tribunal, Manchester Tribunal Centre, of 12 October 1999,
which was received at the Court Registry on 14 October 1999,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Yorkshire Co-operatives
Ltd against Commissioners of Customs and Excise, on the
following questions:                                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Schleswig-
                                                                         Holstein Oberverwaltungsgericht by order of that court
                                                                         of 22 September 1999 in the case of Peter Heinrich
(1) On the proper construction of Article 11A.1(a) and 11C.1             Thomsen against Amt für ländliche Räume, Husum, joined
     of the Sixth Directive (1), what is the taxable amount, in          as parties: 1. Helga Henningsen, 2. Ute Henningsen,
     relation to a supply of goods by a retailer in the position                                3. Peter Henningsen
     of the Appellant to a customer, where —
                                                                                (Case C-401/99)
     (a) the manufacturer of the goods has sold them to the
         retailer (or, hypothetically, to a wholesaler who has                                      (2000/C 6/30)
         sold them to the retailer),
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     (b) in the course of a sales promotion the manufacturer             European Communities by order of the Schleswig-Holstein
         procures the issue of a coupon, the terms of which are:         Oberverwaltungsgericht (Higher Regional Court) of 22 Sep-
                                                                         tember 1999, received at the Court Registry on 18 October
                                                                         1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Peter Heinrich
         (i) that the holder, on presenting the coupon to the            Thomsen against Amt für ländliche Räume (Office for Rural
              retailer, may buy the goods from the retailer at a         Areas), Husum, joined as parties: 1. Helga Henningsen, 2. Ute
              price which is less than the retailer’s normal selling     Henningsen, 3. Peter Henningsen on the following questions:
              price by an amount (‘the reduction’) specified in or
              ascertainable in accordance with the terms of the          (a) Is Article 7(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 (1)
              coupon, and                                                     of 28 December 1992 establishing an additional levy in
                                                                              the milk and milk products sector to be construed as
         (ii) that the manufacturer, when the retailer has sold               meaning that, on the expiry of rural leases, the reference
              the goods in accordance with the terms of the                   quantities available on the holdings in question may be
              coupon and has presented the coupon to the                      transferred in whole or in part in accordance with pro-
              manufacturer, will pay to the retailer a sum equal              visions adopted or to be adopted by the Member States,
              to the reduction,                                               taking account of the legitimate interests of the parties,
                                                                              only if at the time of surrender the lessors are producers as
                                                                              defined in Article 9(c) of Regulation No 3950/92?
     (c) the retailer sells the goods to a customer on presen-
         tation of the coupon and on payment of the reduced              (b) If the notion of producer in Article 7(2) is to be understood
         price, and                                                           in a broader sense, is a transfer in such cases also possible
                                                                              where the lessors do not envisage taking up the marketing
                                                                              of milk but are desirous of transferring the reference
     (d) the retailer presents the coupon to the manufacturer
                                                                              quantities together with the land to third parties?
         and is paid a sum equal to the reduction?
                                                                         (c) If the answer to (b) is affirmative, must the third parties to
Is the taxable amount —                                                       whom the reference quantities are to be transferred
                                                                              be producers as defined in Article 9(c) of Regulation
                                                                              No 3950/92?
         (i) the cash sum paid by the customer, or
                                                                         (1) OJ L 405 of 31.12.1992, p. 1.
         (ii) the cash sum paid by the customer together with
              the sum equal to the reduction paid by the
              manufacturer?


title: Case T-163/14: Action brought on 28 February 2014 — Canadian Solar Emea and Others v Council

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/59

         Action brought on 28 February 2014 — Canadian Solar Emea and Others v Council
   (Case T-163/14)
   2014/C 135/78
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Canadian Solar Emea GmbH (Munich, Germany); Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu), Inc. (Changshu, China); Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang), Inc. (Luoyang, China); Csi Cells Co. Ltd (Suzhou, China); and Csi Solar Power (China), Inc. (Suzhou) (represented by: A. Willems, S. De Knop and J. Charles, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Declare the action admissible;

               —

               Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2013 L 325, p. 66), as far as it applies to the applicants;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that by imposing countervailing measures on crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components consigned from the People’s Republic of China whereas the Notice of initiation mentioned only crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components originating in the People’s Republic of China, the Institutions violated Articles 10(12) and 10(13) of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 (1).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that by imposing countervailing measures on crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components that were not subject to an anti-subsidy investigation, the Institutions violated Articles 1 and 27 of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging by conducting one single investigation for two distinct products (i.e., crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and cells), the Institutions violated Article 2(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 188, p. 93)


title: Case T-76/03: Action brought on 28 February 2003 by Herbert Meister against Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM)

text:
C 101/52                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         26.4.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            —     order the European Parliament to grant to the applicant
                                                                                the resettlement allowance provided for under Article 6
                                                                                of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations with retroactive
The present application is directed against a decision of the                    effect from 1 June 2002;
Commission of 20 December 2002 requiring the Fondation
Alsace to repay to it EUR 18 000 (principal sum) as a result of            —     order the European Parliament to pay all the costs of the
its failure to fulfil subvention agreement PSS*/0534, concern-                   proceedings.
ing the organisation in Strasbourg of a conference from
29 June to 2 July 1992 entitled: ‘Quel avenir pour la
xénotransplantation et éthique et xénotransplantation’.
According to the Commission, the applicant failed to fulfil one            Pleas in law and main arguments
of its obligations, namely to provide scientific reports.
                                                                           The applicant, who is a former official of the European
                                                                           Parliament, was retired with entitlement to receive an invalidity
                                                                           pension as from 1 June 1999. On 31 May 2002 the applicant
In support of its claims, in addition to pleading lack of a                submitted to the defendant an application for the resettlement
statement of reasons, the applicant alleges:                               allowance provided for under Article 6 of Annex VII to the
                                                                           Staff Regulations, stating that he had, on the previous day,
—     expiry of time-limits to bring an action for restitution             definitively resettled in England. Following the defendant’s
      inasmuch as reimbursement of the subsidy in question is              rejection of that application, the applicant brought the present
      required more than 10 years after it was granted;                    action, invoking three pleas in law in support thereof:
—     manifest error of assessment in the present case, in that            —     manifest error of assessment;
      the condition relating to distribution of scientific reports
      was met, having regard to the nationality and number of              —     breach of the provisions of the second subparagraph of
      participants at the conference who were all leading                        Article 6(4) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations;
      specialists in the field with which the conference was
      concerned.                                                           —     infringement of the obligation to state reasons.
                                                                           Action brought on 28 February 2003 by Herbert Meister
                                                                           against Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
Action brought on 28 February 2003 by Miguel Angel                                                       (OHIM)
      Poveda Morillas against the European Parliament
                                                                                (Case T-76/03)
                           (Case T-69/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 101/91)
                          (2003/C 101/90)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                    (Language of the Case: French)
                                                                           An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
                                                                           Market (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance
                                                                           of the European Communities on 28 February 2003 by
An action against the European Parliament was brought before               Herbert Meister, residing in Muchamiel (Spain), represented by
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                 Georges Vandersanden, lawyer.
28 February 2003 by Miguel Angel Poveda Morillas, residing in
Folkestone (United Kingdom), represented by Patrick Goergen,
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
avocat, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                           —     annul the decision of 22 April 2002 of the President of
                                                                                the Office transferring the applicant together with his
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                      post as legal adviser to the Vice-President for Legal Affairs
                                                                                with effect from 1 May 2002;
—     annul the decision of the European Parliament of 3 June
      2002 refusing to grant to the applicant the resettlement             —     order the applicant’s rights to be fully restored, which
      allowance provided for under Article 6 of Annex VII to                     means retransferring him and his post to his original
      the Staff Regulations;                                                     department, in its original structure;
 ---pagebreak--- 26.4.2003              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 101/53
—     order the defendant to make good the non-material                         ation allowance and, therefore, the other realted allow-
      damage suffered, evaluated provisionally at EUR 50 000,                   ances, in accordance with the Lozano case-law;
      subject to adjustment;
                                                                          —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward
Until 1 May 2002, the applicant, an official at the Office for            earlier in Case T-205/02 Salvador García v Commission (1),
Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM), held the post                Case T-298/02 Ana Herero Romeu v Commission (2) and
of Head of Service of the Cancellation Division. By the decision          T-299/02 Dedeu v Commission (2).
being contested in the present action, the applicant was
transferred as legal adviser to Vice-President for Legal Affairs.
In support of his claims for annulment, the applicant pleads:             (1 ) OJ C 219 of 14 September 2002, p. 22.
                                                                          (2 ) OJ C 289 of 23 November 2002, p. 38.
—     erroneous and inadequate statement of reasons for the
      decision of 22 April 2002;
—     breach of the principle of proportionality and of freedom
      of expression;
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-305/01 (1)
—     infringement of the rights of defence, in particular the
      right to be heard;
                                                                                (2003/C 101/93)
—     breach of the principle of sound administration; and
                                                                                (Language of the Case: French)
—     breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of
      officials.
                                                                          By order of 29 January 2003 the President of the Third
                                                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                          Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                          T-305/01: Thalassa Seafoods S.A. v Commission of the
                                                                          European Communities.
Action brought on 3 March by Tomás Salazar Brier                          (1 ) OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002.
    against Commission of the European Communities
                          (Case T-83/03)
                         (2003/C 101/92)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-84/02 ( 1)
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                                (2003/C 101/94)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: French)
An action against Commission of the European Communities
was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 3 March 2003 by Tomás Salazar Brier,
residing in Brussels, represented by Ramón García-Gallardo                By order of 30 January 2003 the President of the First Chamber
Gil-Fournier and Dolores Domínguez Pérez, Members of the                  of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
Madrid and La Coruña Bars respectively.                                   ordered the removal from the register of Case T-84/02:
                                                                          Armand de Buck v Commission of the European Communities.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          (1 ) OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.
—     declare invalid the decision of 24 February 2003, implicit
      in the Commission’s silence, refusing to grant an expatri-


title: Case C-322/03: Action brought on 24 July 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

text:
C 213/24              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                        6.9.2003
Action brought on 23 July 2003 by the Commission of                     Action brought on 24 July 2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities against Huhtamaki Dourdan                                the European Communities against Ireland
                                SA
                                                                                (Case C-322/03)
                        (Case C-315/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 213/45)
                        (2003/C 213/44)
                                                                        An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities on 24 July 2003 by the
                                                                        Commission of the European Communities, represented by
                                                                        Nicola Yerrell, acting as agent, with an address for service in
An action against Huhtamaki Dourdan SA was brought before               Luxembourg.
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 July
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by C. Giolito, acting as Agent, with an address for         The Applicant claims that the Court should:
service in Luxembourg.
                                                                        a)    find that Ireland has failed its obligations under the EC
                                                                              Treaty by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
                                                                              administrative provisions necessary to comply with
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                              Council Directive 1999/63/EC of 21st June 1999 con-
the Court should order the defendant:
                                                                              cerning the Agreement on the organisation of working
                                                                              time of seafarers concluded by the European Shipowners’
1.    to pay the applicant a sum of EUR 162 342,42 (One                       Association (ECSA) and the Federation of Transport
      hundred and sixty-two thousand three hundred and                        Workers’ Unions in the European Union (FST) (1), or by
      forty-two euros and forty-two cents) corresponding to                   failing to ensure that management and labour have
      EUR 151 433,47 in respect of the principal and to                       introduced the necessary measures by agreement, and/or
      EUR 10 808,95 in respect of accrued interest for delay                  by failing to inform the Commission thereof; and
      up to 6 June 2003;
                                                                        b)    condemn Ireland to bear the costs of the procedure.
2.    to pay EUR 28,27 (Twenty-eight euros and twenty-seven
      cents) per day in respect of interest accrued at the same
      rate from 6 June 2003 until payment in full;                      Pleas in law and main arguments
3.    to pay the costs of this case.
                                                                        The period within which the directive had to be transposed
                                                                        expired on 30 June 2002.
                                                                        (1 ) OJ L 167, 02.07.1999, p. 33.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The court with jurisdiction in this case is the Court of Justice,
notwithstanding the wording of the arbitration clause since
that cannot have been intended to change or have the effect of
changing the division of jurisdiction between the Court of              Action brought on 28 July 2003 by the Commission of
Justice and the Court of First Instance as provided for by the           the European Communities against the French Republic
Treaty.
                                                                                (Case C-331/03)
In refusing to produce the evidence of costs requested by the                                    (2003/C 213/46)
Commission, the defendant has failed to fulfil its obligation
under the contract concluded pursuant to the provisions of
the specific programme for research and development in the
field of industrial and materials technologies and is liable to         An action against the French Republic was brought before the
repay the amount of the advance to the Commission.                      Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 July
                                                                        2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        represented by M. Konstantinidis and F. Simonetti, acting as
                                                                        Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 31 January 2001 in Case T-24/00: The Sunrider Corporation v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Term VITALITE — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
19.5.2001               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 150/25
1.    dismisses the application;                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2.    orders each of the parties to bear its own costs.                                              of 13 March 2001
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.00.                                                     in Case T-116/00: Benthe Hørbye-Möller v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities (1)
                                                                            (Officials — Promotion — Examine of comparative merits
                                                                                — Action for annulment)
                                                                                (2001/C 150/49)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                        of 31 January 2001
                                                                            In Case T-116/00: Benthe Hørbye-Möller, an official of the
in Case T-24/00: The Sunrider Corporation v Office for                      Commission of the European Communities, residing in Igel
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                       (Germany), represented by Louis Tinti, avocat, with an address
                        Designs) (OHIM) (1)                                 for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the Euro-
                                                                            pean Communities (Agent: C. Berardis-Kayser) — application
(Community trade mark — Term VITALITE — Absolute                            for annulment of the appointing authority’s decision not to
ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No                  promote the applicant to Grade B2 in the 1999 promotions
                                40/94)                                      procedure — the Court of First Instance (Single Judge:
                                                                            J.D. Cooke); D. Christensen, for the Registrar, gave a judgment
                          (2001/C 150/48)                                   on 13 March 2001, in which it:
                                                                            1.    dismisses the application;
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                            2.    orders each of the parties to bear its own costs.
In Case T-24/00: The Sunrider Corporation, having its regis-
tered office in Torrance, California, United States of America,             (1) OJ C 192 of 8.7.00.
represented by A. Kockläuner, Rechtsanwalt, Munich, with
an address for service in Luxembourg, against Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: C. Rusconi and G. Humphreys) —
application brought against the decision of the Second Board
of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 November 1999
(Case R 137/1999-2) concerning the registration of the term                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
VITALITE as a Community trade mark — the Court of First
Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: J. Pirrung, President,                                     of 22 February 2001
A. Potocki and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Palacio González,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
31 January 2001, in which it:                                               in Case T-144/00: Daniela Tirelli v European Parliament (1)
1.    Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office       (Officials — Upgrading — Secretarial allowances —
      for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and             Article 46 of the Staff Regulations — Transfer between
      Designs) of 26 November 1999 (Case R 137/1999-2) in                                    institutions — Inadmissibility)
      respect of the following goods: ‘food for babies’ and ‘mineral
      and aerated waters’;                                                                            (2001/C 150/50)
2.    Dismisses the application as to the remainder;
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
3.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay one half
      of the defendant’s costs; orders the defendant to bear the other
      half of its own costs.                                                In Case T-144/00: Daniela Tirelli, official of the European
                                                                            Parliament, residing in Dahlem (Luxembourg), represented by
                                                                            G. Vogel and F. Burg, avocats, with an address for service in
(1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.00.                                                    Luxembourg, against European Parliament (Agents: H. von
                                                                            Hertzen and Y. Pantalis) — application, first, for the annulment
                                                                            of the decision of the Parliament refusing to grant the
                                                                            secretarial allowance to the applicant and, secondly, seeking


title: Removal from the register of T-181/95

text:
C 26/10              EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                   24.1.98
Ð consequently, order the further payment of those                        Removal from the register of T-181/95 (1)
    allowances for a period of 6 months, the applicant                                    (98/C 26/19)
    having already received his allowances in respect of a
    period of 4 months,
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Ð order the defendant to pay all the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:              By order of 25 November 1997          the President of  the
                                                                 Second Chamber of the Court of        First Instance of the
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in           European Communities has ordered      the removal from  the
Case T-132/97 (1).                                               register of Case T-181/95: P v.        Commission of    the
                                                                 European Communities.
(1) OJ C 199, 28.6.1997, p. 35.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 333, 9.12.1995.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 9 June 1998 in Case T-173/95: Erich Biedermann and Others v Court of Auditors of the European Communities (Officials - Pensions - Weighting - Change of capital - Retroactive effect - Regulation (ECSC, EC, Euratom) No 3161/94 - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Act adversely affecting an official)

text:
C 234/24              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   25.7.98
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 9 June 1998                                                     of 9 June 1998
in Case T-172/95: Valentino Chesi and Others v Council              in Case T-173/95: Erich Biedermann and Others v Court
                  of the European Union (1)                                 of Auditors of the European Communities (1)
                                                                    (Officials Ð Pensions Ð Weighting Ð Change of capital
(Officials Ð Pensions Ð Weighting Ð Change of capital
                                                                    Ð Retroactive effect Ð Regulation (ECSC, EC, Euratom)
Ð Retroactive effect Ð Regulation (ECSC, EC, Euratom)
                                                                    No 3161/94 Ð Action for annulment Ð Admissibility Ð
No 3161/94 Ð Action for annulment Ð Admissibility Ð
                                                                                Act adversely affecting an official)
             Act adversely affecting an official)
                                                                                (98/C 234/47)
                        (98/C 234/46)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                    In Case T-173/95: Erich Biedermann, Walter Hedderich
                                                                    and Alfred Wienrich, former officials of the Court of
In Case T-172/95: Valentino Chesi, Margot Jost and Ralph            Auditors, residing respectively at Holzkirchen, at Dreieich
Loebisch, former officials of the the Council of the                and at Karlsruhe (Germany), represented by Georges
European Union, residing respectively at Munich, at                 Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an
Koblenz and at Berg (Germany), represented by Georges               address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an           Fiduciaire Myson SaÁrl, 30 Rue de Cessange, v Court of
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of                 Auditors of the European Communities (Agents: Jean-
Fiduciaire Myson SaÁrl, 30 Rue de Cessange, v Council of            Marie Stenier, Jan Inghelram and Paolo Giusta), supported
the European Union (Agents: initially, Yves Cretien,                by Council of the European Union (Agents: initially, Yves
Antonio Lucidi and Diego Canga Fano and, subsequently,              Cretien, Antonio Lucidi and Diego Canga Fano and,
Mr Lucidi and Mr Canga Fano alone), supported by                    subsequently, Mr Lucidi and Mr Canga Fano alone),
Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: Sabine Maass,                  Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: Sabine Maass,
Ernst Röder and Bernd Kloke) and Kingdom of the                     Ernst Röder and Bernd Kloke) and Kingdom of the
Netherlands (Agents: Marc Fierstra and Johannes van den             Netherlands (Agents: Marc Fierstra and Johannes van den
Oosterkamp) Ð application, first, for annulment of the              Oosterkamp) Ð application, first, for annulment of the
applicants' pension statements for December 1994,                   applicants' pension statements for December 1994,
inasmuch as those statements are drawn up on the basis of           inasmuch as those statements are drawn up on the basis of
Council Regulation (ECSC, EC, Euratom) No 3161/94 of                Council Regulation (ECSC, EC, Euratom) No 3161/94 of
19 December 1994 adjusting, with effect from 1 July                 19 December 1994 adjusting, with effect from 1 July
1994, the remuneration and pensions of officials (OJ L 335          1994, the remuneration and pensions of officials (OJ
of 23.12.1994, p. 1) and, second, for reinstatement of              L 335 of 23.12.1994, p. 1) and, second, for reinstatement
the applicants' pension rights in full, weighted, with effect       of the applicants' pension rights in full, weighted, with
from 3 October 1990, at the rate fixed by reference to the          effect from 3 October 1990 in the case of the applicants
cost of living in Berlin, and for default interest at the           Hedderich and Wienrich and with effect from 1 January
annual rate of 10 % Ð the Court of First Instance (Third            1991 in the case of the applicant Biedermann, at the rate
Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, and C. P.          fixed by reference to the cost of living in Berlin, and for
BrieÈt and A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given        default interest at the annual rate of 10 % Ð the Court
a judgment on 9 June 1998, in which it:                             of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: B.
                                                                    Vesterdorf, President, and C. P. BrieÈt and A. Potocki,
                                                                    Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 June
                                                                    1998, in which it:
1. Dismisses the application as inadmissible;
                                                                    1. Dismisses the application as inadmissible;
2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                    2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
(1) OJ C 315 of 25.11.1995.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 315 of 25.11.1995.


title: Case C-226/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Genova, Sezione I, by order of that court of 25 May 1999 in the case of Siples srl in liquidation against (1) Ministero delle Finanze and (2) Servizio Riscossione Tributi Concessione Provinciale Genova San Paolo Riscossioni Genova SpA

text:
28.8.1999              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 246/13
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di                 4. Is Commission Regulation No 1576/95 of 30 June 1995
Genova, Sezione I, by order of that court of 25 May 1999                   likewise invalid and thus of no legal effect for lack of a
in the case of Siples srl in liquidation against (1) Ministero             statement of reasons?
delle Finanze and (2) Servizio Riscossione Tributi Conces-
sione Provinciale Genova San Paolo Riscossioni Genova                  5. Do the export operations of 30 June 1995 fall within the
                                SpA                                        scope of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1415/95 of 22
                                                                           June 1995 as a result of the invalidity of the above-
                         (Case C-226/99)                                   mentioned regulations, or by the repeal referred to in
                                                                           Question 1?
                         (1999/C 246/26)
                                                                       (1) OJ L 150 of 1.7.1995, p. 64.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 (2) OJ L 147 of 30.6.1995, p. 65.
European Communities by order of the Tribunale Civile di
Genova Sezione I (Genoa District Court, First Chamber) of 25
May 1999, which was received at the Court Registry on 11
June 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Siples srl in
liquidation against (1) Ministero delle Finanze and (2) Servizio
Riscossione Tributi Concessione Provinciale Genova San Paolo
Riscossioni Genova SpA on the following question:
Is the power to suspend the contested decision provided for in         Action brought on 16 June 1999 by the Commission
Article 244 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (1) conferred               of the European Communities against the Republic of
exclusively on the customs authority or also on the judicial                                         Austria
authority before which an appeal has been brought?
                                                                                (Case C-231/99)
(1) Council Regulation No 2913/92 of 12.10.1992, OJ 1992 L 302,
    p. 1.
                                                                                (1999/C 246/28)
                                                                       An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before
                                                                       the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 16 June
                                                                       1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                       represented by Michael Niejahr, of its Legal Service, acting as
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di               Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
Cagliari, Sezione Civile, by order of that court of 21 May             of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner
1999, in the case of Silos e Mangimi Martini v Ministero               Centre, Kirchberg.
                           delle Finanze
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         (Case C-228/99)
                                                                       1. Declare that the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its
                         (1999/C 246/27)                                   obligations under the EC Treaty and
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     — Council Directive 96/32/EC (1) of 21 May 1996
European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Cagliari,                     amending Annex II to Directive 76/895/EEC relating
Sezione Civile, of 21 May 1999, which was received at the                       to the fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues
Court Registry on 14 June 1999, for a preliminary ruling in                     in and on fruit and vegetables and Annex II to Directive
the case of Silos e Mangimi Martini v Ministero delle Finanze                   90/642/EEC relating to the fixing of maximum levels
on the following questions:                                                     for pesticide residues in and on certain products
                                                                                of plant origin, including fruit and vegetables, and
1. Does Commission Regulation No 1576/95 (1) of 30 June                         providing for the establishment of a list of maximum
     1995 repeal Commission Regulation No 1521/95 (2) of 29                     levels, and
     June 1995 and, if so, must the latter be held to have had
     no legal effects on 30 June 1995?
                                                                           — Council Directive 96/33/EC (2) of 21 May 1996
                                                                                amending the Annexes to Directives 86/362/EEC and
2. Must Commission Regulation No 1521/95 of 29 June
                                                                                86/363/EEC on the fixing of maximum levels for
     1995 be interpreted as meaning that it may be applied to
                                                                                pesticide residues in and on cereals and foodstuffs of
     export operations already underway and already completed
                                                                                animal origin respectively,
     on the same day on which the regulation itself was
     published and thus made available to the operators
     concerned?                                                            by failing to bring into force within the prescribed
                                                                           period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
3. Is Commission Regulation No 1521/95 of 29 June 1995                     necessary to comply with those directives;
     invalid and thus of no legal effect for lack of a statement
     of reasons?                                                       2. Order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case C-48/01: Action brought on 5 February 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

text:
C 95/6                  EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      24.3.2001
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                    or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                               Council Directive 95/63/EC of 5th December 1995 (1)
—     Set aside the order under appeal and refer the case to the               amending Directive 89/655/EEC (2) concerning the mini-
      Court having jurisdiction in the matter;                                 mum safety and health requirements for the use of work
                                                                               equipment by workers at work and/or failing to inform
—     Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings                 the Commission thereof and
      before both Community Courts.
                                                                         —     condemn Ireland to bear the costs of the procedure.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
(1)    The legal definition of the action at first instance
                                                                         Article 249 EC, under which a directive shall be binding as to
       Having regard to the action at first instance, and bearing        the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by
       in mind the fact that the formal issue of the legal               implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the
       definition thereof cannot be regarded as precluding the           period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period
       admissibility of an action, it appears permissible to argue       expired on 5 December 1998 without Ireland having enacted
       that the grounds set out on that point in the order under         the provisions necessary to comply with the directive referred
       appeal ought to be censured in their entirety.                    to in the conclusions of the Commission.
(2)    The jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance                   (1) OJ L 335, 30.12.1995, p. 28.
                                                                         (2) OJ L 393, 30.12.1989, p. 13.
       It is clear that, since this case involves a dispute
       between a Community institution and the member of a
       consultative committee established by that institution,
       the Court of First Instance has jurisdiction to deal with
       the dispute.
       It is further evident that, pursuant to Article 91 of             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
       the Staff Regulations applicable to officials and other           Siena, by order of that court of 26 January 2001 in
       servants of the European Communities, the Court of                the case of Milena Castellani v Istituto Nazionale della
       Justice has jurisdiction in any dispute between the                                  Previdenza Sociale (INPS)
       Community and ‘any person to whom these Staff
       Regulations apply’. Since the Court of First Instance
       ruled that it lacked jurisdiction in favour of the Court of                                 (Case C-50/01)
       Justice, the Court of First Instance ought, of its own
       motion, to have ensured that the application was                                            (2001/C 95/11)
       forwarded to the Court having jurisdiction in the matter.
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by an order of the Tribunale di Siena
                                                                         (District Court, Siena) of 26 January 2001, which was received
                                                                         at the Court Registry on 5 February 2001, for a preliminary
                                                                         ruling in the case of Milena Castellani v Istituto Nazionale della
Action brought on 5 February 2001 by the Commission                      Previdenza Sociale (INPS), on the following questions:
        of the European Communities against Ireland
                                                                         Is the rule precluding aggregation of the accounting value of
                          (Case C-48/01)                                 the special supplementary pay with the payments made to a
                                                                         worker in the reference period (Article 2(4) of Legislative
                          (2001/C 95/10)                                 Decree No 80/1992) compatible — inter alia in the light of
                                                                         past ruling of the Court of Justice concerning that decree —
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of                with EEC Directive 987/80 (1), and in particular:
Justice of the European Communities on 5 February 2001 by
the Commission of the European Communities, represented                  (1) Can that non-aggregability be regarded as conforming
by Ms Nicola Yerrell, Member of its legal Service, acting as                   with the purpose of the directive which appears
agent, with an address for service at the office of Mr Carlos                  (Article 3(1)) to be to ensure the payment of outstanding
Gómez de la Cruz, also a member of its Legal Service, Centre                  claims in respect of wages arising within a specified time
Wagner, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.                                                 span (Article 3(2)) and in respect of a certain period
                                                                               (Article 4(1) and (2))? or
The Applicant requests that the Court should:
                                                                         (2) Does that non-aggregability reflect a rule concerning
—     find that Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under             assistance, not conforming with the social criterion on
      the EC Treaty by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                  which Directive 987/80 is based?


title: Case C-190/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d'Appel de Paris (Ninth Chamber) by judgment of 15 May 2000 in the case of Edouard Balguerie, Bernard André Mercier and Patrick Thomas, and, as parties bearing civil liability, Société Balguerie, Société Pillet and Orkos Diffusion v Administration des Douanes; intervener: Ministère Public

text:
22.7.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 211/11
     of cocoa and sugar of OCT origin was possible without              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d’Appel
     limitation on the basis of Article 6 of Annex II to the            de Paris (Ninth Chamber) by judgment of 15 May 2000 in
     OCT Decision. The Commission seeks in Regulation                   the case of Edouard Balguerie, Bernard André Mercier
     No 465/2000 to impose a limit on an EC/OCT cumulation              and Patrick Thomas, and, as parties bearing civil liability,
     of origin upheld by the Council and thus seeks to avoid a          Société Balguerie, Société Pillet and Orkos Diffusion
     consequence which was clearly created by the OCT                   v Administration des Douanes; intervener: Ministère
     Decision and upheld by the Council;                                                                Public
— Infringement of Article 253 EC.
                                                                                (Case C-190/00)
( 1) OJ 2000 L 56, p. 39.
(2) OJ 1991 L 263, p. 1.                                                                          (2000/C 211/18)
(3) OJ 2000 L 55, p. 67.
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by judgment of 15 May 2000 by the
                                                                        Cour d’Appel de Paris (Court of Appeal, Paris) (Ninth
                                                                        Chamber), which was received at the Court Registry on 23 May
                                                                        2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Edouard Balguerie,
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsge-                  Bernard André Mercier and Patrick Thomas, and, as parties
richt Hamburg by order of that court of 3 May 2000 in                   bearing civil liability, Société Balguerie, Société Pillet and Orkos
the case of Dr Helga Kutz-Bauer v Freie und Hansestadt                  Diffusion v Administration des Douanes; intervener: Ministère
                             Hamburg                                    Public, on the following question:
                          (Case C-187/00)
                                                                        Do Commission Regulation No 4142/87 of 9 December
                          (2000/C 211/17)                               1987 (1) and the conditions imposed for its application in
                                                                        regard to imports of dates under the procedure for the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  suspension of customs duties by reason of the end-use of
European Communities by an order of the Arbeitsgericht                  the goods preclude such goods being imported in original
(Labour Court), Hamburg, of 3 May 2000, which was received              packaging with a content of less than or equal to 11 kg?
at the Court Registry on 19 May 2000, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Dr Helga Kutz-Bauer v Freie und Hansestadt
Hamburg on the following questions:                                     (1) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 4142/87 of 9 December 1987
                                                                            determining the conditions under which certain goods are eligible
1. Does a provision of a collective agreement for the public                on import for a favourable tariff arrangement by reason of their
     service which allows male and female employees to claim                end-use (OJ L 387 of 31.12.1987, p. 81).
     part-time working on grounds of age infringe Articles 2(1)
     and 5(1) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the im-
     plementation of the principle of equal treatment for men
     and women as regards access to employment, vocational
     training and promotion, and working conditions, if it
     allows part-time working on grounds of age only until the
     time when a full pension under the statutory old-age
     insurance scheme may first be claimed, and if the class of
     persons who may already draw a full pension at the age of
     60 consists almost exclusively of women, while the class           Action brought on 25 May 2000 by the Commission of
     who may draw a full pension only from the age of                     the European Communities against the Italian Republic
     65 consists almost exclusively of men?
2. Are national courts empowered, where provisions of                                             (Case C-191/00)
     collective agreements and legislative provisions are in
     breach of Directive 76/207/EEC (1) or Directive 79/7/
     EEC (2), to apply the corresponding provisions in favour of                                  (2000/C 211/19)
     the disadvantaged class, disregarding the restrictions which
     are contrary to Community law, until non-discriminatory
     rules are created by the parties to the collective agreement       An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
     and/or the legislature?                                            Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 May
                                                                        2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        represented by Karen Banks, Legal Adviser, and Laura Pignata-
(1) OJ L 39 of 14.2.1976, p. 40.                                        ro, of the Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for
(2) OJ L 6 of 10.1.1979, p. 24.
                                                                        service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
                                                                        Cruz, of the Commission’s Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
                                                                        Kirchberg.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tampereen Käräjäoikeus by judgment of that court of 31 March 1998 in the case of Finnish State/Tullihallitus v Kaupo Salumets and Others (Case C-455/98)

text:
C 71/4                 EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  13.3.1999
     certification was annulled, this could only give rise to        on 15 December 1998 by the Commission of the
     the legitimate expectation on the part of the appellant         European Communities, represented by Dimitrios
     that the Commission would endorse the DAFSE's                   Goulousis, Legal Adviser, and Antonio Aresu, of its Legal
     certification                                                   Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                     office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
                                                                     Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Ð Misappraisal of the facts
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2950/83 of 17 October 1983 on        The Commission claims that the Court should:
    the implementation of Decision 83/516/EEC on the tasks of
    the European Social Fund (OJ L 289, 20.10.1983, p. 1).
(2) Case T-85/94 Branco v Commission [1995] ECR II-45.
                                                                     Ð declare that, by failing to bring into force and to
                                                                         communicate to the Commission within the time-limit
                                                                         laid down the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                         provisions necessary to comply fully with Council
                                                                         Directive 96/97/EC (1) of 20 December 1996 amending
                                                                         Directive 86/378/EEC on the implementation of the
                                                                         principle of equal treatment for men and women in
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tampereen
                                                                         occupational social security schemes, the Hellenic
Käräjäoikeus by judgment of that court of 31 March 1998
                                                                         Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
in the case of Finnish State/Tullihallitus v Kaupo Salumets
                                                                         EC Treaty;
                            and Others
                        (Case C-455/98)
                         (1999/C 71/06)                              Ð order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
European Communities by a judgment of the Tampereen
Käräjäoikeus (Tampere District Court) of 31 March 1998,
which was received at the Court Registry on 14 December
                                                                     The Member States are required by the binding character
1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Finnish                of the third paragraph of Article 189 and of Article 5 of
State/Tullihallitus v Kaupo Salumets and Others on the               the EC Treaty to adopt the measures needed to transpose
following question:
                                                                     directives into national law before the expiry of the period
                                                                     laid down for that purpose and to communicate those
                                                                     measures immediately to the Commission. That period
Are the European Community tax directives Council                    expired on 1 July 1997 without the Hellenic Republic
Directive 92/12/EEC (1), Council Directive 92/83/EEC (2)             having communicated to the Commission the provisions
and Council Directive 77/388/EEC (3) and the customs                 transposing the directive at issue into national law.
code Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (4) to be
interpreted as meaning that the provisions concerning tax
liability and customs debts apply to the smuggling of                (1) OJ L 46, 17.2.1997, p. 20.
liquor?
(1) OJ  L 76, 23.3.1992, p. 1.
(2) OJ  L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 21.
(3) OJ  L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.
(4) OJ  L 302, 19.10.1992, p. 1.
                                                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungs-
                                                                     gerichtshof, Vienna, by order of that court of
                                                                     26 November 1998 in the case of Sutterlüty Gesellschaft
                                                                     mbH & Co against the Vorarlberg Landesregierung,
                                                                     with the following parties joined in the proceedings: the
                                                                     town of Dornbirn, the municipality of Bludesch, the
Action brought on 15 December 1998 by the Commission                  municipality of Rankweil and the municipality of Lochau
of the European Communities against the Hellenic
                             Republic                                                       (Case C-460/98)
                        (Case C-457/98)                                                      (1999/C 71/08)
                         (1999/C 71/07)
                                                                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought                  European Communities by order of the Verwaltungs-
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities              gerichtshof, Vienna (Higher Administrative Court, Vienna)


title: Case T-384/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  15 December 2005  — RB Square Holdings Spain v OHIM (Community trade mark — Figurative mark containing the word element  clean x  — Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier national word and figurative marks CLEN — Rejection of the opposition — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/31

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 December 2005 — RB Square Holdings Spain v OHIM
   (Case T-384/04) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Figurative mark containing the word element ‘clean x’ - Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier national word and figurative marks CLEN - Rejection of the opposition - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2006/C 48/59)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: RB Square Holdings Spain, SL (Granollers, Spain) (represented by: K. Manhaeve, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Pétrequin and A. Rassat, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Unelko NV (Zingem, Belgium)
   Action
   brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 June 2004 (Case R 652/2002-4) relating to opposition proceedings between RB Square Holdings Spain, SL and Unelko NV
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 300 of 4.12.2004.


title: Case T-601/13: Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2014  — Wilo v OHIM (Pioneering for You) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark Pioneering for You — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/51

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2014 — Wilo v OHIM (Pioneering for You)
   (Case T-601/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Pioneering for You - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 046/64)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Wilo SE (Dortmund, Germany) (represented by: B. Scheniders, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 September 2013 (Case R 555/2013-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign Pioneering for You as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Wilo SE to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.


21.4.2001             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 118/25
       Removal from the register of Case C-232/00 (1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-327/99 (1)
                        (2001/C 118/52)                                                       (2001/C 118/55)
By order of 4 October 2000 the President of the Court of              By order of 5 October 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-232/00: Commission of the                 from the register of Case C-327/99: [reference for a preliminary
European Communities v Hellenic Republic.                             ruling from Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria)]: FILA Sport
                                                                      SpA v New Times International Transport Service Co. Ltd.
(1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-243/99 (1)
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-362/99 (1)
                        (2001/C 118/53)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/56)
By order of 5 October 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           By order of 5 October 2000 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-243/99: [reference for a preliminary      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
ruling from Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria)]: FILA Sport           from the register of Case C-362/99: [reference for a preliminary
SpA v Beijing Metals & Minerals Import & Export Corp.                 ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria)]: SEIKO
                                                                      Kabushiki Kaisha v Mohammed Ibrahim.
(1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-284/99 (1)
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-250/00 (1)
                        (2001/C 118/54)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/57)
By order of 5 October 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           By order of 6 October 2000 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-284/99: [reference for a preliminary      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
ruling from Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria)]: New Yorker           from the register of Case C-250/00: Commission of the
S.H.K. Jeans GmbH v Ing. Jaroslav Kupco.                              European Communities v Portugal.
(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.                                            (1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.


title: Case T-256/01: Action brought on 10 October 2001 by Norman Pyres against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 17/18                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      19.1.2002
Grounds of claim:              Incorrect      interpretation     of      In support of his claims, the applicant relies on the following
                               Article 7 of Regulation 40/94 (1)         pleas:
                               and unjust refusal of evidence
                               filed by the Applicant after the
                               filing of the Application.                —     infringement of Article 1(1) of Annex III to the Staff
                                                                               Regulations and of Article 12 of the Conditions of
                                                                               Employment of Other Servants of the European Com-
                                                                               munities.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
    Community trade mark (OJ L 11, p. 1).
                                                                         —     disregard for the interests of the service.
                                                                         —     the existence, in the present case, of a manifest error of
                                                                               assessment.
                                                                         —     breach of the principle of non-discrimination.
Action brought on 10 October 2001 by Norman Pyres
    against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         The applicant states in that regard that it is for the institution
                                                                         to justify on objective grounds the condition relating to age
                         (Case T-256/01)                                 which it sets in its recruitment notices, such justification to be
                                                                         objective and reasonable, to be in pursuit of a legitimate
                                                                         interest and to observe the requirements of proportionality.
                          (2002/C 17/30)
                   (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               Action brought on 16 October 2001 by Nutrinveste —
European Communities on 10 October 2001 by Noramn                        Comércio Internacional, S.A. against Commission of the
Pyres, residing in Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersan-                               European Communities
den and Laure Levi, lawyers.
                                                                                (Case T-259/01)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (2002/C 17/31)
—     annul the decision of 1 December 2000 of the Selection
      Board in competition COM/R/A/14/2000, the decision of
      4 December 2000 of the Selection Board in competition                               (Language of the case: Portuguese)
      COM/R/A/10/2000 and the decision of 7 December 2000
      of the Selection Board in competition COM/R/A/07/2000
      refusing to allow the applicant to take part in the selection
      procedure;
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on
                                                                         16 October 2001 by Nutrinveste — Comércio Internacional,
                                                                         S.A., established in Algés, Portugal, represented by the lawyers
                                                                         Jorge Monteiro dos Santos, Ana Cristina Vasconcelos, Jorge de
                                                                         Mendia, Sandra Sousa de Almeida and António Texeira de
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Almeida, of Lisbon.
The applicant opposes the decision of the appointing authority           The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
to exclude him from the selection procedure for COM/
R/A/07/2000, COM/R/A/10/2000 and COM/R/A/14/2000,
organised by the Research Directorate General, on the ground             —     Order the European Commission to pay to the applicant
that he did not meet the condition as to age-limit prescribed                  the sum of EUR 61 222 for goods duly delivered but not
therein.                                                                       yet paid for.


title: Action brought on 7 July 1995 by Christos Michaël against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-144/95)

text:
23 . 9 . 95            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 248/ 15
   Action brought on 5 July 1995 by Jean-Louis Delvaux                Lastly, he considers that the promotion procedure
   against the Commission of the European Communities                 established by the Commission in the Translation Service is
                        ( Case T-142/95 )                             contrary to Articles 5 ( 3 ) and 27 of the Staff Regulations, in
                                                                      so far as, first, it does not secure for the institution the
                          ( 95/C 248/33 )
                                                                      services of officials of the highest standard of ability,
                                                                      efficiency and integrity, and, secondly, it does not guarantee
                                                                      identical conditions of service career .
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      As regards the claim for damages, the applicant states that
An action against the Commission of the European                      the irregularity of the promotion procedure for 1994 caused
 Communities was brought before the Court of First                    his unjustified exclusion from the list of officials considered
Instance on 5 July 1995 by Jean-Louis Delvaux, resident in            the most deserving of promotion and also, possibly, from
Rhode-St. Genese ( Belgium), represented by Nicolas Lhoest,           the list of officials promoted; he maintains that he has
 of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                  suffered ascertainable damage linked to the loss of a chance
 Luxembourg c/o Ann Branch, 39 , Avenue Victor Hugo .                 of promotion in 1994, which could in particular have led to
                                                                      a higher salary, the right to a higher pension and the right to
                                                                      apply for A 3 posts .
 The applicant claims that the Court should :
 — annul the Commission's decision, which appeared in
      Informations administratives No 858 of 2 September
      1994 , not to include the applicant's name on the list of
      officials considered the most deserving of promotion to
      Grade LA 4 in 1994,
                                                                      Action brought on 7 July 1995 by Christos Michael against
                                                                             the Commission of the European Communities
 — annul the Commission's decision, which appeared in
                                                                                ( Case T-144/95 )
      Informations administratives No 859 of 8 September
      1994, not to include the applicant's name on the list of                                  ( 95/C 248/34 )
      officials considered the most deserving of promotion to
      Grade LA 4 in 1994,
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
 — if necessary, annul the express decision of rejection
      adopted by the Commission on 3 April 1995 in reply to            An action against the Commission of the European
      the applicant's complaint;                                       Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                       Instance on 7 July 1995 by Christos Michael, resident in
 — order the defendant to pay a lump sum of Bfrs 100 000               Brussels, represented by Lucas Vogel, of the Brussels Bar,
      as compensation for the irregularity of the promotion            with an adress for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
      procedure which caused harm to the applicant,                    of Christian Kremer, 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
 — order the defendant to pay all the costs .                          The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                       — annul the implied decision, considered to have been
  Fleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      taken on 7 April 1995 , rejecting the complaint made on
                                                                           7 December 1994 by the applicant to the appointing
  The applicant relies, first, on breach of Article 46 of the Staff        authority challenging the decision on promotions to
  Regulations of Officials, claiming that the appointing                   Grade A 4 for 1994 ( decision published in Informations
  authority did not carry out a comparative examination of                 administratives of 8 September 1994 );
  the merits and staff reports of all promotable officials and
' also that it did not take into account all the applicant's           — oder the defendant to pay the costs .
  merits, in particular those acquired outside his linguistic
  unit . In addition he maintains that in the course of the
  promotion procedure he was the subject of criticism , in              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
  conditions contrary to Article 26 of the Staff Regulations, to
  which he could not respond and which played a determinant
                                                                        The applicant alleges infringement of the principle of
  role in his being excluded from the list of officials proposed        non-discrimination and of Article 45 ( 1 ) of the Staff
  for promotion.
                                                                        Regulations , as well as of the implementing provisions
                                                                        contained in the Commission's Decision of 21 December
  The applicant points out, furthermore, that the contested             1970 , amended by Decision of 14 July 1971 , inasmuch as
   decisions are vitiated by the complete absence of a statement        the appointing authority did not undertake a 'consideration
   of the grounds on which they were based, in breach of the            of the comparative merits of the officials eligible for
   second paragraph of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations .            promotion and of the reports on them'.
 ---pagebreak--- No C 248/ 16            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      23 . 9 . 95
He states in this connection that his staff report for the             — order the Parliament to pay the costs .
period 1991 /93 was notified to him only on 1 July 1994,
belatedly in relation to what is laid down in the provisions           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
applicable; notification in fact took place after publication
of the list of officials most deserving of promotion drawn up
by Directorate-General XX for 1994 . When examining the                The applicant challenges the decision by the Parliament,
                                                                       notified by letter of 29 September 1994 , to take steps to
applicant's case, the promotions committee therefore had
available only a belated and inaccurate staff report, since it         recover, pursuant to Article 85 of the Staff Regulations, part
was subsequently amended after the applicant had                       of the household allowance that she had been receiving from
submitted a compliant. The applicant concludes that the list           1 June 1987 corresponding to the prime de menage paid to
of officials most deserving of promotion drawn up on that              her husband by the Luxembourg authorities over the same
basis by the promotions committee, and the subsequent                  period . She considers that the rule against overlapping
promotion decisions adopted by the appointing authority,               benefits is not applicable in her case, since both the legal
are void pursuant to Article 45 of the Staff Regulations .             nature and the conditions for granting the household
                                                                       allowance are completely different from those governing the
                                                                       prime de menage.
The applicant states further that the promotions committee
committed a manifest error of assessment in calculating his
seniority in the grade . He considers that that seniority              The applicant points out in this connection that under
should have been calculated from 1985 , the date on which              Luxembourg legislation the prime de menage: ( a ) is
he was promoted to LA 5 , and not from 1989 , the date on              contractual in nature; ( b ) is paid regardless of family
which he was appointed to Grade A 5 having succeeded in                expenses; and ( c ) is subject to tax. She concludes that despite
internal competition COM/2/87 for transfer from the                    its name, the prime de menage is not a family allowance , in
Language Service to Category A.                                        contrast to the household allowance paid by the European
                                                                       Communities .
Action brought on 13 July 1995 by Genevieve Pavan against              Action brought on 14 July 1995 by etablissements
                     the European Parliament                           J. Richard Ducros against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                         ( Case T-l 47/95 )
                           ( 95/C 248/35 )                                                      ( Case T-149/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 248/36 )
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
An action against the European Parliament was brought
before the Court of First Instance on 13 July 1995 by                  An action against the Commission of the European
Genevieve Pavan, resident in Luxembourg, represented by                Communities was brought before the Court of First
Alain Lorang, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for               Instance of the European Communities on 14 July 1995 by
service in Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers, 51 Rue                 Etablissements J. Richard Ducros, established in Paris,
Albert ler .                                                           represented by Philippe Genin, of the Lyons Bar, with an
                                                                       address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                       Aloyse May, 31 Grand-rue .
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the decision adopted on 29 September 1994 by the
     European Parliament pursuant to Article 85 of the Staff           — annul the decision of the Commission closing the
     Regulations,                                                           procedure which it had initiated,
— declare that the prime de menage received by the                     — order the defendant to pay costs .
     applicant's husband should not be set off against the
     household allowance received by her,
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— declare that the European Parliament should reimburse                The applicant, a public limited liability company
     all the sums improperly retained pursuant to the decision          incorporated under French law, engaged in the metal
     of 29 September 1994 ,                                             construction and boiler-marking sector, contests the
                                                                        Decision of the Commission, published in the Official
— declare that the applicant should receive in their entirety          Journal of the European Communities of 16 May 1995
     all the household allowance payments that should have              under No C 120, p. 4 , in which it decided to close the
     been paid from December 1994 ,                                     procedure initiated on 11 March 1992 under Article 93 ( 2 )