title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 15 September 1998 in Case C-260/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d'Appello di Venezia): Ministero delle Finanze v Spac SpA (Recovery of sums paid but not due - Procedural time-limits under national law)

text:
C 327/2              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     24.10.98
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      at that date, the directive concerned had not yet been
                                                                         properly transposed into national law.
                   of 15 September 1998
in Case C-260/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from           (1) OJ C 294, 5.10.1996.
the Corte d'Appello di Venezia): Ministero delle Finanze v
                         Spac SpA (1)
(Recovery of sums paid but not due Ð Procedural
               time-limits under national law)
                       (98/C 327/02)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 15 September 1998
               (Language of the case: Italian)                      in Joined Cases C-279/96, C-280/96 and C-281/96
                                                                    (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di
                                                                    Genova): Ansaldo Energia SpA v Amministrazione delle
                                                                    Finanze dello Stato, Amministrazione delle Finanze dello
                                                                    Stato v Marine Insurance Consultants Srl and GMB Srl
                                                                    and Others v Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato (1)
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)                   (Recovery of sums paid but not due Ð Procedural
                                                                              time-limits under national law Ð Interest)
                                                                                (98/C 327/03)
In Case C-260/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Corte d'Appello di Venezia
(Court of Appeal, Venice) (Italy), for a preliminary                                (Language of the case: Italian)
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
between Ministero delle Finanze and Spac SpA Ð on the
interpretation of Community law concerning recovery of
sums unduly paid Ð the Court, composed of: G. C.
Rodríguez Iglesias, President, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
and R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini,                     published in the European Court Reports)
J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, D. A. O.
Edward, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), L. Sevón and K. M.
Ioannou, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate
                                                                    In Joined Cases C-279/96, C-280/96 and C-281/96:
General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator,
                                                                    reference to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 September
                                                                    from the Tribunale di Genova (District Court, Genoa)
1998, in which it has ruled:
                                                                    for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
                                                                    before that court between Ansaldo Energia SpA and
                                                                    Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato, and between
                                                                    Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato and Marine
1. Community law does not prohibit a Member State                   Insurance Consultants Srl and between GMB Srl and
    from resisting actions for repayment of charges levied          Others and Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato Ð
    in breach of Community law by relying on a time-                on the interpretation of Community law concerning
    limit under national law of three years, by way of              recovery of sums unduly paid Ð the Court, composed of:
    derogation from the ordinary rules governing actions            G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, H. Ragnemalm, M.
    between private individuals for the recovery of sums            Wathelet and R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), G. F.
    paid but not due, for which the period allowed is               Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn,
    more favourable, provided that that time-limit applies          D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), L. Sevón
    in the same way to actions based on Community law               and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
    for repayment of such charges as to those based on              Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
    national law.                                                   Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                    15 September 1998, in which it has ruled:
2. In circumstances such as those of the main                       1. In circumstances such as those of the main
    proceedings, Community law does not prevent a                        proceedings, Community law does not prevent a
    Member State from resisting actions for repayment of                 Member State from resisting actions for repayment of
    charges levied in breach of a directive by relying on a              charges levied in breach of a directive by relying on a
    time-limit under national law which is reckoned from                 time-limit under national law which is reckoned from
    the date of payment of the charges in question, even if,             the date of payment of the charges in question, even if,


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 11 January 1995 in Case T-116/94 Cassa Nazionale di Previdenza ed Assistenza a favore degli Avvocati e Procuratori v. Council of the European Union (Action for annulment - Regulation (EC) No 3604/93 specifying definitions for the application of the prohibition of privileged access referred to in Article 104a of the EC Treaty - Inadmissibility)

text:
4. 3. 95            I EN 1                Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 54/17
v. Commission of the European Communities (Agent: Ana                3 . orders the Court of Justice to pay all the costs.
Maria Alves Vieira ) — application for the annulment of the
Commission's decision of 30 September 1993 imposing on               (M OJ 1994 C 76, 12 . 3 . 1994 .
the applicant the disciplinary measure referred to in Article
86 (2 ) ( f) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the
European Communities, namely, removal from post
without    withdrawal      or   reduction  of entitlement   to
retirement pension — the Court of First Instance ( Fourth            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Chamber ), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, and R.
Schintgen and R. García-Valdecasas, Judges; H. Jung,                                       of 11 January 1995
Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 January 1995, in               in Case T-l 16/94 Cassa Nazionale di Previdenza ed
which it:                                                            Assistenza a favore degli Avvocati e Procuratori v. Council
                                                                                of the European Union (*)
1 . dismisses the application;                                       (Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 3604/93
                                                                     specifying definitions for the application of the prohibition
2. orders the parties to bear their own costs, including             of privileged access referred to in Article 104a of the EC
     those relating to the proceedings for interim                                     Treaty — Inadmissibility)
     measures .                                                                                ( 95/C 54/32 )
(!) OJ No C 325, 2 . 12 . 1993 .                                                     (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                     In Case T- 116/94 : Cassa Nazionale di Previdenza ed
                                                                     Assistenza a favore degli Avvocati e Procuratori,
                                                                     represented by Edilberto Ricciardi, of the Salerno Bar, and
                                                                     by Pietro Adonnino, Mario Sanino, Maurizio de Stefano
                                                                     and Alberto Colabianchi, all of the Rome Bar, with an
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of M.
                      of 26 January 1995                             Goebel, 6 Rue Heine, against the Council of the European
in Case T-60/94: Myriam Pierrat v. Court of Justice of the           Union (Agents: R. Bandilla and A. Lucidi ) — application for
                  European Communities ( J )                         annulment of Council Regulation ( EC ) No 3604/93 of
(Members ofthe temporary staff— Recruitment ofreaders                13 December 1993 specifying definitions for the application
of judgments — Selection procedure — Rejection of an                 of the prohibition of privileged access referred to in
            application — Duty to state reasons)
                                                                     Article 104a of the Treaty (2), the Court of First Instance
                                                                     (Third Chamber), composed of: J. Biancarelli (President),
                          ( 95/C 54/31                               C.P. Briët and C.W. Bellamy, Judges, H. Jung, Registrar,
                                                                     made an order on 11 January 1995, the operative part of
                (Language of the case: French)                       which is as follows :
                                                                     1 . the action is dismissed as inadmissible.
In Case T-60/94: Myriam Pierrat, a former member of the
temporary staff of the Court of Justice of the European              2. there is no need to rule on the applications to
Communities, residing in Luxembourg, represented by                       intervene.
Georges Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire Myson          3 . the applicant shall bear its own costs and those incurred
S.à r.l., 1 Rue Glesener, against Court of Justice of the                 by the Council. Each ofthe interveners shall bear its own
European Communities (Agents : T. Millett and A. May) —                   costs.
application for the annulment of the decisions of the Court
to appoint Mrs B. as reader of judgments and to reject the           (M OJ No C 132, 14. 5 . 1994 .
applicant's application for the post of reader of judgments,         (2 ) OJ No L 332, 31 . 12 . 1993 , p . 4 .
and for the award to the applicant of one symbolic ecu as
compensation for the non-material damage which she
claims to have suffered — the Court of First Instance (First
Chamber ), composed of: J.L. Cruz Vilaça, President, H.
Kirschner and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; H. Jung,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 January 1995, in               Action brought on 9 January 1995 by Christian
which it:                                                            Vahrenkamp against Council of the European Union and
                                                                              Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-l/95 )
1 . annuls the decision of the President of the Court of
    Justice of 27 May 1993 to appoint Mrs B. as reader of                                         95/C 54/33 )
    judgments and the decision, notified to the applicant by
    letter of 8 June 1 993, to reject her application for the                      (Language of the case: German)
    post of reader of judgments;
                                                                     An action against the Council of the European Union and
2. dismisses the remainder of the application;                       the Commission of the European Communities was brought


title: Case C-129/08: Order of the President of the Seventh Chamber of the Court of 4 June 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brugge (Belgium)) — Carlos Cloet, Jacqueline Cloet v Westvlaamse Intercommunale voor Economische Expansie, Huisvestingsbeleid en Technische Bijstand CVBA (WVI)

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/52

         Order of the President of the Seventh Chamber of the Court of 4 June 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brugge (Belgium)) — Carlos Cloet, Jacqueline Cloet v Westvlaamse Intercommunale voor Economische Expansie, Huisvestingsbeleid en Technische Bijstand CVBA (WVI)
   (Case C-129/08) (1)

   2009/C 267/88

      Language of the case: Dutch

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

      (1)  OJ C 142, 7.6.2008.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 24 January 1995 in Case T-114/92: Bureau Européen des Médias de l'Industrie Musicale (BEMIM) v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Copyright - Regulation (EEC) No 17 - Rejection of a complaint - Obligations concerning the investigation of complaints - Community interest)

text:
25 . 3 . 95           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 74/9
application of a progressive weighting, not based on any                    Removal from the register of Case C-148/94 (*)
objective criterion, which is greater and increases more                                        ( 95/C 74/15 )
rapidly for the four tax bands from 19 CV (fiscal
horsepower) opwards, which apply only to cars imported
from other Member States, than for the tax bands from 12
to 14 CV, which cover three tax ratings, and the four tax           By order of 12 January 1995 the President pf the Court of
bands from 15 to 18 CV, in which its rate of progression is         Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
constant and which apply to French-made cars capable of             from the register of Case C-148/94: Commission of the
being considered similar to imported products of over               European Communities v. Ireland.
19 CV ?
                                                                    f 1 ) OJ No C 202 , 23 . 7. 1994.
                                                   COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            2 . the remainder of the application, in so far as it is based
                       ( Second Chamber)                                   on Article 1 75 of the Treaty, is dismissed;
                      of 24 January 1995
                                                                    3 . it is not necessary to rule on the application under
in Case T-74/92: Ladbroke Racing (Deutschland ) GmbH v.                    Article 173 of the Treaty in so far as it concerns
        Commission of the European Communities i 1 )                       Article 86 of the Treaty;
 (Competition — Action for failure to act and annulment —
Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty — Investigation of the
                                                                    4 . in so far as the application for annulment concerns
                            complaint)
                                                                           Article 85 of the Treaty it is dismissed as
                            95/C 74/16                                     inadmissible;
                (Language of the case: English)                     5 . the application seeking to have the Court issue
                                                                           directions   to   the    Commission   is  dismissed  as
                                                                           inadmissible;
In Case T-74/92 : Ladbroke Racing ( Deutschland) GmbH,
whose registered office is in Mainz (Germany), represented
by Jeremy Lever QC and Christopher Vajda, Barrister,                6 . the Commission shall pay its own costs and
members of the Bar of England and Wales, and by Stephen                    three-quarters of those of the applicant;
Kon, Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of Winandy and Err, 60 Avenue Gaston                   7. the intervener shall pay its own costs.
Diderich v. Commission of the European Communities
 (Agents : J. Currall and F. E. Gonzalez-Diaz), supported by
Deutscher Sportverlag Kurt Stoof GmbH & Co.,                        (!) OJ No C 294, 10 . 11 . 1992 .
represented by Klaus-Jiirgen Michaeli and Ute Zinsmeister,
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Bonn and Schmitt, 62
Avenue Guillaume — application under the third paragraph
of Article 175 of the EEC Treaty for a declaration that the
Commission failed to define its position on the applicant's          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
complaint based on Articles 85 and 86 of the EEC Treaty
 (IV/33.375 — Ladbroke GmbH/PMU-PMI-DSV), and                                              of 24 January 1995
alternatively under Article 173 of the EEC Treaty for the           in Case T-114/92: Bureau Européen des Médias de
annulment of the Commission's implicit decision to reject           l'Industrie Musicale (BEMIM) v. Commission of the
the complaint — the Court of First Instance ( Second                                    European Communities ( ! )
 Chamber), composed of: J. L. Cruz Vila^a, President, C. P.          (Competition — Copyright — Regulation (EEC) No 17 —
Briet, A. Kalogeropoulos, D. P. M. Barrington and J.                Rejection of a complaint — Obligations concerning the
Biancarelli, Judges, H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment             investigation of complaints — Community interest)
on 24 January 1995 , in which it declares that:
                                                                                95/C 74/17 )
 1 . in breach of the EEC Treaty the Commission has failed
     to define its position on the applicant's complaint (No                          (Language of the case: French)
     IV/33.375 — Ladbroke GmbH/PMU-PMI-DSV) in so
     far as the latter was based on Article 86 of the               In Case T-114/92: Bureau Européen des Médias de
     Treaty;                                                        l'Industrie Musicale ( BEMIM ), established in Paris,
 ---pagebreak---  No C 74/10            ( EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        25 . 3 . 95
 represented by Michel Gautreau, of the Paris Bar, with an              Pierrot Schiltz, 4 Rue Beatrix de Bourbon, v. Commission of
 address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Rita              the European Communities (Agents : Julian Currall and
 Reichling, 11 Boulevard Royal, v. Commission of the                    Géraud de Bergues ) — application for the annulment of the
 European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and G. de                     Commission Decision of 12 November 1992 rejecting the
 Bergues ) — application for the annulment of the                       applications made by the applicants under Article 3 (2) of
 Commission Decision of 20 October 1992 rejecting the                   Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 17 of 6 February 1962, First
 application made by the applicant under Article 3 (2 ) of              Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the
 Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 17 of 6 February 1962, First             Treaty ( 2 ), concerning the conduct of the Societe des
 Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the                      Auteurs, Compositeurs et Editeurs de Musique — the Court
 Treaty (2 ), concerning the conduct of the Societe des                 of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: J. L. Cruz
 Auteurs, Compositeurs et Editeurs de Musique — the Court               Vilaça, President, C. P. Briët, A. Kalogeropoulos, D. P. M.
 ( Second Chamber), composed of: J. L. Cruz Vilaça,                     Barrington and A. Saggio, Judges, H. Jung, Registrar, has
 President of the Chamber, C. P. Briët, A. Kalogeropoulos,              given a judgment on 24 January 1995 , in which it:
 D. P. M. Barrington and A. Saggio, Judges; H. Jung,
 Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 January 1995 , in
 which it:                                                              1 . annuls the Commission Decision of 12 November 1 992
                                                                              in so far as it rejects the applicants ' allegation that the
                                                                              market has been partitioned as a result of an alleged
 1 . annuls the Commission Decision of20 October 1 992 in                     agreement between Societe des Auteurs, Compositeurs
       so far as it rejects the. applicant's allegation that the              et Editeurs de Musique and the copyright-management
       market has been partitioned as a result of an alleged                  societies in the other Member States;
       agreement between Societe des Auteurs, Compositeurs
       et Editeurs de Musique and the copyright-management
       societies in the other Member States;                            2 . dismisses the remainder of the application;
 2. dismisses the remainder of the application;                         3 . orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay
                                                                              one half of the applicant's costs, the applicants to bear
 3 . orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay                   the other half of their costs and the intervener to bear its
                                                                              own costs .
       one halfofthe applicant's costs, the applicant to bear the
       other half of its costs.
                                                                        0 ) OJ No C 43 , 16 . 2 . 1993 .
 (!) OJ No C 43 , 16 . 2 . 1993 .                                       ( 2 ) OJ, English Special Edition 1959-62, p. 87.
 (2 ) OJ, English Special Edition 1959-62, p. 87.
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 24 January 1995                                                      of 2 February 1995
in Case T-5/93 : Roger Tremblay, Francois Lucazeau and                 in Case T-106/92: Erik Dan Frederiksen v. European
Harry Kestenberg v. Commission of the European                                                     Parliament (M
                          Communities ( J )                             (Officials — Temporary posting — Lawfulness —
 (Competition — Copyright — Regulation (EEC) No 17 —                   Infringement of Article 1 76 of the Treaty — Misuse of
Rejection of a complaint — Obligations concerning the                                                 powers)
      investigation of complaints — Community interest)                                             95/C 74/19 )
                            ( 95/C 74/18 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                       In Case T-106/92 : Erik Dan Frederiksen, an official of the
In Case T-5/93 : Roger Tremblay, of Vernantes ( France ),              European Parliament, residing at Howald (Luxembourg),
Francois Lucazeau, of La Rochelle (France ), Harry                     represented by Georges Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar,
Kestenberg,         of     Saint-Andre-les-Vergers      ( France ),    with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
represented by Jean-Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris and                  of Alex Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume, v. European
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at             Parliament (Agents : J. Campinos and D. Petersheim,
the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4 Rue Beatrix de Bourbon,             subsequently E. Perillo and D. Petersheim) — application
supported by Syndicat des Exploitants de Lieux de Loisirs              for the annulment of the decision of the European
( SELL), whose head office is in Paris, represented by                 Parliament of 16 June 1992 appointing Mrs X temporarily
Jean-Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris and Brussels Bars, with             to the post of Language Adviser in the Danish Translation
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                Division — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),


title: Case C-450/15 P: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 31 May 2016 — Koinonia Tis Pliroforias Anoichti Stis Eidikes Anagkes — Isotis v European Commission (Appeal — Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Article 181 — Arbitration clause — Contracts concluded under the Sixth Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities contributing to the creation of the European Research Area and to innovation (2002-2006, the eTEN Programme on trans-European telecommunications networks and the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (2007 — 2913) — Audit report finding expenses incurred ineligible — Claim for reimbursement of the grants paid — Fixed compensation — Action for annulment — Counter claim)

text:
               5.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/3

         Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 31 May 2016 — Koinonia Tis Pliroforias Anoichti Stis Eidikes Anagkes — Isotis v European Commission
   (Case C-450/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Article 181 - Arbitration clause - Contracts concluded under the Sixth Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities contributing to the creation of the European Research Area and to innovation (2002-2006, the eTEN Programme on trans-European telecommunications networks and the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (2007 — 2913) - Audit report finding expenses incurred ineligible - Claim for reimbursement of the grants paid - Fixed compensation - Action for annulment - Counter claim))
   (2016/C 326/03)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: Koinonia Tis Pliroforias Anoichti Stis Eidikes Anagkes — Isotis (represented by: S. Skliris, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: S. Lejeune and A. Marcoulli, Agents)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Loinonia Tis Pliroforias Anoichti Stis Eidikes Anagkes — Isotis is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 395, 16.11.2014.


title: Case C-93/13 P: Appeal brought on 25 February 2013 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 13 December 2012 in Case T-103/08 Versalis SpA, formerly Polimeri Europa SpA, Eni SpA v European Commission

text:
               20.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 114/28

         Appeal brought on 25 February 2013 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 13 December 2012 in Case T-103/08 Versalis SpA, formerly Polimeri Europa SpA, Eni SpA v European Commission
   (Case C-93/13 P)
   2013/C 114/44
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, G. Conte, R. Striani, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Versalis SpA, formerly Polimeri Europa SpA, Eni SpA

      Form of orders sought

   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal to the extent that it reduces to EUR 106 200 000 the fine imposed by the decision on ENI and Versalis;

               —

               dismiss in its entirety the action brought at first instance;

               —

               order the applicants at first instance to pay the costs incurred both at first instance and on appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               It is submitted that the General Court erred in law in finding that the Commission had acted in breach of ENI’s rights of defence, applying an increase for repeated infringement to the fine imposed jointly and severally on ENI and Versalis for two past infringements committed by companies wholly owned — or almost wholly owned — by ENI, even though the two decisions establishing those infringements had not been addressed to ENI (which therefore had not received a statement of objections in relation to those infringements). Specifically, it is submitted that the General Court disregarded the fact that, with reference to the imputation of repeated infringement, the rights of the defence are guaranteed if, at the time when the Commission declares its intention of imputing repeated infringement, it gives the parties an opportunity to demonstrate that the relevant conditions have not been satisfied. It is also argued that the General Court failed to consider that, by imputing repeated infringement in the case of a subsequent infringement of the competition rules, the Commission is not retroactively penalising the first infringement, but simply drawing the proper inferences from the fact that the same undertaking (economic entity) has committed a new infringement.

               2.

               It is submitted that the General Court exceeded its jurisdiction and acted inconsistently with the principle that the action is confined to the subject-matter as delimited in the application, as reflected in Article 21 of the Statute of the Court and Articles 44(1) and 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, by examining a question of law (relating to the alleged breach of the principle of equal treatment in the calculation of the fine) which had not been raised in the application initiating proceedings.

               3.

               It is submitted that the General Court erred in law in the interpretation and application of the principle of equal treatment with regard to the ‘multiplier’ for deterrence purposes and proceeded on the basis of false reasoning. Specifically, it is argued that the General Court disregarded the discretion enjoyed by the Commission in the determination of fines in the light of the relevant circumstances, forcing it to carry out a purely mathematical calculation in order to establish the multiplier to be applied to ENI and Versalis. In addition, it is argued that the General Court wrongly requested the Commission to ensure that the percentage increase in the fine for deterrence purposes was in direct proportion to the respective turnovers of the undertakings, rather than that the multipliers, or the fines resulting from application of the multipliers (the multiplied fines), was in direct proportion to the undertakings’ worldwide turnover.


title: Case C-225/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands), lodged on 14 May 2012 — C. Demir; other party: Staatssecretaris van Justitie

text:
               11.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands), lodged on 14 May 2012 — C. Demir; other party: Staatssecretaris van Justitie
   (Case C-225/12)
   2012/C 243/07
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: C. Demir

      Other party: Staatssecretaris van Justitie

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that it is applicable to a substantive and/or formal condition governing first admission, even if such a condition — in the present case, the possession of a temporary residence permit — has as one of its objectives the prevention of illegal entry and illegal residence prior to the submission of an application for a residence permit and, to that extent, can be regarded as a measure, within the terms of paragraph 85 of the judgment in Joined Cases C-317/01 and C-369/01 Abatay and Others, (2) which may be made more stringent?

               2.

                           (a)

                           What importance is to be attached in this connection to the requirement of legal residence in Article 13 of Decision No 1/80?

                           (b)

                           Is it relevant in this connection that, even under national law, the submission of an application renders residence legal so long as that application has not been refused, or is the only relevant factor the fact that residence prior to the submission of an application is regarded as being illegal under national law?

      (1)  Decision of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council established under the Association Agreement.

      (2)  [2003] ECR I-12301.


title: Case T-26/02: Action brought on 8 February 2002 by Daiichi Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
20.4.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 97/13
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         —    infringes Article 86(2) of the EC Treaty and general
                                                                             communications on services in the general interest and
                                                                             those specifically concerning aid to maritime transport
                                                                             by considering, in blatant contradiction to those pro-
The applicant, a Spanish maritime company which, although                    visions, that the aid is compatible with Article 86(2). The
the majority of its shares are held in the Netherlands, has for a            applicant would point out in that respect that:
long time been operating a number of sea routes between
the islands of the Canaries archipelago, is challenging the
Commission decision                                                          (a)   there is no act emanating from the public authorities
                                                                                defining the content of services in the general
                                                                                interest and recommending Transmediterránea to
                                                                                provide them;
(a)   not to contest the payment to Transmediterránea S.A. of
      PTA 15 560 625 000 intended to make up for the losses
      arising from the provision of cabotage services during                 (b) it was not necessary to declare Canary routes as
      1997 and, secondly, to settle the rights and obligations                     being in the general interest; and
      of the State directly linked to the public service contract
      entered into in 1977 between Transmediterránea and the
      Spanish State and,                                                     (c)   the routes were not awarded by means of an open
                                                                                tender procedure.
(b) not to raise any objection whatever to the aid valued at
      PTA 1 650 000 000 paid to Transmediterránea in the
      form of public service compensation for the maritime
      cabotage services provided by that company in the
      Canaries archipelago during 1998.
As regards the first aspect, that is to say the amounts paid to         Action brought on 8 February 2002 by Daiichi Pharma-
Transmediterránea in the form of settling accounts for 1997            ceutical Co. Ltd. against the Commission of the European
and final settlement of the contract which the Commission                                         Communities
accepts because it deems such payments existing aid — prior
to the accession of Spain — in that they arise directly from the
                                                                                (Case T-26/02)
implementation of the contract entered into in 1977, the
applicant claims that the contested decision is vitiated by an
error of assessment inasmuch as it allows:                                                       (2002/C 97/27)
—     certain expenditure relating to staff reduction to be                                (Language of the case: English)
      charged to the accounts for 1997 and for final settlement;
      and
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
—     payment of the entire amount by way of final settlement           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      without charging the debts to the financial years in which        European Communities on 8th February 2002 by Daiichi
      they may have arisen and without offsetting them with             Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., represented by Mr Jacques Buhart and
      any surpluses.                                                    Mr Pierre-M. Louis of Coudert Brothers LLP, Brussels (Belgium).
As regards the second aspect, that is to say the aid granted in         The applicant claims that the Court should:
the form of compensation for the routes provided in the
Canaries during 1998, which the Commission classifies as new            —    annul Article 3 (f) of the Commission Decision of
aid, the applicant alleges that the contested decision:                      21 November 2001 relating to a proceeding pursuant to
                                                                             Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA
                                                                             Agreement (Case No. COMP/E-1/37,512 — Vitamins);
—     infringes Article 88 of the EC Treaty, since the competent
      Spanish authority, by granting the aid, has failed to fulfil      —    alternatively, substantially decrease the fine levied on the
      its obligations under the recommendation, drawn up by                  applicant; and
      the Commission pursuant to the aforementioned article,
      on the upkeep and maintenance of the system of aid
      applicable to Transmediterránea.                                 —    order the Commission to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 97/14                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        20.4.2002
Pleas in law and main arguments:                                          Action brought on 21 February 2002 by the Associazione
                                                                          Bancaria Italiana (ABI) against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-36/02)
The applicant is a Japanese pharmaceutical company whose
subsidiary company manufactured D-pantolactone and
D-Calcium Pantothenate (Vitamin B5) and Pyridoxine                                                  (2002/C 97/28)
(Vitamin B6) during the relevant period. In the contested
Decision, the Commission imposed fines upon the applicant                                     (Language of the case: Italian)
and seven other companies for participating in eight distinct
secret market-sharing and price-fixing cartels affecting vitamin
products.
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 21 February 2002 by the Associa-
                                                                          zione Bancaria Italiana (ABI), represented by Alberto Santa
The applicant does not dispute the Commission’s finding that              Maria, Claudio Biscaretti di Ruffia, Giuseppe Pizzonia and
the applicant had infringed Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty                Marcello Valenti, lawyers.
and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement by participating in
agreements affecting the Community and EEA markets for
Vitamins B5 and B6. Furthermore, the applicant does not                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
contest the facts found by the Commission. The applicant
seeks, however, the annulment of Article 3(f) of the Decision             —     annul the contested decision, issued on 11 December
imposing a fine of EUR 23.4 million upon the applicant or,                      2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
alternatively, a substantial reduction of that fine.                            on the grounds that it infringes essential procedural
                                                                                requirements and/or is unfounded, contradictory and/or
                                                                                lacking in a statement of reasons in accordance with
                                                                                Article 253 of the EC Treaty in conjunction with Arti-
                                                                                cles 87 and 77 and with Council Regulation
The applicant submits inter alia that the Commission commit-                    No 659/1999, as expounded in the application;
ted a manifest error of judgement, erroneously applied the law
to the facts and infringed the Fining Guidelines                          —     alternatively, annul the decision in question wholly or in
                                                                                part pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 230 of
                                                                                the EC Treaty, inasmuch as it infringes or misapplies
                                                                                Article 87(1) or, in the further alternative, Article 87(3)(b)
—     by failing to place the applicant in a third category,                    or (c) of the EC Treaty, as expounded in the application;
      behind both Hoffmann-La Roche and BASF, in setting
      the starting point for the amount of the fine relating to
      the gravity of the infringement, or, alternatively and in           —     in the still further alternative, in the inconceivable event
      violation of the principle of equal treatment, in failing to              that the Court finds that the articles of Law No 461 of
      place the applicant in the second category with BASF;                     23 December 1998 and of Legislative Decree No 153 of
                                                                                17 May 1999, to which the contested decision relates,
                                                                                constitute a system of State aid which is incompatible
                                                                                with the common market, rule that the contested decision
—     by failing to treat the applicant’s less-than-full implemen-              of the Commission cannot have any retroactive effect;
      tation of the Vitamin B5 cartel as an attenuating circum-
      stance warranting a substantial reduction of the basic              subject to the reservation of all rights.
      amount of the fine;
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
—     by failing to grant to the applicant total immunity or a
      very substantial reduction of 75 % to 100 % of the fine
      for the Vitamin B5 infringement pursuant to Section B
                                                                          The present action is directed against the Commission’s
      of the Leniency Note on the basis of the applicant’s
                                                                          decision of 11 December 2001 concerning the system of State
      cooperation during the procedure or, alternatively, a
                                                                          aid implemented by Italy in favour of banks (C/54/A/2000/EC
      lesser reduction of the fine pursuant to Section C or
                                                                          [ex NN 70/2000]). That system of aid results from the
      Section D of the Leniency Notice.
                                                                          application of Law No 461 of 23 December 1998 (the ‘Legge
                                                                          Ciampi’) and of Legislative Decree No 153 of 17 May 1999,
                                                                          which lay down certain fiscal measures in relation to mergers
                                                                          between banking institutions and the transfer of capital goods
                                                                          and equipment, as part of the composite scheme for the
                                                                          privatisation of the sector.


title: Case C-114/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour Administrative d'Appel (Administrative Appeal Court), Nancy (First Chamber), by judgment of that court of 25 March 1999 in the case of Roquette Frères SA against Office National Interprofessionnel des Céréales (O.N.I.C.)

text:
3.7.1999              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 188/9
19 January 1999 received at the Court Registry on 1 April                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsger-
1999 for a preliminary ruling in the case of Toshiba Europe               ichtshof, Vienna, Austria, by order of that court of
GmbH against Katun Germany GmbH on the following                          17 March 1999 in the case of Dr Herta Schmid as
question:                                                                 insolvency administrator of the assets of the company
                                                                          P.P. Handels GmbH (in liquidation) against Finanzlandes-
                                                                             direktion für Wien, Niederösterreich und Burgenland
1. Is an advertisement by a supplier of replacement parts and
    user materials for an appliance manufacturer’s product to                                      (Case C-113/99)
    be regarded as comparative advertising within the meaning
    of Article 2(2a) of the directive if the advertisement states                                  (1999/C 188/20)
    the appliance manufacturer’s product numbers (OEM
    numbers) for the relevant original replacement parts                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    and consumables for reference purposes to identify the                European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichtsh-
    supplier’s products?                                                  of (Administrative Court), Vienna, Austria, of 17 March 1999,
                                                                          received at the Court Registry on 6 April 1999, for a
                                                                          preliminary ruling in the case of Dr Herta Schmid as insolvency
2. If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative:                    administrator of the assets of the company P.P. Handels
                                                                          GmbH (in liquidation) against Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien,
                                                                          Niederösterreich und Burgenland on the following question:
    (a) Does displaying the appliance manufacturer’s product              Does Article 10 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July
        numbers (OEM numbers) alongside the supplier’s own                1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (1)
        order numbers amount to a lawful comparison of the                preclude the levying for 1996 of the tax provided for
        goods under Article 3a(l)(c) of the directive, and in             by Paragraph 24(4) of the 1988 Körperschaftsteuergesetz
        particular a comparison of the prices?                            (Corporation Tax law) as amended by Federal law BGBl
                                                                          (Bundesgesetzblatt, Federal Law Gazette) No 680/1994?
    (b) Are the product numbers (OEM numbers) ‘dis-                       (1) OJ 1969 L 249, p. 25.
        tinguishing marks of a competitor’ within the meaning
        of Article3a(l)(g)?
3. If Question 2 is to be answered in the affirmative:                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour Adminis-
                                                                          trative d’Appel (Administrative Appeal Court), Nancy
                                                                          (First Chamber), by judgment of that court of 25 March
    (a) What are the criteria to be used when assessing                   1999 in the case of Roquette Frères SA against Office
        whether an advertisement within the meaning of                         National Interprofessionnel des Céréales (O.N.I.C.)
        Article 2(2a) takes unfair advantage of the reputation
        of a distinguishing mark of a competitor within the                                        (Case C-114/99)
        meaning of Article 3a(l)(g)?
                                                                                (1999/C 188/21)
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    (b) Is the fact that the appliance manufacturer’s product             European Communities by judgment of the Cour Administrat-
        numbers (OEM numbers) appear alongside the sup-                   ive d’Appel, Nancy (First Chamber) of 25 March 1999, received
        plier’s own order numbers sufficient to justify an                at the Court Registry on 6 April 1999, for a preliminary
        allegation that unfair advantage is being taken of the            ruling in the case of Roquette Frères SA v Office National
        reputation of the distinguishing mark of a competitor             Interprofessionnel des Céréales (O.N.I.C.) on the following
        under Article 3a(1)(g), if the third party competitor             question:
        could instead in each case indicate the product for
        which the replacement part or consumable is suitable?             Did the provisions in force on 1 March 1990 and, in particular,
                                                                          Article 5(1) of Commission Regulation No 3665/87 of 27 Nov-
                                                                          ember 1987 (1), in so far as it provides that the export refund
                                                                          is to be paid only if ‘the product has been actually placed on
    (c) When assessing unfairness, is it relevant whether a               the market in the non-member country of import in the
        reference (solely) to the product for which the consum-           unaltered state’, permit the body responsible for supervision
        able or replacement part is suitable — in lieu of a               (in this instance, the O.N.I.C.) to challenge the supplier’s
        reference to the product number (OEM number) — is                 entitlement to refunds on the sole ground that the goods
        likely to make it difficult to sell the supplier’s products,      delivered had been used by its foreign customer in the
        particularly because customers generally take their               preparation of another product, which was itself liable to be
        bearings from the appliance manufacturer’s product                re-exported to other Member States of the European Economic
        numbers (OEM numbers)?                                            Community?
                                                                          (1) Laying down detailed rules for the application of the system of
                                                                              export refunds on agricultural products.


title: Case T-259/16: Action brought on 23 May 2016 — Trost Auto Service Technik v EUIPO (AUTOSERVICE.COM)

text:
               11.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/45

         Action brought on 23 May 2016 — Trost Auto Service Technik v EUIPO (AUTOSERVICE.COM)

   (Case T-259/16)
   (2016/C 251/51)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Trost Auto Service Technik SE (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: P. Kohl, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘AUTOSERVICE.COM’ — Application for registration No 13 593 678

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 March 2016 in Case R 1770/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 11 May 1995 in Case T-569/93: Andrew Macrae Moat v. Commission of the European Communities (Inadmissibility)

text:
No C 189/16         HEN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   22 . 7. 95
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                          of 8 June 1995                                                       of 11 May 1995
in Case T-583/93 : P v. Commission of the European                    in Case T-5 69/93 ; Andrew Macrae Moat v. Commission of
                         Communities i 1 )                                            the European Communities C )
(Officials — Decision compulsorily reassigning the                                             (Inadmissibility)
applicant to a post entailing, in particular, loss of the                                        ( 95/C 189/34
allowance provided for by Article 56a of the Staff
  Regulations — Duty to provide a statement of reasons)                              (Language of the case: English)
                           ( 95/C 189/33 )
                                                                      In Case T-569/93 , Andrew Macrae Moat, official of the
                                                                      Commission of the European Communities, represented by
                                                                      Luc Govaert, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
                (Language of the case: French)                        in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Lucy Dupong, 14a Rue
                                                                      des Bains v. Commission of the European Communities
                                                                      ( Agent: Thomas F. Cusak ) — application for the annulment
In Case T-583/93 : P, an official of the Commission, residing         of various appointments and promotions which occurred
in Barasso ( Italy ), represented by Eric Boigelot, of the            before 1991 and for compensation for the harm allegedly
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at            suffered by the applicant — the Court of First Instance
the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim v.            ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, R.
Commission of the European Communities (Agents : Ana                  Schintgen and R. Garci'a-Valdecasas, Judges; Registrar: H.
Maria Alves Vieira and Alberto Dal Ferro ) — application              Jung; made an order on 11 May 1995 the operative part of
                                                                      which is as follows :
for the annulment of a decision compulsorily reassigning the
applicant to a post and for compensation for the financial
loss which that decision would have caused — the Court of             1 , the application is dismissed as inadmissible;
First Instance ( Second Chamber), composed of B.
Vesterdorf, President, and D. P. M. Barrington and A.                 2 , the parties are to bear their own costs.
Saggio, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 June 1995 , in which             (') OJ No C 18 , 21 . 1 . 1994 .
it:
1 , annuls the decision contained in the memorandum sent
     to the applicant on 22 February 1 993 by Mr A;                                 ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
                                                                               OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 12 May 1995
                                                                      in Cases T-79/95 R and T-80/95 R, Société Nationale des
2 , orders the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum
                                                                      Chemins de Fer Français and British Railways Board v.
     of Lit 2 000 000 by way of damages for the loss of the
                                                                               Commission of the European Communities
     right to use a free transport facility;
                                                                                ( 95/C 189/35 )
                                                                              (Languages of the case: French and English)
3 , orders the Commission to pay to the applicant the sums
     which he would have received as shiftwork allowances             In Cases T-79/95 R and T-80/95 R, Société Nationale des
    from 1 March 1993 until the adoption of a decision                Chemins de Fer Français, whose registered office is in Paris,
     regularizing his position, together with default interest        represented by Barbara Rapp-Jung and Nathalie Flandin, of
     thereon at the annual rate of 8 % from 1 8 May 1 993 . In        the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
     the event that the parties are unable to agree the amount        at the Chambers of Victor Elvinger, 31 Rue d'Eich, and
     of that loss within three months, they are to send to the        British Railways Board, whose registered office is in
     Court the figures they propose;                                  London, represented by Thomas Sharpe QC of the Bar of
                                                                      England and Wales, instructed by Alexandre Nourry,
                                                                      Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                      Chambers of Jean Hoss, 15 Côte d'Eich v. Commission of
4 , orders the Commission to pay its own costs.                       the European Communities (Agents : Francisco Gonzalez
                                                                      Diaz and Géraud de Bergues in Case T-79/95 R and Carmel
                                                                      O'Reilly, Francisco Gonzalez Diaz and Géraud de Bergues
(') OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 .                                      in Case T-80/95 R ) — applications for the suspension of
                                                                      operation of Article 2A of Commission Decision 94/894/EC
                                                                      of 13 December 1994 relating to a proceeding under
                                                                      Article 85 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA
                                                                      Agreement ( IV/32.490 — Eurotunnel ) i 1 ) in so far as it
                                                                      attaches certain conditions to the exemption provided for in


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 2 July 2004 in Case T-76/04 R, Bactria Industriehygiene-Service Verwaltungs GmbH & Co. KG v Commission of the European Communities (Interim measures — Regulation (EC) No 2032/2003 — Biocidal products — Admissibility of the application)

text:
               9.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/17

      ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 2 July 2004
   in Case T-76/04 R, Bactria Industriehygiene-Service Verwaltungs GmbH & Co. KG v Commission of the European Communities
   (Interim measures - Regulation (EC) No 2032/2003 - Biocidal products - Admissibility of the application)
   (2004/C 251/32)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case T-76/04 R, Bactria Industriehygiene-Service Verwaltungs GmbH & Co. KG established in Kirchheimboladen (Germany), represented by C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, avocats, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: X. Lewis and F. Simonetti, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for suspension of the operation of Article 5(1) and (2) of and Annexes II and V to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2032/2003 of 4 November 2003 on the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and the Council, concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1896/2000 (OJ 2003 L 307, p. 1) — the President of the Court of First Instance made an order on 2 July 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-170/10: Action brought on 19 April 2010 — CTG Luxembourg PSF v Court of Justice

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/48

      Action brought on 19 April 2010 — CTG Luxembourg PSF v Court of Justice
      (Case T-170/10)
      (2010/C 161/77)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Computer Task Group Luxembourg PSF SA (Bertrange, Luxembourg) (represented by: M. Thewes, lawyer)

         Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the decisions taken by the Court of Justice in the context of the European public contract ‘AO 008/2009: 1st and 2nd level support for the users of IT and telephone systems, call centre, end user hardware management’, specifically:

                              —

                              the decision of the tender opening board of 9 February 2010 to reject the tender of CTG CONSORTIUM because it was ‘lodged out of time’;

                              —

                              the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union to award the contract to another tenderer (not dated and unknown at that date to the applicant);

                              —

                              the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union confirming the rejection of the tender of CTG CONSORTIUM of 05/03/2010;

                  —

                  declare the non-contractual liability of the European Union and order the Court of Justice to compensate the applicant for all the loss incurred on account of the contested decisions and appoint an expert to evaluate that loss;

                  —

                  order the Court of Justice to pay all the costs and expenses.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      By this action, the applicant is seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the tender opening board of 9 February 2010, rejecting the applicant’s offer because it was lodged out of time, in the context of the tendering procedure concerning 1st and 2nd level support for the users of IT systems, call centre, end user hardware management (OJ 2009/S 217-312292), and of the decision to award the contract to another tenderer and, secondly, an application for damages.
      In support of its appeal, the applicant puts forward four pleas alleging:

                  —

                  infringement of the principle of non-discrimination, the principle of equal treatment of tenderers and the principle of freedom of competition, by imposing a final time for posting the tenders, in addition to the final date for sending them;

                  —

                  infringement of the obligation to reply to requests for information sent in due time to the contracting authority;

                  —

                  infringement of the obligation to inform rejected tenderers of the grounds on which the rejection of their tender was based, the name of the successful tenderer and information as to the means of appeal;

                  —

                  the European Union’s non-contractual liability.


title: Case T-314/04: Action brought on 27 July 2004 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/46

         Action brought on 27 July 2004 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-314/04)
   (2004/C 262/87)
   Language of the Case: German
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 27 July 2004 by the Federal Republic of Germany, represented by Claus-Dieter Quassowski and Christoph von Donat.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission decision notified by letter of the Directorate-General for Regional Policy of 17 May 2004 in so far as the Community assistance from the European Regional Development Fund for the Objective 2 Programme 1997-1999 North Rhine-Westphalia (ERDF No 97.02.13.005/ARINCO No 97.DE.16.005) was reduced to EUR 319 046 236.76 and payment to the German authorities of the balance amounting to EUR 5 488 569.24 was refused;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicant complains, pursuant to Article 230 EC, that secondary Community law and general principles of law have been infringed, that the Commission has erred in the exercise of its discretion and that there are mistakes in the contested decision's reasoning.
   By the contested decision the Commission reduced the Community assistance from the structural fund (the European Regional Development Fund) for the Objective 2 Programme 1997-1999 North Rhine-Westphalia to EUR 319 046 236.76 and refused to pay to the German authorities the balance amounting to EUR 5 488 569.24. The background to the reduction is that, compared with the indicative financing plan, recourse to the programme was lower in the case of certain measures and higher in the case of others. The balancing out did not take place within the programme's respective priorities, but at the level of the programme as a whole.
   The Commission is of the view that only a transfer between measures, and not a transfer between programme priorities, is possible, or that the latter would have required the Commission first to have taken a fresh decision. In its view, this also applies to expenditure under the approved programme that turns out higher and is not linked to an application for an increase in ERDF assistance.
   The German Government considers the transfers to be objectively justified. It submits that the transfers, which are insignificant in amount, help to achieve the Community's assistance objectives. There are no grounds for a reduction. In particular, the reduction in the approved ERDF assistance cannot be justified on the basis that the competent authorities and agencies in the Land North Rhine-Westphalia administered in a flexible manner the indicative financing plan for the programme for Community structural interventions in the areas falling within Objective 2 in respect of the period from 1 January 1997 to 31 December 1999. In this regard, the reduction of the balance to be paid infringes Community law.
   The German Government further submits that, by not allowing any flexibility at the level of priorities even where, at the end of a reference period, formal Commission approval can no longer be attained, the Commission inexpediently restricts the freedom of action of the Member State or the competent local authorities and agencies.


title: Case T-62/09: Action brought on 13 February 2009 — Rintisch v OHIM — Bariatrix Europe (PROTI SNACK)

text:
               1.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/21

         Action brought on 13 February 2009 — Rintisch v OHIM — Bariatrix Europe (PROTI SNACK)
   (Case T-62/09)
   2009/C 102/34
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Bernhard Rintisch (Bottrop, Germany) (represented by: A. Dreyer, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bariatrix Europe Inc. SAS (Guilherand Granges, France)

      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 15 December 2008 in case R 740/2008-4; and

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark “PROTI SNACK”, for goods in classes 5, 29, 30 and 32 — application No 4 992 145

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

      Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration No 39 702 429 of the word mark “PROTI” for goods in classes 29 and 32; German trade mark registration No 39 608 644 of the figurative mark “PROTIPOWER” for goods in classes 29 and 32; German trade mark registration No 39 549 559 of the word mark “PROTIPLUS” for goods in classes 29 and 32; German trade mark registration No 39 629 195 of the trade word “PROTITOP” for goods in classes 29, 30 and 32

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal failed to provide an assessment on the merits of the opposition; Infringement of Article 74(2) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal refused to exercise its discretion or at least failed to state how it exercised such discretion; Misuse of power as the Board of Appeal failed to take into account documents and evidence submitted by the applicant.


title: Case F-132/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 20 July 2016 — HC v Commission (Civil service — Temporary staff — Succession of appointments under various status categories at several institutions of the European Union — Interruption by a period of unemployment — Continued membership of the of the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme — New appointment — Article 13 of the CEOS — Medical examination prior to employment — Article 32 of the CEOS — Failure of the interested party to declare an illness already affecting her — Subsequent discovery by the AECC — Retroactive application of a five-year medical reservation — Challenge — Referral to the Invalidity Committee — Duty of loyalty — Decision of the AECC to bar the agent from being recruited by the institution for a period of six years)

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/39

      Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 20 July 2016 — HC v Commission
      (Case F-132/15) (1)

      ((Civil service - Temporary staff - Succession of appointments under various status categories at several institutions of the European Union - Interruption by a period of unemployment - Continued membership of the of the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme - New appointment - Article 13 of the CEOS - Medical examination prior to employment - Article 32 of the CEOS - Failure of the interested party to declare an illness already affecting her - Subsequent discovery by the AECC - Retroactive application of a five-year medical reservation - Challenge - Referral to the Invalidity Committee - Duty of loyalty - Decision of the AECC to bar the agent from being recruited by the institution for a period of six years))
      (2016/C 364/47)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: HC (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser, T. S. Bohr and C. Ehrbar, agents)

         Re:

      Annulment of the Commission’s decision to apply the medical reservation clause in Article 32 of the CEOS, retroactively, with effect from the date of entry into service of the applicant with the Commission and to suspend the invalidity and death insurance and, in addition, annulment of the decision to bar the applicant from being recruited by the Commission for a period of six years to run from the date on which her last contract ended.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Tribunal:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of 29 January 2015 by which the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment of the European Commission barred HC from being recruited by the institution for a period of six years;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the remainder of the application;

                  3.

                  Orders the European Commission to pay its own costs and to bear half the costs incurred by HC;

                  4.

                  Orders HC to bear half of her own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 406, 7/12/2015, p. 46.


title: Case T-197/98: Action brought on 15 December 1998 by Charlotte Rudolph against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 174/6                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    19.6.1999
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                               — order the Commission to pay the cossts of the action,
                              INSTANCE                                         including those of the applicant.
                        of 10 February 1999
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
in Case T-211/98 R Claude Willeme v Commission of the
                      European Communities                                 The pleas and main arguments are similar to those invoked in
                                                                           Case T-148/98.
(Procedure for interim relief — Article 88 of the Staff
          Regulations — Prima facie case No urgency)
                            (1999/C 174/13)
                     (Language of the case: French)                        Action brought on 15 December 1998 by Charlotte
                                                                           Rudolph against Commission of the European Communi-
In Case T-211/98 R Claude Willeme, an official of the                                                     ties
Commission of the European Communities, residing in Brus-
sels, represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of                                        (Case T-197/98)
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the offices of the Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange v
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Gianluigi                                           (1999/C 174/15)
Valsesia and Julian Currall) — application for suspension of
the operation of the decision of 16 December 1998 by which
the appointing authority suspended the applicant from his                                     (Language of the case: French)
duties with immediate effect and withheld a sum equal to one
half of his basic salary from his remuneration — the President             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
of the Court of First Instance has made an order on 10 February            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
1999 in which he:                                                          European Communities on 15 December 1998 by Charlotte
                                                                           Rudolph, residing in Brussels, represented by Olivier Eben, of
1. Dismisses the application for interim relief;                           the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                           the Chambers of Jean Tonnar, 29 Rue du Fossé, Esch-sur-
2. Reserves the costs.                                                     Alzette.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           — Declare that the medical examination which the applicant
                                                                               underwent for recruitment purposes on 6 February 1995
                                                                               cannot be regarded as null and void;
Action brought on 6 October 1998 by South Wales
Small Mines Association against the Commission of the                      — Declare that Mrs Rudolph is not obliged to undergo a
                      European Communities                                     further medical examination for recruitment purposes in
                                                                               order to verify her fitness for work;
                            (Case T-162/98)
                                                                           — Annul the decision of the European Commission of
                                                                               7 December 1998, Article 1 of which annulled the
                            (1999/C 174/14)                                    appointing authority’s decisions of 3 July 1995 and of
                                                                               14 December 1995 pursuant to which Mrs Rudolph was
                                                                               appointed first as a probationary official and then as an
                    (Language of the case: English)                            official and Article 2 of which terminated Mrs Rudolph’s
                                                                               employment as from 1 February 1999;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 — Declare that Mrs Rudolph must be reinstated and that the
European Communities on 6 October 1998 by South Wales                          arrears of her salary must be paid to her, together with
Small Mines Association, represented by T. Llewellyn Jones,                    interest at the rate of 10% as from the date of cessation of
Thomas Sharpe QC and Mark Brealey with an address for                          payment of her salary;
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Victor Gillen, 13,
rue Aldringen.                                                             — Order the Commission to pay Mrs Rudolph the sum of
                                                                               ECU 100 000 in respect of misuse of powers and
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    non-material damage;
— annul the Commission decision of 30 July 1998 rejecting                  — So far as necessary, annul:
     a complaint made by the applicant on 5 June 1990
     relating, inter alia, to systematic price discrimination of the           — the Commission decision dated 17 November 1997,
     CEGB and its successor corporations, National Power and                        sent to the applicant on 12 January 1998 and received
     PowerGen contrary to Article 4(b) ECSC; and                                    by her on 14 January 1998;
 ---pagebreak--- 19.6.1999              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 174/7
     — Decision No 425/98, registered by the Secretariat-                Action brought on 14 January 1999 by Laurence Matic-
         General on 28 April 1998, dismissing Mrs Rudolph’s                        Van de Vloet against European Parliament
         complaint of 10 April 1998;
                                                                                (Case T-8/99)
     — Decision No 00037/IX.A6 of 7 December 1998 termi-
         nating the applicant’s employment as from 1 February                                    (1999/C 174/16)
         1999;
— Order the European Commission to pay the costs, includ-                                  (Language of the case: French)
     ing the fees and disbursements of the applicant’s lawyer.
                                                                         An action against the European Parliament was brought before
                                                                         the Court of First Instance on 14 January 1999 by Laurence
                                                                         Matic-Van de Vloet, represented by Eric Boigelot, of the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                         chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim.
The applicant, at present an official in Grade C 4, was                  The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
appointed as a probationary official on 1 July 1995 and was
established on 1 January 1996. According to the applicant,               — Annul the implied decision rejecting the request made by
during the prescribed medical examination it did not occur to                the applicant on 5 December 1997 that the appointing
her to bring to the doctor’s attention the existence of a                    authority should take all appropriate measures concerning
pathological condition liable to cast doubt on her physical                  the disclosure of information from her personal file to a
fitness.                                                                     third party and to a Belgian judicial authority;
                                                                         — Annul the decision of 23 November 1998, of which the
By the decision of 17 November 1997, drafted in French and                   applicant became aware on 27 November 1998, signed by
notified to the applicant, the Commission declared that that                 the President of the European Parliament, expressly
medical examination for recruitment purposes was null and                    rejecting the applicant’s complaint, which was registered
void, criticising the applicant for failing to disclose all the              on 5 July 1988, against the implied decision rejecting her
necessary medical information, and required her to take a fresh              request;
medical examination in order to verify her physical fitness. By
letter of 9 January 1998 that decision was notified to the               — Order the defendant to pay the costs in their entirety in
applicant in English.                                                        any event.
By decision of 7 December 1998 the appointing authority                  Pleas in law and main arguments
annulled the decisions appointing the applicant as a probation-
ary official and then as an official.
                                                                         The applicant is involved in a dispute with a crèche. According
                                                                         to her, documents produced in connection with the dispute
                                                                         were improperly forwarded, without her consent, to certain
Given that the applicant writes and understands only English             Belgian judicial authorities and to the Commission. The
and Swedish, she submits that all the earlier documents in               applicant seeks the assistance of the Parliament administration
French and all the meetings held in French must be regarded              on the basis of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations following
as null and void.                                                        the disclosure of those documents. By the contested decision,
                                                                         the defendant rejected the complaint against the implied
                                                                         decision rejecting her request as inadmissible.
She also alleges breach of medical confidentiality: the applicant
had informed her own doctor of her insignificant medical
history relating to 1986 and her doctor sent a medical report            The applicant alleges breach of the Staff Regulations, in
to the defendant.                                                        particular Articles 17, 19 and 26, and of general principles of
                                                                         law, in particular that of the protection of legitimate expec-
                                                                         tations and the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials,
                                                                         and also misuse of powers.
The applicant criticises the composition of the medical com-
mittees, which was such that there was no guarantee or indeed
appearance of objectivity.                                               The applicant claims that the defendant cannot, without giving
                                                                         notice thereof to the official concerned and obtaining his prior
                                                                         consent, use, for the examination of any matter, be it
Finally, the applicant alleges breach of the rights of the defence:      administrative or judicial, a document written or issued in
she was not able properly to defend herself because she did              relation to his personal situation or any request submitted
not have access to her entire medical file.                              by him in accordance with the Staff Regulations to the
                                                                         administration, in connection with the examination of a
                                                                         matter, be it administrative or judicial.