title: Appeal brought on 8 December 1998 by International Express Carriers Conference (IECC) against the judgment delivered on 16 September 1998 by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-110/95 between International Express Carriers Conference (IECC) and the Commission of the European Communities, supported by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, La Poste and The Post Office (Case C-449/98 P)

text:
C 48/14                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 20.2.1999
    application for the extension of his residence permit,               Composition) of 16 September 1998 in case T-110/94,
    and the authority subsequently refuses the application?              International Express Carriers Conference (IECC) v.
                                                                         Commission of the European Communities;
3. Where a Turkish national commits an offence against
    the Narcotics Law, and on specific and general
    preventive grounds the authorities have no discretion            Ð decide on the case pursuant to Article 54 of the
    in the matter, is the limitation', within the meaning of            Statute (EC) of the Court and annul the decision of
    Article 14(1) of Decision No 1/80, of his entitlement                17 February 1995 of the Commission contested in case
    acquired pursuant the second indent of the first                     T-110/95;
    paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 justified'
    on grounds of public policy, public security or public
    health if, on the evidence of his personal conduct, it           Ð order the Commission to pay the costs of the
    may reasonably be expected that he will not re-offend?               proceedings before the Court of First Instance as well
    In determining that question, are the criteria which                 as the costs of the present proceedings;
    apply the same as those under Article 48(3) of the EC
    Treaty and Article 3(1) and (2) of Council Directive
    64/221/EEC of 25 February 1964 (1) on the                        Ð order the interveners before the Court of First Instance
    coordination of special measures concerning the                      to pay the applicant's costs before the Court of First
    movement and residence of foreign nationals which                    Instance relating to the interventions in these
    are justified on grounds of public policy, public                    proceedings;
    security or public health?
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1963Ð1964, p. 117.                   Ð alternatively, in the event that it does not decide on
                                                                         the case, reserve the costs and refer the matter to a
                                                                         Chamber of the Court of First Instance composed of
                                                                         judges other than those present in case T-110/95.
Appeal brought on 8 December 1998 by International                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
Express Carriers Conference (IECC) against the judgment
delivered on 16 September 1998 by the Third Chamber,
Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of              1. It is submitted that the Court of First Instance
the European Communities in case T-110/95 (1) between                    committed a manifest factual error in examining the
International Express Carriers Conference (IECC) and the                 documents submitted to it. It justified the
Commission of the European Communities, supported by                     Commission's affirmations which relied upon one
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern                         document (the Briefing paper), by making reference to
            Ireland, La Poste and The Post Office                        another document (the draft REIMS Agreement)
                       (Case C-449/98 P)                                 which, it is a fact, the Commission had not examined
                         (1999/C 48/24)                                  at the time when the decision was adopted.
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 16 September             2. The Appellant submits that the Court of First Instance
1998 by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of                      committed an error of law in ruling that the
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                  Commission was entitled to reject the Appellant's
in case T-110/95 between International Express Carriers                  complaint on grounds of Community interest, by
Conference (IECC) and the Commission of the European                     invoking Article 3 of Regulation 17/62 (2), even though
Communities, supported by the United Kingdom of Great                    the existence of an obvious restriction of competition
Britain and Northern Ireland, La Poste and The Post                      had been demonstrated.
Office, was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 8 December 1998 by
International Express Carriers Conference (IECC), a                      Alternatively, the Appellant submits that, in the event
professional organisation established under Swiss law,                   that Community interest can be invoked in a case
having its registered office in Geneva (Switzerland),                    which was fully investigated, the Court of First
represented by Eric Morgan de Rivery, member of the                      Instance violated the legal principles applying to that
Paris Bar, Jacques Derenne, member of the Paris and                      Community interest.
Brussels Bars and Monica Cunningham, member of the
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of Alex Schmitt, Bonn & Schmitt, 7, Val Ste
                                                                         The Appellant also submits that the Court of First
Croix.
                                                                         Instance erred in law in considering that the
                                                                         Commission was justified in rejecting the complaint on
The Appellant claims that the Court should:                              the grounds that it had proper cause to assume that
                                                                         the conduct of the undertakings concerned will be
Ð annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance of                   amended in a manner conducive to the general
    the European Communities (Third Chamber, Extended                    interest.
 ---pagebreak--- 20.2.1999            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 48/15
3. The IEEC submits that the Court of First Instance                 9. The applicant submits that the Court of First Instance
    commits an error of law in stating that the mere                      has committed an error in law and has violated
    assumption that in the future the practices complained                Article 62 of its Rules of Procedure in refusing to take
    of might be amended is sufficient for the Commission                  account of the documents submitted by the applicant
    to ensure that the general objective laid down by                     on the sole ground that they postdate the contested
    Article 3(g) of the EC Treaty is achieved.                            decision.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 189, 22.7.1995, p. 17.
    The Court of First Instance has mistaken the exact
                                                                     (2) Council Regulation No 17/62 of 6 February 1962 (First
    scope of the duty which Articles 85 and 155 of the EC                Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty)
    Treaty impose on the Commission in order to ensure a                 (OJ, English Special Edition 1959Ð1962, p. 87).
    proper application of Article 85 in combination with
    Article 3(g) of the Treaty.
4. Violation of the principle whereby the legality of a
    contested decision can only be assessed in the light of
    a legal and factual situation existing at the time of
    said decision.                                                   Appeal brought on 8 December 1998 by International
                                                                     Express Carriers Conference (IECC) against the judgment
                                                                     delivered on 16 September 1998 by the Third Chamber,
5. The Appellant submits that:                                       Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                     the European Communities in cases T-133/95 (1) and
                                                                     T-204/95 (2) between International Express Carriers
    Ð the judgment contains contradictions in its                    Conference (IECC) and the Commission of the European
        statement of reasons which are equivalent to an              Communities, supported by, in cases T-133/95 and
        abuse of statement of reasons;                               T-204/95, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
                                                                     Northern Ireland, Deutsche Post AG and The Post Office
    Ð in the event that the application of the concept of                            and, in case T-133/95, La Poste
        Community interest is found by the Court to                                         (Case C-450/98 P)
        necessarily include an assessment of the Automec II
        criteria, the Appellant submits that the Court of                                     (1999/C 48/25)
        First Instance failed to motivate why it considered
        that these criteria were fulfilled;
                                                                     An appeal against the judgment delivered on 16 September
    Ð the Court of First Instance infringes its obligation           1998 by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of
        of motivation by failing to state the reasons why            the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
        the new factors on which the applicant relied in             in cases T-133/95 and T-204/95 between International
        order to request the reopening of the oral                   Express Carriers Conference (IECC) and the Commission
        procedure did not contain any element decisive for           of the European Communities, supported by, in cases
        the outcome of the litigation within the meaning             T-133/95 and T-204/95, the United Kingdom of Great
        of Article 62 of the Rules of Procedure of the               Britain and Northern Ireland, Deutsche Post AG and The
        Court of First Instance.                                     Post Office and, in case T-133/95, La Poste, was brought
                                                                     before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                     on 8 December 1998 by International Express Carriers
6. The IECC contends that the reasoning of the Court of              Conference (IECC), a professional organisation established
    First Instance aiming at setting aside the plea of               under Swiss law, having its registered office in Geneva
    discrimination filed by the applicant is founded on an           (Switzerland), represented by Eric Morgan de Rivery, of
    error of law in its interpretation of the concept of             the Paris Bar, Jacques Derenne, of the Paris and Brussels
    discrimination.                                                  Bars and Monica Cunningham, of the Brussels Bar, with
                                                                     an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                     Alex Schmitt, Bonn & Schmitt, 7 Val Ste Croix.
7. The IECC submits that the Court of First Instance, in
    accepting to weigh the violation of the draft REIMS
    Agreement against its claimed procompetitive effect
    outside the context of Article 85(3) of the EC Treaty,           The Appellant claims that the Court should:
    thereby departing from a long and consistent body of
    case-law, has violated the principle of legal certainty.
                                                                     Ð annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                          the European Communities (Third Chamber, Extended
8. The Court of First Instance's refusal to appraise                      Composition) of 16 September 1998 in joined cases
    globally all the relevant and consistent factors raised               T-133/95 and T-204/95, International Express Carriers
    by the applicant and its failure to examine many of                   Conference (IECC) v. Commission of the European
    these factors constitutes an error of law in the                      Communities, in so far as it concerns case T-204/95
    application of the legal concept of misuse of powers.                 and points 78 to 83 of case T-133/95;


title: Case F-8/16: Action brought on 5 February 2016 — ZZ v EMA

text:
               25.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/39

         Action brought on 5 February 2016 — ZZ v EMA
   (Case F-8/16)
   (2016/C 145/48)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMA)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the applicant’s staff report for 2014 and the decision of 1 April 2015 of the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment not to renew the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff and claim for damages for the non-pecuniary harm allegedly suffered.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the applicant’s staff report covering the period from 16 February 2014 to 31 December 2014, as finalised on 31 March 2015 by the Assessor and countersigned by the applicant on 14 April 2015;

               —

               Annul the decision of the AECCE of 1 April 2015 not to renew the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff;

               —

               Annul both decisions of the AECCE of 26 October 2015 rejecting the two claims made by the applicant of 30 June 2015 against the two abovementioned decisions;

               —

               Award the applicant damages in the sum of EUR 10 000;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Removal from the register of T-133/96

text:
14 . 6 . 97             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                             No C 181 /23
          Removal from the register of T- 187/96 (')                           Removal from the register of T-139/95 (')
                          ( 97/C 181 /50 )                                                       ( 97/C 181 /53 )
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 19 March 1997 the President of the First
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First                  By order of 15 April 1997 the President of the Second
Instance of the European Communities has ordered the                  Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
removal from the register of Case T-l 87/96 : Salini                  Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Costruttori SpA v. Commission of the European                         Case T-139/95 : Georges Cantone v. Commission of the
Communities .                                                         European Communities .
(') OJ No C 27, 25 . 1 . 1997.                                        O OJ No C 229 , 2 . 9 . 1995 .
          Removal from the register of T-l 8 8/96 (')                          Removal from the register of T-2 13/96 ( ! )
                            97/C 181 /51 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 181 /54 )
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 19 March 1997 the President of the First
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First                  By order of 18 April 1997 the President of the First
Instance of the European Communities has ordered the                  Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
removal from the register of Case T-l 88/96 : Salini                  Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Costruttori SpA v. Commission of the European                         Case T-213/96 : Giorgio Lebedef v. Commission of the
Communities .
                                                                      European Communities .
(>) OJ No C 40, 8 . 2 . 1997 .
                                                                      (') OJ No C 54, 22 . 2 . 1997 .
          Removal from the register of T-196/96 (')
                          ( 97/C 181 /52 )                                     Removal from the register of T-133/96 H
                                                                                ( 97/C 181 /55 )
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
By order of 10 April 1997 the President of the First
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of              By order of 23 April 1997 the President of the First
Case T-196/96 : Giorgio Lebedef v. Commission of the                  Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
European Communities.                                                 Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                      Case T-133/96 : Michael Boessen v. Economic and Social
 1 OJ No C 54 , 22 . 2 . 1997.                                        Committee .
                                                                      (') OJ No C 318 , 26 . 10 . 1996 .


title: Case F-102/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 12 May 2016 — FS v EESC (Civil service — Temporary staff — Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Right of every person to have access to his or her file — Access to documents concerning an attempt at mediation — Attempt at mediation initiated by the current president of the EESC and conducted under the auspices of a former president of the EESC — Right of access to the report drawn up at the end of the mediation procedure — Administrative investigation opened after the mediation procedure — Article 3 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations)

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/38

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 12 May 2016 — FS v EESC
   (Case F-102/15) (1)

   ((Civil service - Temporary staff - Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Right of every person to have access to his or her file - Access to documents concerning an attempt at mediation - Attempt at mediation initiated by the current president of the EESC and conducted under the auspices of a former president of the EESC - Right of access to the report drawn up at the end of the mediation procedure - Administrative investigation opened after the mediation procedure - Article 3 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations))
   (2016/C 222/49)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: FS (represented by: L. Levi and A. Tymen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee (represented by: K. Gambino, X. Chamodraka, M. Pascua Mateo, A. Carvajal and L. Camarena Januzec, Agents, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decisions of the EESC rejecting the application for access to documents made by the applicant and an application for compensation in respect of the non-material harm allegedly incurred.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of 19 November 2014 of the president of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) in so far as it notifies the refusal to communicate to FS a report concerning her, drawn up by a former president of the EESC at the request of the current president of the EESC;

               2.

               Declares the claims for annulment to be redundant as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the European Economic and Social Committee to pay FS a sum of EUR 1 000 by way of compensation for the non-material harm she has suffered;

               4.

               Declares that the European Economic and Social Committee is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay the costs incurred by FS.

      (1)  OJ C 302, 14/9/2015, p. 70.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 2002 in Case T-152/99: Hĳos de Andrés Molina, SA (Hamsa) v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Action for annulment — Aid granted on the basis of general aid schemes approved by the Commission — Aid for rescue and restructuring of firms in difficulty — Private investor criterion — Remission of debts — Manifest error of assessment — Effect on trade between Member States)

text:
14.9.2002              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 219/15
                                                         COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 4.     Dismisses the application in Case T-18/00 as inadmissible.
                                                                           5.     The parties shall bear their own costs, including those incurred
                          of 11 July 2002                                         in the proceedings for interim relief.
                                                                           (1 ) OJ No C 246 of 28.8.1999 and OJ No C 79 of 18.3.2000.
in Joined Cases T-137/99 and T-18/00: Natalia Martínez
Páramo and Serena Angioli and Others v Commission of
                  the European Communities (1)
(Temporary agent’s contract — Admissibility — Act
adversely affecting an official — Compliance with time-
limits set by Staff Regulations — Second renewal of a
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
temporary agent’s contract — Articles 2(a) and (b), 3(a), 8,
9, 10(1), 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the CEOS — Termination of
a fixed-term contract — Notice provided for in Articles 47(2)                                         of 11 July 2002
                          and 74 CEOS)
                                                                           in Case T-152/99: Hijos de Andrés Molina, SA (Hamsa) v
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities ( 1)
                         (2002/C 219/38)
                                                                           (State aid — Action for annulment — Aid granted on the
                    (Language of the case: French)                         basis of general aid schemes approved by the Commission —
                                                                           Aid for rescue and restructuring of firms in difficulty —
                                                                           Private investor criterion — Remission of debts — Manifest
                                                                           error of assessment — Effect on trade between Member
                                                                                States)
In Joined Cases T-137/99 and T-18/00: Natalia Martínez                                                (2002/C 219/39)
Páramo, residing in Brussels, and 32 others, and Serena
Angioli, residing in Brussels, and 4 others, former temporary
agents of the Commission of the European Communities,                                          (Language of the case: Spanish)
represented by E. Boigelot, lawyer, with an address for
service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: initially G. Valsesia, subsequently F. Clo-
tuche-Duvieusart) — application for, first, annulment of the
                                                                           In Case T-152/99: Hijos de Andrés Molina, SA (Hamsa),
decisions of the Commission of 23 March, 18 May and                        established in Seville (Spain), represented by L. M. Olivencia
31 May 1999 confirming the termination of the applicants’
                                                                           Brugger and J. L. Ballester García-Izquierdo, lawyers, with an
employment contracts of 30 June 1999 and the expiry date
                                                                           address for service in Luxembourg, supported by Kingdom of
for each of those contracts and, secondly, annulment of the                Spain (Agent: D. S. Ortiz Vaamonde), against Commission of
legal characterisation of the applicants’ contracts — the Court
                                                                           the European Communities (Agents: I. Martínez del Peral and
of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of J.D. Cooke,
                                                                           D. Triantafyllou) — application for annulment of Commission
President, R. García-Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; J. Plingers,         Decision 1999/484/EC of 3 February 1999 concerning State
Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 11 July
                                                                           aid which the Spanish Government has granted to the
2002, in which it:                                                         company Hijos de Andrés Molina SA (Hamsa) (OJ 1999 L 193,
                                                                           p. 1) — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended
                                                                           Composition), composed of P. Lindh, President, R. García-
1.    Declares admissible the application in Case T-137/99 in so           Valdecasas, J.D. Cooke, M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood, Judges;
      far as it was made by Mr Marenne.                                    O. Speltdoorn, Legal Secretary, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                           judgment on 11 July 2002, in which it:
2.    Declares inadmissible the application in Case T-137/99 in so
      far as it was made by the other applicants.                          1.     Annuls Article 1(3) of Commission Decision 1999/484/EC
                                                                                of 3 February 1999 concerning State aid which the Spanish
                                                                                Government has granted to the company Hijos de Andrés
3.    Dismisses the application in Case T-137/99.                                 Molina SA (Hamsa).
 ---pagebreak--- C 219/16                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    14.9.2002
2.     Annuls Articles 3 of Decision 1999/84 in so far as it obliges            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
       the Kingdom of Spain to recover State aid granted in the form
       of debt cancellation by public bodies.                                                         of 12 June 2002
3.     Dismisses the remainder of the application.
                                                                           in Case T-66/00: B v Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities ( 1)
4.     Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and 30 % of the
       costs incurred by the applicant.
                                                                           (Officials — Education allowance — Dependent child allow-
                                                                            ance — Conditions of grant — Recovery of undue payment)
5.     Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.
                                                                                (2002/C 219/41)
( 1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           In Case T-66/00: B, an official of the Commission of the
                                                                           European Communities, residing at Tervuren (Belgium), rep-
                                                                           resented by J.-N. Louis, G.-F. Parmentier and V. Peere, lawyers,
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of
                                                                           the European Communities (Agent: J. Currall) — application
                                                                           for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 4 March
                             11 July 2002                                  1999 discontinuing, with effect from 1 September 1997, the
                                                                           education allowance and dependent child allowance paid to
                                                                           the applicant — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
in Case T-205/99: Hyper Srl v Commission of the Euro-                      composed of: M. Vilaras, President, and V. Tiili and P. Mengoz-
                        pean Communities (1)                               zi, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
                                                                           given a judgment on 12 June 2002, in which it:
(Customs duties — Importation of television sets from India
— Invalid certificates of origin — Application for remission               1.     Dismisses the application;
of import duties — Article 13(1) of Regulation (EEC)
   No 1430/79 — Rights of the defence — Special situation)                 2.     Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                           (2002/C 219/40)                                 (1 ) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.
                     (Language of the case: German)
In Case T-205/99, Hyper Srl, established in Limena (Italy),
represented by D. Ehle and D. Ehle, Rechtsanwälte, with an                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: J.-C. Schieferer and M. Nuñez-                                            9 July 2002
Müller): Application for annulment of Commission Decision
REM 14/98 of 5 February 1999 finding that the remission of
                                                                           in Case T-333/00: Rougemarine SARL v Commission of
import duties due from the applicant in respect of television
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
sets imported from India is not justified, the Court of First
Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: M. Jaeger, President,
K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a          (Programme encouraging the development and distribution
judgment on 11 July 2002, in which it:                                     of European audiovisual works (MEDIA II) — Decision to
                                                                               award financial support — Refusal — Implied reasons)
1.     Dismisses the action;
                                                                                (2002/C 219/42)
2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
( 1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
                                                                           In Case T-333/00, Rougemarine SARL, established in Paris
                                                                           (France), represented by T. Levy and O. Rezlan, lawyers, with


title: Case C-343/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 8 June 2017 — Fremoluc NV v Agentschap voor Grond- en Woonbeleid voor Vlaams-Brabant (Vlabinvest ABP) and Others, Intervener: Vlaams Gewest

text:
               11.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 8 June 2017 — Fremoluc NV v Agentschap voor Grond- en Woonbeleid voor Vlaams-Brabant (Vlabinvest ABP) and Others, Intervener: Vlaams Gewest
   (Case C-343/17)
   (2017/C 300/18)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Fremoluc NV

      Defendants: Agentschap voor Grond- en Woonbeleid voor Vlaams-Brabant (Vlabinvest ABP), Vlaams Financieringsfonds voor Grond- en Woonbeleid voor Vlaams-Brabant (Vlaams Financieringsfonds), Vlaamse Maatschappij voor Sociaal Wonen NV (VMSW), Christof De Knop, Valérie De Knop, Melissa De Knop, Joanna De Keersmaecker, Marie-Jeanne Thielemans

      Intervener: Vlaams Gewest (Regional Government Fers)

      Questions referred

   Should Articles 21, 45, 49 and 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Articles 22 and 24 of Directive 2004/38/EC (1) of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States be interpreted as precluding a scheme under which a government body develops land with a view to offering plots and homes for sale and rental, on favorable terms, with priority being given to persons who have strong social, economic or socio-cultural ties with the area in which that body operates, and sets conditions with regard to income which the vast majority of those persons can fulfil, such as the scheme which results from reading the following in conjunction with each other:

               —

               the besluit van de provincieraad van Vlaams-Brabant van 25 februari 2014 houdende het provinciaal reglement betreffende de werking en het beheer van het Agentschap voor Grond- en Woonbeleid voor Vlaams-Brabant (Decree of the Provincial Council of Flemish Brabant of 25 February 2014 on the provincial regulations on the operation and management of the Agency for Land and Housing Policy for Flemish Brabant) — ‘Vlabinvest APB’;

               —

               Article 2/2 of the besluit van de Vlaamse regering van 29 september 2006 betreffende de voorwaarden voor de overdracht van onroerende goederen door de Vlaamse Maatschappij voor Sociaal Wonen en de sociale huisvestingsmaatschappijen ter uitvoering van de Vlaamse Wooncode (Decree of the Flemish Government of 29 September 2006 on the conditions for the transfer of property by the Flemish Social Housing Association and the social housing associations implementing the Flemish Housing Code) (and Article 17, second to sixth paragraphs, of the besluit van de Vlaamse regering van 12 October 2007 tot reglementering van het sociale huurstelsel ter uitvoering van titel VII van de Vlaamse Wooncode (Decree of the Flemish Government of 12 October 2007 for the regulation of the social rental system implementing Title VII of the Flemish Housing Code))?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77.


title: Case C-284/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria) by order of 5 July 1999 in the case of New Yorker S.H.K. Jeans GmbH v Ing. Jaroslav Kupco

text:
C 281/10              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     2.10.1999
The nationality requirement laid down in Article 134 the               represented by Hendrik van Lier and Léna Ström, Legal
Consolidated Legislation on Public Security thus cannot be             Advisers, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
imposed on service providers established in other countries.           Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner
Such an obstacle is discriminatory and therefore contrary to           Centre, Kirchberg.
Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49
EC). The effect of such legislation is to deny undertakings            The Commission of the European Communities claims that
established in other countries of the Community any chance             the Court should:
of providing security services in Italy so long as they retain a
head office in another country.                                        — declare that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary in
                                                                            order to ensure complete and correct transposition of
                                                                            Council Directive 89/369/EEC of 8 June 1989 on the
                                                                            prevention of air pollution from new municipal waste
                                                                            incineration plants (1) and Council Directive 89/429/EEC
                                                                            of 21 June 1989 on the reduction of air pollution from
                                                                            existing municipal waste-incineration plants (2), the
                                                                            Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht                     under Articles 6 and 8 of Directive 89/369/EEC and
Korneuburg (Austria) by order of 5 July 1999 in the case                    Articles 2, 6 and 7 of Directive 89/429/EEC;
 of New Yorker S.H.K. Jeans GmbH v Ing. Jaroslav Kupco                 — order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                        (Case C-284/99)
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
                        (1999/C 281/19)                                The Commission proposes to limit the present proceedings to
                                                                       the Brussels-Capital Region.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 5 July 1999 from the                  In relation to Directive 89/369/EEC, the Commission refers to
Landesgericht Korneuburg (Regional Court, Korneuburg) (Aus-            a series of respects in which the rules applying to Brussels are
tria), which was received at the Court Registry on 29 July             not in conformity with the directive, particularly as regards the
1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of New Yorker               absence of any obligation on the authorities requiring them to
S.H.K. Jeans GmbH v Ing. Jaroslav Kupco on the following               take action in the event that standards are exceeded and the
question:                                                              absence of any detailed provisions regarding the obligations
                                                                       incumbent on undertakings.
On a proper construction of Article 1 thereof, is Council
Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 of 22 December 1994 laying                  In relation to Directive 89/429/EEC, the Commission declares
down measures to prohibit the release for free circulation,            that Articles 6(3) to (5) and 7(1) and (2) of the directive have
export, re-export or entry for a suspensive procedure of               not been transposed.
counterfeit and pirated goods (1) also applicable to situations
in which goods of the type specified therein are, in the course
of transit between two States not belonging to the European            (1) OJ L 163 of 14.6.1989, p. 32.
                                                                       (2) OJ L 203 of 15.7.1989, p. 50.
Community, temporarily detained by customs authorities in a
Member State on the basis of that regulation, at the request of
a holder of rights who claims that his rights have been
infringed and whose undertaking has its registered office in a
Member State of the European Community?
(1) OJ L 341 of 30.12.1994.                                            Appeal brought on 3 August 1999 by Schiocchet, a
                                                                       company incorporated under French law, against the
                                                                       order made on 21 May 1999 by the First Chamber of the
                                                                       Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
                                                                       Joined Cases T-169/98 and T-170/98 between Schiocchet
                                                                           and the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case C-289/99 P)
Action brought on 30 July 1999 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                                             (1999/C 281/21)
                            Belgium
                                                                       An appeal against the order made on 21 May 1999 by the
                        (Case C-287/99)                                First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                       Communities in Joined Cases T-169/98 and T-170/98 between
                                                                       Schiocchet and the Commission of the European Communities
                        (1999/C 281/20)                                was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                       Communities on 3 August 1999 by Schiocchet, represented
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before            by Pascal Barbier, of the Thionville Bar, with an address for
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 July            service in Luxembourg at the offices of the Viva Vacances
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,                    agency, 33 Rue de Strasbourg.


title: Case T-95/15: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2016 — Printeos and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European stock/catalogue and special printed envelopes market — Decision establishing an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Coordination of sales prices and allocation of customers — Settlement procedure — Fines — Basic amount — Exceptional adjustment — Maximum of 10 % of total turnover — Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Obligation to state reasons — Equal treatment)

text:
               30.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/43

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2016 — Printeos and Others v Commission
   (Case T-95/15) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European stock/catalogue and special printed envelopes market - Decision establishing an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Coordination of sales prices and allocation of customers - Settlement procedure - Fines - Basic amount - Exceptional adjustment - Maximum of 10 % of total turnover - Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Obligation to state reasons - Equal treatment))
   (2017/C 030/47)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Printeos, SA (Alcalá de Henares, Spain), Tompla Sobre Exprés, SL (Alcalá de Henares), Tompla Scandinavia AB (Stockholm, Sweden), Tompla France SARL (Fleury-Mérogis, France), Tompla Druckerzeugnisse Vertriebs GmbH (Leonberg, Germany) (represented by: H. Brokelmann and P. Martínez-Lage Sobredo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras, F. Jimeno Fernández and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2014) 9295 final of 10 December 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article [101 TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (AT.39780 — Envelopes) or, in the alternative, a reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 2(1)(e) of Commission Decision C(2014) 9295 final of 10 December 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article [101 TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (AT.39780 — Envelopes).;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 June 1999 in Case C-336/97: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations - Incomplete transposition of Directive 82/501/EEC)

text:
C 226/8                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                               7.8.1999
P. Jann, C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward and M. Wathelet (Rap-                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
porteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General;
L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 17 June 1999, in which it has ruled:                                                       (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 17 June 1999
1. Within the framework of proceedings brought under Article 234
     EC (ex Article 177), the Court does not have jurisdiction to
     interpret national law or to give a ruling on the compatibility of     in Case C-336/97: Commission of the European Communi-
     a national measure with Article 92 of the EC Treaty (now, after                              ties v Italian Republic (1)
     amendment, Article 87 EC). However, where an application is
     made to a national court that it should draw the appropriate
     inferences from infringement of the final sentence of Article          (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Incom-
     88(3) EC (ex Article 93(3)), it may seek clarification from the                  plete transposition of Directive 82/501/EEC)
     Commission on that point or, in accordance with the second and
     third paragraphs of Article 234 EC, it may or must refer a
     question to the Court for a preliminary ruling on the interpret-                                  (1999/C 226/13)
     ation of Article 92 of the Treaty, in order to determine whether
     the State measures in question constitute State aid which should
     have been notified to the Commission.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
2. Application to an undertaking of a system of the kind introduced
     by Italian Law No 95/79 of 3 April 1979, and derogating                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
     from the rules of ordinary law relating to insolvency, is to be                            in the European Court Reports)
     regarded as giving rise to the grant of State aid, within the
     meaning of Article 92(1) of the Treaty, where it is established
     that the undertaking                                                   In Case C-336/97: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                            (Agent: Paolo Stancanelli, assisted by Claudio Tesauro) v Italian
                                                                            Republic (Agent: Umberto Leanza, assisted by Danilo Del
     — has been permitted to continue trading in circumstances in           Gaizo) — application for a declaration that, by failing to
          which it would not have been permitted to do so if the rules      ensure that emergency plans are drawn up for action outside
          of ordinary law relating to insolvency had been applied, or       the establishments in respect of whose industrial activity
                                                                            notification has been given pursuant to Article 5 of Council
                                                                            Directive 82/501/EEC of 24 June 1982 on the major-accident
                                                                            hazards of certain industrial activities (OJ 1982 L 230, p. 1),
     — has enjoyed one or more advantages, such as a State                  and by failing to organise inspections or other measures of
          guarantee, a reduced rate of tax, exemption from the              control proper to the type of industrial activity concerned, in
          obligation to pay fines and other pecuniary penalties or de       breach of the third indent of Article 7(1) and Article 7(2) of
          facto waiver of public debts wholly or in part, which could       that directive, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
          not have been claimed by another insolvent undertaking            obligations under the EC Treaty — the Court (Sixth Chamber),
          under the application of the rules of ordinary law relating to    composed of P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber,
          insolvency.                                                       G.F. Mancini, J.L. Murray, H. Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen
                                                                            (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; L. Hew-
                                                                            lett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
3. Since it is established that a system such as that established by        17 June 1999, in which it
     Law No 95/79 is in itself capable of giving rise to the grant of
     State aid within the meaning of Article 92(1) of the Treaty, that      1. Declares that, by failing to ensure that emergency plans are
     system cannot be put into operation unless it has been notified to          drawn up for action outside the establishments in respect of
     the Commission and, if it has been so notified, before the                  whose industrial activity notification has been given pursuant to
     Commission has made a decision acknowledging that the aid                   Article 5 of Council Directive 82/501/EEC of 24 June 1982
     plan is compatible with the common market, or, if the Com-                  on the major-accident hazards of certain industrial activities, and
     mission takes no decision within a period of two months from                by failing to organise inspections or other measures of control
     the notification. before that period has expired.                           proper to the type of industrial activity concerned, in breach of
                                                                                the third indent of Article 7(1) and Article 7(2) of the directive,
                                                                                the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations thereunder;
(1) OJ C 295 of 27.9.1997.                                                  2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.


title: Case F-32/15: Action brought on 23 February 2015 — ZZ and Others v Council

text:
               4.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/51

         Action brought on 23 February 2015 — ZZ and Others v Council
   (Case F-32/15)
   (2015/C 146/72)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the applicants’ pay and pension slips for May 2014 in so far as they contain adjustments of 0 % for 2011 and 0,8 % for 2012, and the claim for damages for the material harm allegedly sustained.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decisions and, where necessary, the decisions rejecting the complaints;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicants the arrears of remuneration corresponding to an adjustment of their salaries and pensions at the rate of 1,7 % in 2011 and 2012, by way of compensation for the financial material loss, together with interest for delayed payment at the European Central Bank rate plus 2 points, as of 1 July 2011 and 1 July 2012;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case T-325/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 November 2008 — Caisse fédérale du Crédit mutuel Centre-Est Europe v OHIM (SURFCARD) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark SURFCARD — Absolute ground for refusal — Partially descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/27

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 November 2008 — Caisse fédérale du Crédit mutuel Centre-Est Europe v OHIM (SURFCARD)
   (Case T-325/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark SURFCARD - Absolute ground for refusal - Partially descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2009/C 6/56)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Caisse fédérale du Crédit mutuel Centre-Est Europe (CFCMCEE) (Strasbourg, France) (represented by: P. Greffe, J. Schouman and L. Paudrat, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 June 2007 (Case R 1130/2006-1) concerning an application for registration of the word sign SURFCARD as a Community trade mark.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 14 June 2007 (Case R 1130/2006-1) to the extent that it refuses the registration as a Community trade mark of the word sign SURFCARD for ‘magnetic data media, optical data media’ falling within Class 9 and ‘credit card services, debit card services’ falling within Class 36 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended.

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

               3.

               Orders the Caisse fédérale du Crédit mutuel Centre-Est Europe (CFCMCEE) and OHIM to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.


title: Case T-99/09: Action brought on 4 March 2009 — Italy v Commission

text:
               1.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/34

         Action brought on 4 March 2009 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-99/09)
   2009/C 102/50
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul letter No 000841 of 2 February 2009 (document No 1) of the European Commission — Directorate General for Regional Policy — concerning ‘Payments made by the Commission which differ from the amount requested’ which contained the following decision: ‘Therefore, the date from which the European Commission will regard as non-eligible the expenditure incurred in relation to measure 1.7 of Regional Operational Programme 2000-2006 is 29 June 2007 and not 17 May 2006, as stated in the memorandum of 22 December 2008 referred to above’;

               —

               Annul letter No 001059 of 6 February 2009 (document No 2) of the European Commission — Directorate General for Regional Policy — concerning ‘Suspension of the request for payment and for information concerning financial corrections under Article 39 of Regulation No 1260/99 for the Campania Regional Operation’ which contained the following decision: ‘Therefore, the date from which the European Commission will regard as non-eligible the expenditure incurred in relation to measure 1.7 of Regional Operational Programme 2000-2006 is 29 June 2007 and not 17 May 2006, as previously indicated’;

               —

               Annul letter No 012480 of 22 December 2008 (document No 3) of the European Commission — Directorate General for Regional Policy — concerning ROP Campania 2000-2006 (CCI No 1999 IT 16 1 PO 007) — Outcome of infringement procedure 2007/2195 on waste management in Campania, by which ‘the Commission requests that, with effect from the next request for payment, all expenditure relating to measure 1.7 incurred after 29 June 2007 be deducted’.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its claims, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 32(3)(f) and 32(2) and Article 39(2) and (3) of Regulation No 1260/99. (1) It submits in particular that:

               (a)

               If a request for payment of assistance from a Structural Fund is to be regarded as not permissible on the basis that an infringement procedure is pending, the specific subject-matter of the infringement procedure must be identical to that of the request for payment.

               (b)

               In the infringement procedure, the Commission criticises the situation concerning final waste disposal on the ground that the necessary structures are lacking (waste to energy plants, landfills) to carry out this stage of the waste ‘cycle’ in a manner that complies with the directive. However, other stages of the ‘cycle’ and other means of waste management besides final disposal have no connection with the specific subject-matter of the infringement procedure. In particular, these include the different methods of waste recovery, which vary on the basis that waste is collected separately. Moreover, measure 1.7 of ROP Campania 2000 and the operations (projects) forming part of that programme refer specifically to the waste recovery stage and the separate collection of waste to which the recovery is subject.

               (c)

               By memorandum of 20 October 2008 referred to in the memoranda challenged, the Commission expressed doubts as to the waste management plan of 28 December 2007. However, none of those points of criticism concerning the management plan of 28 December 2007 was ever the subject of infringement procedure 2007/2195, if only because that procedure was based on the situation as it existed when the reasoned opinion expired, that is to say, on the situation obtaining on 1 March 2008.

               (d)

               The Commission’s decision to treat as impermissible the requests for payment under measure 1.7 on the ground that ‘adequate guarantees do not exist that the operations jointly financed by the European Regional Development Fund within the scope of measure 1.7 were properly carried out’ could never have been adopted pursuant to the second possibility in Article 32(3)(f) (infringement procedure pending). That decision could at most have been adopted pursuant to the first possibility indicated in that provision (suspension of payments under Article 39(2) of Regulation No 1260/99). That, however, would have necessitated the institution of inter partes proceedings, something which the Commission intended to avoid.
               Finally, the applicant also claims that there has been a breach of essential formal requirements inasmuch as there was inadequate reasoning.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/99 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (OJ 1999 L 161, p. 1).


title: Case T-570/08: Action brought on 22 December 2008 — Deutsche Post v Commission

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/41

         Action brought on 22 December 2008 — Deutsche Post v Commission
   (Case T-570/08)
   (2009/C 55/73)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Deutsche Post AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: J. Sedemund and T. Lübbig, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 30 October 2008 concerning the information injunction in the proceedings ‘State aid C-36/2007 — State aid to Deutsche Post AG’;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The action is directed against the decision of the Commission of the European Communities (C (2008) 6468) of 30 October 2008 by which, in State aid procedure C 36/2007 (ex NN 25/2007), the Commission required Germany, pursuant to Article 10(3) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1), to send all the documents, information and data required in order to assess the costs and revenues of Deutsche Post in the period from 1989 to 2007.
   The applicant raises four pleas in law.
   In the first, second and third pleas, the applicant submits that the decision should be annulled on the grounds of an infringement of essential rules as to form and procedure, in that

               —

               the requirements as to the valid setting of a time-limit and as to a ‘reminder, allowing an appropriate additional period’ in accordance with Articles 5(2) and 10(3) of Regulation No 659/1999 were not satisfied;

               —

               the information injunction exhibits serious failings in regard to the obligation to state reasons and thus infringes Article 253 EC;

               —

               the Commission failed, contrary to Articles 287 EC and 10 EC, to give the Federal Government and the applicant an opportunity to submit comments on the protection of the applicant's business secrets.

         By its fourth plea in law, the applicant claims that the contested decision should, moreover, be annulled on the grounds of an infringement of substantive Community law, because the use of the requested data concerning costs and revenues in respect of the period from 1 January 1995 to 31 December 2007 for the purposes of examining the ‘financial compensation’ conflicts with the 2005 Community Framework and with the division of powers between Member States and the Commission; infringes Articles 86(2) EC and 87(1) EC in conjunction with the principles of proportionality, legal certainty and the Community-law prohibition of discrimination; and, finally, is manifestly inappropriate for the assessment in terms of State-aid law of pension and liability provisions.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [88 EC] (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).


title: Case C-451/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad Sofia (Municipal Court Sofia) (Bulgaria) lodged on 26 September 2014 — Rumyana Asenova Petrus v Republic of Bulgaria

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/24

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad Sofia (Municipal Court Sofia) (Bulgaria) lodged on 26 September 2014 — Rumyana Asenova Petrus v Republic of Bulgaria
   (Case C-451/14)
   (2015/C 138/33)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Rayonen sad Sofia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Rumyana Asenova Petrus

      Defendant: Republic of Bulgaria
   By order of 5 February 2015, the Court ruled that it manifestly lacked jurisdiction to answer the question referred by the Rayonen sad Sofia (Bulgaria)


title: Case C-499/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesarbeitsgericht Düsseldorf by order of that court of 8 October 2004 in the case of Hans Werhof against Freeway Traffic Systems GmbH & Co. KG

text:
               5.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesarbeitsgericht Düsseldorf by order of that court of 8 October 2004 in the case of Hans Werhof against Freeway Traffic Systems GmbH & Co. KG
   (Case C-499/04)
   (2005/C 31/27)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Landesarbeitsgericht (Higher Labour Court) Düsseldorf (Germany) of 8 October 2004 received at the Court Registry on 2 December 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Hans Werhof against Freeway Traffic Systems GmbH & Co. KG on the following questions:

               1.

               Is it compatible with Article 3(1) of Council Directive 98/50/EC (1) of 29 June 1998 amending Directive 77/187/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses if a transferee of a business – who is not subject to a collective agreement – is bound by an agreement between the transferor of the business – who is subject to a collective agreement – and the employee, under which the collective wage agreements in force binding the transferor of the business are to apply, in such a way that the collective wage agreement in force at the time of the transfer of the business applies but collective wage agreements entering into force subsequently do not?

               2.

               If that is to be answered in the negative:
               Is it compatible with Article 3(1) of Directive 98/50/EC if the transferee of the business – who is not subject to a collective agreement – is bound by collective wage agreements which have entered into force after the transfer of the business only so long as the transferor of the business is so bound?

      (1)  OJ L 201, p. 88.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 February 1999 in Case T-79/98: Manuel Tomás Carrasco Benítez v. European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA) (Temporary staff - Grading - Professional experience - Manifest error of assessment - Acquired rights - Duty to have regard for the welfare and interests of staff - Reasonable career prospects - Equality of treatment and non-discrimination - Absence of a statement of reasons)

text:
C 100/18             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                10.4.1999
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                          represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis and FrancËoise Parmentier,
                                                                   of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                    of 11 February 1999                            Luxembourg at the Offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30
in Case T-244/97: Chantal Mertens v. Commission of the             Rue de Cessange, v. Commission of the European
                 European Communities (1)                          Communities (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Julian
                                                                   Currall) Ð application for annulment of the Commission's
(Officials Ð Competitions Ð Conditions for admission Ð             decision of 11 March 1997 rejecting the candidature of
                         Evidence)                                 the applicant, an official of the institution, for a post
                      (1999/C 100/34)                              advertised in the context of a procedure for the selection
                                                                   of temporary staff Ð the Court of First Instance (Third
                                                                   Chamber), composed of: M. Jaeger, President, and K.
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for
                                                                   the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 February 1999,
In Case T-244/97: Chantal Mertens, an official of the              in which it:
Commission of the European Communities, residing at
Zellik (Belgium), represented by Lucas Vogel, of the
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at         1. Annuls the Commission's decision of 11 March 1997
the Chambers of Christian Kremer, 8-10 Rue Mathias                     rejecting the candidature of Carlos Alberto Leite
Hardt, v. Commission of the European Communities                       Mateus for the vacant post advertised under reference
(Agent: Christine Berardis-Kayser) Ð application for                   No NPPR/2002/96.
annulment of the implicit decision rejecting the complaint
lodged by the applicant on 28 January 1997 and, in so far
as may be necessary, of the decisions of the selection             2. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
board in competition COM/C/3/95, notified to the
applicant on 13 January and 22 August 1997, refusing to            (1) OJ C 94, 28.3.1998.
include her name in the list of suitable candidates for that
competition, together with annulment of the decision
notified to the applicant on 9 June 1997 by the Director-
General of the Directorate-General for Personnel and
Administration Ð the Court of First Instance (Third
Chamber), composed of: M. Jaeger, President, and K.
Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
11 February 1999, in which it:
                                                                                of 11 February 1999
1. Dismisses the application.                                      in Case T-79/98: Manuel TomaÂs Carrasco Benítez v.
                                                                   European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal
                                                                                Products (EMEA) (1)
2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                   (Temporary staff Ð Grading Ð Professional experience Ð
 1
                                                                   Manifest error of assessment Ð Acquired rights Ð Duty
( ) OJ C 331, 1.11.1997.
                                                                   to have regard for the welfare and interests of staff Ð
                                                                   Reasonable career prospects Ð Equality of treatment and
                                                                    non-discrimination Ð Absence of a statement of reasons)
                                                                                (1999/C 100/36)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                    of 11 February 1999
                                                                   In Case T-79/98: Manuel TomaÂs Carrasco Benítez, a
in Case T-21/98: Carlos Alberto Leite Mateus v.                    member of the temporary staff of the European Agency
       Commission of the European Communities (1)                  for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products, residing in
(Officials Ð Compatibility of the status of an official with       London, represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis and FrancËoise
that of a member of the temporary staff Ð Resignation Ð            Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
Obligation to state reasons Ð Call for expressions of              in Luxembourg at the Offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL,
                          interest)                                30 Rue de Cessange, v. European Agency for the
                                                                   Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA) (Agents:
                      (1999/C 100/35)                              Marino Riva, Frances Nuttall, Denis Waelbroeck and
                                                                   Olivier Speltdoorn) Ð application for annulment of the
               (Language of the case: French)                      decision fixing the applicant's grade as grade A 7, step 3,
                                                                   upon his engagement as a member of the temporary staff
                                                                   Ð the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed
In Case T-21/98: Carlos Alberto Leite Mateus, an official          of: M. Jaeger, President, and K.- Lenaerts and J. Azizi,
of the Commission of the European Communities,                     Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the
 ---pagebreak--- 10.4.1999            EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                C 100/19
Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 February 1999, in           committed its error without her having at any time been
which it:                                                         aware of it; nor could she reasonably have been expected
                                                                  to have known of it.
1. Dismisses the application.
                                                                  Consequently, she pleads infringement, in the present case,
2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                    of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations.
(1) OJ C 234, 25.7.1998.
                                                                  Action brought on 21 January 1999 by Dansk Rùrindustri
                                                                  A/S (Starpipe) against the Commission of the European
Action brought on 19 January 1999 by Marie-Jeanne                                          Communities
Kraus against the Commission of the European
                         Communities                                                      (Case T-21/99)
                       (Case T-14/99)                                                    (1999/C 100/38)
                      (1999/C 100/37)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Danish)
               (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of European                      An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                 Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 19 January                Instance of the European Communities on 21 January
1999 by Marie-Jeanne Kraus, residing in Luxembourg,               1999 by Dansk Rùrindustri A/S (Starpipe), Fredericia,
represented by Lex Thielen, of the Luxembourg Bar, with           represented by Karen Dyekjñr-Hansen and Katja Hùegh,
an address for service at his Chambers, 10 Rue Willy              of the Copenhagen Bar, with an address for service in
Goergen, Luxembourg.                                              Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-
                                                                  Rue
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
Ð annul the decisions requiring the applicant to repay
    the household allowance received by her during the
    period from November 1986 to February 1998;                   Ð annul Article 1 of Commission Decision C(1998) 3117
                                                                      of 21 October 1998 (1), to the extent to which it
                                                                      concerns the applicant, in so far as it finds that the
Ð alternatively, annul the decisions requiring the                    applicant participated in a complex of agreements and
    applicant to repay the household allowance received               concerted practices' which lasted without interruption
    by her during the period from November 1986 to                    from about November/December 1990 to at least
    October 1995;                                                     March or April 1996';
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                  Ð annul, in relation to the applicant, the final indent in
                                                                      Article 1 of the Commission Decision, which states
                                                                      that the applicant, in conjunction with the other
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   producers, in order to protect the cartel from
                                                                      competition from the only substantial non-member,
                                                                      Powerpipe AB (agreed) and (took) concerted measures
The applicant contests the appointing authority's decision            to hinder its commercial activity, damage its business
to recover the sum of LUF 793 292 allegedly paid to her               or drive it out of the market altogether';
in error by way of household allowance during the period
from her entry into service in November 1986 to February
1998.
                                                                  Ð reduce the fine imposed on Dansk Rùrindustri A/S;
The applicant denies that she was aware of the irregularity
of the payments in issue, and further denies that they were       Ð order the Commission to pay the costs of Dansk
manifestly irregular. In her view, the administration                 Rùrindustri A/S.


title: Case C-40/07: Action brought on 1 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/19

         Action brought on 1 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-40/07)
   (2007/C 82/34)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Recchia, J.-B. Laignelot, Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic
   Forms of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (1), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(1) of that directive;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for transposition of Directive 2001/42/EC expired on 21 July 2004.

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30.


title: Case T-606/11: Action brought on 30 November 2011 — Woodman Labs V OHIM — 2 Mas 2 Publicidad Integral (HERO)

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/32

         Action brought on 30 November 2011 — Woodman Labs V OHIM — 2 Mas 2 Publicidad Integral (HERO)
   (Case T-606/11)
   2012/C 32/66
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Woodman Labs, Inc. (Sausalito, United States of America) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: 2 Mas 2 Publicidad Integral, SL (Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 September 2011 in case R 876/2010-4; and

               —

               Order the costs of the proceedings to be borne by the defendant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘HERO’, for goods in class 9 — Community trade mark application No 6750376

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 5883533 of the figurative mark in gold and black ‘hero PICTURES’, for goods and services in classes 9 and 41

      Decision of the Opposition Division: The Community trade mark application was allowed to proceed for part of the goods in class 9

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly ruled that likelihood of confusion exists between the earlier mark and the Community trade mark application.


title: Case T-429/08: Action brought on 30 September 2008 — Grain Millers v OHIM — Grain Millers (GRAIN MILLERS)

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/45

         Action brought on 30 September 2008 — Grain Millers v OHIM — Grain Millers (GRAIN MILLERS)
   (Case T-429/08)
   (2008/C 313/82)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Grain Millers, Inc. (Eden Prairie, United States) (represented by: L.-E. Ström, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Grain Millers GmbH & Co. KG (Bremen, Germany)
   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 23 July 2008 in case R 1192/2007-2; and

               —

               Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘GRAIN MILLERS’ for goods in classes 29, 30 and 31 — application No 363 8657

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited: German ‘business designation’‘GRAIN MILLERS’ and its figurative version

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partial dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(4) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal has overestimated the value of the evidence submitted by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal in order to substantiate prior rights over the earlier trade mark.


title: Case T-420/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2006 — Blackler v Parliament (Officials — Competition on the basis of qualifications and tests — Conditions for admission — Length of studies — Assessment of the candidates' qualifications and merits — Infringement of the notice of competition — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/46

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2006 — Blackler v Parliament
   (Case T-420/04) (1)

   (Officials - Competition on the basis of qualifications and tests - Conditions for admission - Length of studies - Assessment of the candidates' qualifications and merits - Infringement of the notice of competition - Manifest error of assessment)
   (2006/C 294/97)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Kenneth Blackler (Ispra, Italy) (represented by: P. Goergen, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: A. Bencomo Weber and J.F. De Wachter, Agents)
   Re:
   Primarily, application for annulment of the Secretary General of the European Parliament's decision of 11 July 2004 confirming the decision of the selection board in competition PE/98/A of 21 April 2004 not to admit the applicant to the oral tests in that competition or, in the alternative, application for an order that the European Parliament should pay the applicant EUR 100 000 by way of damages for the material and non-material loss suffered by him.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Rejects the application;

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 300, 4.12.2004.


title: Case T-110/16: Judgment of the General Court of 18 July 2017 — Savant Systems v EUIPO — Savant Group (SAVANT) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark SAVANT — Genuine use of the mark — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Duty to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/38

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 July 2017 — Savant Systems v EUIPO — Savant Group (SAVANT)
   (Case T-110/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark SAVANT - Genuine use of the mark - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Duty to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 283/57)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Savant Systems LLC (Osterville, Massachusetts, United States) (represented by: O. Nilgen and A. Kockläuner, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Savant Group Ltd (Burton in Kendal, United Kingdom) (represented by: G. Hollingworth, Barrister, K. Gilbert and G. Lodge, Solicitors)

      Re:

   Action against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 January 2016 (Case R 33/2015-4), relating to revocation proceedings between Savant Systems and Savant Group.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The General Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Savant Systems LLC to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.


title: Action brought on 27 June 1996 by Maria Elisabeth Wolf against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-101/96)

text:
10 . 8 . 96             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 233 /23
    imposing in a more proportionate manner requirements                Secondly, the applicant maintains that the decision of
    for contributions to the costs of universal services .              26 July 1988 has been disregarded, in that, first, the
                                                                        contested decision was adopted out of time and, secondly,
(') OJ No L 74 , 13 . 3 . 1996 , p . 13 .                               the procedure leading to that decision was not transparent
                                                                        and the applicant was not consulted but confronted with a
                                                                        fait accompli.
Action brought on 21 June 1996 by Mario Costacurta                      Thirdly, according to the applicant, the contested decision
  against the Commission of the European Communities                    does not comply with the requirements entailed by the duty
                                                                        to state reasons .
                          ( Case T-98/96
                            ( 96/C 233/39 )                             Lastly, the applicant argues that the Commission infringed
                                                                        in his case the principles of the protection of legitimate
                  (Language of tbe case: Frencb)                        expectations and of legal certainty, impaired both his
                                                                        legitimate non-pecuniary and pecuniary rights and misused
An action against the Commission of the European                        its powers .
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 21 June 1996 by
Mario Costacurta , residing at Kinshara ( Zaïre ), represented
by Nicolas Decker, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers, 16
Avenue Marie-Thérèse .
                                                                        Action brought on 27 June 1996 by Maria Elisabeth Wolf
The applicant claims that the Court should :                              against the Commission of the European Communities
— annul        the   decision     of   the  Committee    for  the                              ( Case T-101 /96 )
    Administration of Delegations of the Commission of the                                       ( 96/C 233 /40 )
    European Communities , confirmed by the appointing
    authority, contained in Notes No 17493 of
     14 December 1995 , No 8908 of 30 April 1 996 ,                                     (Language of tb e case: Frencb)
    No 14515 of 31 May 19 96 and the appointing
    instrument of 31 May 1996 , assigning the applicant to              An action against the Commission of the European
    the Office for Official Publications of the European                Communities was brought before the Court of First
    Communities in Luxembourg,                                          Instance of the European Communities on 27 June 1 996 by
— order the Commission to pay all expenses and costs                    Maria Elisabeth Wolf, residing at Mamer ( Grand Duchy of
    incurred in these proceedings , together with those                 Luxembourg ), represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Thierry
    relating to the procedure for interim relief.                       Demaseure and Ariane Tournel, all of the Brussels Bar, with
                                                                        an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 1 Rue Glesener.
The applicant, a Commission official , who has been serving             The applicant claims that the Court should :
with the Commission's delegation to Zaïre for three years,
contests the appointing authority's decision reassigning him
to the Office for Official Publications of the European                 — annul the decision not to admit the applicant to
Communities in Luxembourg .                                                 competition COM/A/955 ,
The applicant alleges , first, infringement of the rotation             — order the Commission to pay the applicant ECU 1 in
system established by the Commission's decision of 26 July                  symbolic damages for the non-material damage
1988 concerning ' orientations about the new rotation                       suffered ,
system '. That decision was taken on the basis of Articles 2
and 3 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations, which provide                — order the Commission to pay the costs .
that officials serving in a non-member country are to be
alternately transferred between delegations and the
Commission's seat. Those provisions were infringed in that              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
the Committee for the Administration of Delegations and
the appointing authority included the Office for Official               The applicant argues that, contrary to what is stated in the
Publications in the rotation system , since that body is not            reasons given for the contested decision , which refer to her
covered by the rotation system and cannot be regarded as                lack of the 12 years ' minimum professional experience
the Commission's seat. Furthermore, the applicant had not               required in the competition notice, she has more than 12
yet completed eight years ' service with the delegation , which         years' professional experience at university level acquired
means that the qualifying period for alternate reassignment             subsequently to the degree qualifying her for the
to the delegation or the seat — currently eight years — has in          competition . In her submission , it cannot seriously be
this case been disregarded . Also, the applicant was no longer          denied that the research work undertaken in preparing her
subject to that system since he had been reassigned                     doctoral thesis caused her to carry out tasks in relation to the
definitively .                                                          statistical area described in the notice of competition .
 ---pagebreak--- No C 233/24          EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               10 . 8 . 96
The selection board thus committed a manifest error of               damage for which the Commission was liable to make
assessment and infringed the notice of competition by                compensation .
disregarding, without stating any reason, the experience
acquired during the four and a half years spent preparing her
doctoral thesis .
The Commission also committed an administrative error by                   Removal from the^register of Case T-228/95 ( )
stating incorrect reasons in its letter to her of 15 February                                  ( 96/C 233 /41 )
1996 for the selection board's decision not to admit her to
the competition tests, namely that she had not lodged the                          (Language of tbe Case: English)
documents evidencing her professional experience within
the time limit. It was subsequently shown that those                 By order of 21 June 1996 , the President of the Fourth
documents had in fact been lodged on time . The applicant            Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
stresses that that error, which was inexcusable having               Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
regard to the low participation in the competition, resulted         T-228/95 : S. Lehrfreund Ltd v. Council of the European
in her being thrown into several months' uncertainty and             Union and Commission of the European Communities .
anxiety as to her admission to the competition and as to
her professional future . She thus suffered non-material             (•) OJ No C 64, 2 . 3 . 1996 .


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 19 July 2004 in Case T-439/03 R II, Ulrike Eppe v European Parliament (Interlocutory proceedings — Competition — New claim — Admissibility — Urgency — None)

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/41

      ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 19 July 2004
   in Case T-439/03 R II, Ulrike Eppe v European Parliament
   (Interlocutory proceedings - Competition - New claim - Admissibility - Urgency - None)
   (2004/C 300/81)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case T-439/03 R II, Ulrike Eppe, residing at Hanover (Germany), represented by D. Rogalla, lawyer, against European Parliament (Agents: J. de Wachter and N. Lorenz) — application for, primarily, annulment of Competition EUR/A/167/02, and the resumption of the procedure for that competition including the applicant and, alternatively, an order restraining the European Parliament from proceeding with recruitments on the basis of the results of that competition, the President of the Court of First Instance made an order on 19 July 2004 in which he:

               1.

               Rejects the interlocutory application;

               2.

               Reserves the costs.