title: Case C-251/10 P: Appeal brought on 20 May 2010 by KEK Diavlos against the judgment delivered on 18 March 2010 in Case T-190/07 KEK Diavlos v European Commission

text:
               17.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/14

         Appeal brought on 20 May 2010 by KEK Diavlos against the judgment delivered on 18 March 2010 in Case T-190/07 KEK Diavlos v European Commission
   (Case C-251/10 P)
   2010/C 195/20
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: KEK Diavlos (represented by: D. Khatsimikhalis, Dikigoros)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The Court is asked to:

               —

               uphold this action in its entirety;

               —

               set aside, for the reasons set out in the appeal, the contested judgment of the General Court (Single Judge) of 18 March 2010 in Case T-190/07, uphold all the claims in the action brought by this company against Commission Decision E (2006) 465 final of 23 February 2006 and quash that decision, together with any other related act and/or decision of the Commission;

               —

               order the defendant, the European Commission, to pay the costs and the fees of our lawyer in both sets of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its appeal of 20 May 2010, the company KEK Diavlos appeals against the judgment of the General Court (Single Judge) of 18 March 2010 in Case T-190/07, asking that it be set aside and all the claims in its action against Commission Decision E (2006) final of 23 February 2006 upheld and that that decision, together with any other related act and/or decision of the Commission, be quashed.
   The appellant puts forward in summary the following grounds for setting aside the judgment:

               First ground of appeal: by the contested judgment our action, together with all the arguments put forward, was dismissed in its entirety on erroneous and inadequate grounds, although it should have been upheld in its entirety, or otherwise in part. In particular, the contested judgment does not take any account at all of the argument, essential to the outcome of the case, that our company performed its contractual obligation to design a printed information publication, with a print-run of 1 000 copies (in each language), which would contain all the information required to prepare school children for the transition to the euro, publishing a related multi-sided information booklet (claims viii, ix and x). The contested judgment is also vitiated by a lack of reasoning as concerns its assessment in respect of the information brochures which we published to meet our contractual obligations.

               Second ground of appeal: the contested judgment is vitiated by an infringement of the law, in particular Article 48 of the Rules of Procedure, inasmuch as it rejected our proposal to adduce supplementary evidence, in particular the additional time sought by our company at the hearing of the case in order to produce certain documents concerning the ‘irregularities’ alleged by the Commission and the question of the time at which the costs in question were entered into the company’s books in order to be considered ‘allowable’ under the contract and annex II thereto.

               Third ground of appeal: the contested judgment of the General Court (Single Judge) of 18 March 2010 wrongly ordered us to pay the Commission’s costs whereas, in application of Article 87(3) of the Rules of Procedure, the costs should have been shared by the parties, or else we should have been ordered, as the unsuccessful party, to pay only part of the Commission’s legal costs in view of the circumstances.


title: Case C-319/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — B&S Global Transit Center BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Community Customs Code — Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Articles 203 and 204 — External Community transit procedure — Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 — Articles 365, 366 and 859 — Incurrence of a customs debt — Whether or not goods are unlawfully removed from customs supervision — Non-fulfilment of an obligation — Failure to end the transit procedure — Removal of the goods from the customs territory of the European Union)

text:
               21.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 429/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — B&S Global Transit Center BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-319/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Community Customs Code - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Articles 203 and 204 - External Community transit procedure - Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Articles 365, 366 and 859 - Incurrence of a customs debt - Whether or not goods are unlawfully removed from customs supervision - Non-fulfilment of an obligation - Failure to end the transit procedure - Removal of the goods from the customs territory of the European Union))
   (2015/C 429/05)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: B&S Global Transit Center BV

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 203 and 204 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1791/2006 of 20 November 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that a failure to comply with the obligation to present goods placed under the external Community transit procedure at the customs office of destination leads to a customs debt being incurred on the basis not of Article 204 of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 1791/2006, but of Article 203 of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 1791/2006, where the goods concerned have left the customs territory of the European Union and the holder under that procedure is unable to produce documents that comply with Article 365(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92, in the version following the adoption of Commission Regulation (EC) No 993/2001 of 4 May 2001, or Article 366(2) and (3) of Regulation No 2454/93, in the version following the adoption of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1192/2008 of 17 November 2008.

      (1)  OJ C 315, 15.9.2014.


title: Case C-104/09: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 September 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia — Spain) — Pedro Manuel Roca Álvarez v Sesa Start España ETT SA (Social policy — Equal treatment for male and female workers — Directive 76/207/EEC — Articles 2 and 5 — Right to leave for employed mothers — Possible use by an employed mother or an employed father — Mother self-employed — Exclusion of the right to leave for an employed father)

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/8

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 September 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia — Spain) — Pedro Manuel Roca Álvarez v Sesa Start España ETT SA
   (Case C-104/09) (1)

   (Social policy - Equal treatment for male and female workers - Directive 76/207/EEC - Articles 2 and 5 - Right to leave for employed mothers - Possible use by an employed mother or an employed father - Mother self-employed - Exclusion of the right to leave for an employed father)
   2010/C 317/14
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Pedro Manuel Roca Álvarez

      Defendant: Sesa Start España ETT SA

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia — Interpretation of Article 13 EC and Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40), as amended by Directive 2002/73 (OJ 2002 L 269, p. 25) — National legislation conferring on mothers who are employees a right to leave for feeding an unweaned child, which may be exercised by the mother or the father in the form of a reduction in working time — Exclusion where the mother is self-employed and the father is an employee — Principle of equal treatment

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 2(1), (3) and (4) and Article 5 of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions, must be interpreted as precluding a national measure such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that female workers who are mothers and whose status is that of an employed person are entitled, in various ways, to take leave during the first nine months following the child’s birth, whereas male workers who are fathers with that same status are not entitled to the same leave unless the child’s mother is also an employed person.

      (1)  OJ C 141, 20.06.2009.


title: Case T-422/09: Judgment of the General Court of 25 May 2011 — São Paulo Alpargatas v OHIM — Fischer (BAHIANAS LAS ORIGINALES) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark BAHIANAS LAS ORIGINALES — Earlier Community and national figurative trade marks havaianas and earlier national word mark HAVAIANAS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               9.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 204/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 May 2011 — São Paulo Alpargatas v OHIM — Fischer (BAHIANAS LAS ORIGINALES)
   (Case T-422/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark BAHIANAS LAS ORIGINALES - Earlier Community and national figurative trade marks havaianas and earlier national word mark HAVAIANAS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2011/C 204/38
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: São Paulo Alpargatas, SA (São Paolo, Brazil) (represented by: P. Merino Baylos and A. Velázquez Ibáñez, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carillo, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Enrique Fischer (Buenos Aires, Argentina) (represented by: initially E. Rasche Aparicio, then M. de Justo Bailey, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 August 2009 (Case R 1477/2008-2), concerning opposition proceedings between São Paulo Alpargatas, SA and Enrique Fischer.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 17 August 2009 (Case R 1477/2008-2);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to pay its own costs and the costs incurred by São Paulo Alpargatas, SA;

               3.

               Orders Enrique Fischer to pay his own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 297, 5.12.2009.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandse Raad van State, by order of that court of 31 May 1996 in the case of 1. Beside BV and 2. I. M. Besselsen v. Minister for Housing, Town and Country Planning and Conservation (Case C-192/96)

text:
 No C 233/4           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10 . 8 . 96
     falling within the Commission's management powers,              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van
     defined by Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3030/93 on             Eerste Aanleg, Antwerp, by judgment of that court of
     common rules for imports of certain textile products             13 May 1996 in the case of ( a ) Belgian State v. 1 . Banque
     from third countries ('). Several provisions of that            Indosuez, 2 . Stahlhandel Schmitz GmbH and 3 . NV Rijn
     Regulation preclude such exercise of discretion by the          and Kanaalvaart Expeditie and ( b ) Belgian State v.
     Commission which , moreover, is contrary to the specific                              European Commumty
     scope and nature of management powers .                                                  ( Case C-177/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 233/05 )
     The allowing of 'exceptional flexibility' measures is also
     contrary to the objective of rigorous and transparent           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     management of the quantitative limits underlying the            European Communities by a judgment of the Rechtbank
     system introduced by Regulation ( EEC ) No 3030/93 .            van Eerste Aanleg ( Court of First Instance ), Antwerp, of
    The 'exceptional flexibility' measures made available for        13 May 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on
    textile products from China on 6 March 1996 by far               22 May 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the cases of ( a )
    exceeded the limits laid down for normal flexibility             Belgian State v . 1 . Banque Indosuez, 2 . Stahlhandel Schmitz
    measures and undeniably ran counter to the Council's             GmbH and 3 . Rijn- and Kanaalvaart Expeditie NV and ( b )
    decision to reduce the rate of annual growth of the              Belgian State v. European Community, on the following
    quantitative limits applicable to China, as is apparent          questions :
    from the Agreement renegotiated in 1 995 ; consequently,
    those measures have no basis in the bilateral agreement
    and even depart from the spirit and letter of the                1 . Does the name 'Yugoslavia ' in Commission Decision
    provisions thereof. Recourse to 'exceptional flexibility'            No 2131 /88/ECSC (') also refer to the State of
    measures also involves a clear breach of the general and             Macedonia-Scopje after it had broken away from ( what
    fundamental principles of the Community legal order,                 remained of) Yugoslavia ?
    which have been recognized as such by the Community
    case law .                                                       2 . Are the import duties which are to be levied in
                                                                         accordance      with      Decision  No  2131 /88/ECSC      on
                                                                         imports into the Belgian-Luxembourg Economic Union
— Manifest breach of the general Community legal                         of steel products originating in Yugoslavia also
    principles concerning competence, institutional                      applicable to such imports originating in the State of
    equilibrium and protection of the legitimate                         Macedonia-Scopje between 1 May 1992 and 31 July
    expectations of economic agents in the Community : as                1992 inclusive ?
    an authority giving effect to the commercial agreements
    entered into by the Council , the Commission must limit          (') OJ No L 188 , 1988 , p . 14 .
    its action to applying agreed provisions . Any decision
    which goes beyond such limits, such as that represented
    by the 'exceptional flexibility' measures, breaches the
    principle of legally defined competence — and is
    consequently illegal through lack of powers . The
    Commission is also acting in breach of the principle of
    institutional equilibrium in adopting decisions which, as
    regards their legal effects, constitute a derogation from
    the provisions whose approval, at Community level , or          Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandse
    conclusion, at international level, is a matter for the         Raad van State, by order of that court of 31 May 1996 in the
    Council alone .                                                 case of 1 . Beside B V and 2 . 1 . M. Besselsen v. Minister for
                                                                     Housing, Town and Country Planning and Conservation
                                                                                ( Case C-192/96 )
    The practice of taking 'exceptional flexibility' measures                                   ( 96/C 233/06 )
    represents a factor of unpredictability as regards the
    reasonable expectations of economic agents, in
    particular those in the textile industry; since such            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    measures cannot be foreseen by economic agents and do           European Communities by an order of the Nederlandse
    not pursue an overriding public interest, they contravene       Raad van State ( Council of State of the Netherlands ) of
    the principle of legitimate expectations and are, for that      31 May 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on
    reason among others, illegal .                                  4 June 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of 1 . Beside
                                                                    BV and 2 . I. M. Besselsen v . Minister for Housing, Town
                                                                    and Country Planning and Conservation on the following
(') OJ No L 2 75 , 1993 , p . 1 .                                   questions :
                                                                     1 . Should the expression 'municipal/household waste '
                                                                         referred to under AD 160 in Annex III to Council
                                                                         Regulation ( EEC ) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the
                                                                         supervision 'and control of shipments of waste within,
 ---pagebreak--- 10 . 8 . 96              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       No C 233/5
     into and out of the European Community ( ), as                                 particular an employed or self-employed person ),
     subsequently amended, be interpreted as also including                         has exercised the right to freedom of movement
     waste which for the most part consists of the solid plastic                    within the European Community ?
     wastes referred to in Annex II to the Regulation, but also
     of various other wastes referred to in that Annex and a                  ( b ) Is it relevant in that respect whether the other
     small quantity of materials not referred to therein ?                          parent moved with the child to another Member
                                                                                State and pursued an activity there as an employed
2 , ( a ) If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative , should                     or self-employed person until his or her death ?
           the phrase ' storage of materials intended for
           submission to any operation in this Annex' in                 2 . If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, is a retired
           Annex IIB to Council Directive 75/442/EEC of                       police officer a civil servant within the meaning of
           15 July 1975 on waste ( 2 ), as subsequently                       Article 2 ( 3 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 ?
           amended, be interpreted as covering not only
           storage at the plant in which the other operations            C ) OJ , English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p . 416 .
           referred to in the Annex will take place , but also
           storage pending transport to such a plant,
           regardless of whether that plant is situated inside or
           outside the Community ?
     ( b ) If the first part of this question is answered in the
           affirmative, what minimum evidence must be                    Action brought on 10 June 1996 by the Commission of the
           available for a finding that the waste is actually                European Communities against the French Republic
           intended for recovery, where notification has not
                                                                                ( Case C-197/96 )
           been given ?
                                                                                ( 96/C 233/08 )
3 . If Questions 1 and 2 ( a ) are answered in the affirmative ,
     must it then be inferred from the third sentence of                 An action against the French Republic was brought before
     Article 26 ( 2 ) of the Regulation that, in the cases to            the Court of Justice on 10 June 1996 by the Commission of
     which that provison refers , the competent authority of             the European Communities, represented by Marie
     destination is also obliged, or at any rate authorized , to         Wolfcarius , acting as Agent, with an address for service in
     do what the competent authority of dispatch is obliged              Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz ,
     to do pursuant to the first sentence of that                        Wagner Centre, Kirchberg .
     provision ?
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should :
(') OJ No L 30 , 1993 , p . 1 .
Ç-) OJ No L 194 , 1975 , p . 47 .                                        — declare that, by maintaining, in Article L 213-1 of the
                                                                              Code du Travail ( Employment code ), a prohibition of
                                                                             night work for women in industry, whereas no such
                                                                             prohibition exists in relation to men, the French
                                                                             Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                             Article 5 ( 1 ) of Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February
                                                                              1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal
                                                                             treatment for men and women as regards access to
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                                  employment, vocational training and promotion , and
Bundessozialgericht by order of that court of 30 April 1996                  working conditions ( 1 ),
       in the case of Hilmar Kulzer v. Freistaat Bayern
                          ( Case C-194/96 )                              — order the French Republic to pay the costs .
                            ( 96 /C 233 /07 )
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   In consequence of the denunciation by the French
European Communities by an order of the 10th Chamber of                  Government of ILO Convention No 89 , the obligations
the Bundessozialgericht ( Federal Social Court ) of 30 April             imposed by that Convention on France in relation to third
1 996 , which was received at the Court Registry on 1 0 June             countries, as recognized by the Court of Justice in the
1 996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Freistaat Bayern         judgment in Levy ( 2 ), ceased to exist with effect from
( Federal State of Bavaria ) v . Hilmar Kulzer on the following          February 1993 . The retention , without amendment, of the
questions :                                                              text of the legislation referred to in the wording of the form
                                                                         of order sought gives rise to an ambiguous state of affairs .
1 , ( a ) Does Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 ('), in                     Save where it is of a binding nature , a ministerial reply to a
           particular Article 73 thereof, apply if the child in          parliamentary question C ) does not constitute an adequate
           respect of whom family benefits are sought, but not           adaptation of the legislative provisions in force in France .
           the person entitled to benefits him or herself ( in           Lastly, the existence of collective agreements negotiated in


title: Joined Cases C-93/13 P and C-123/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 March 2015 — European Commission v Versalis SpA, formerly Polimeri Europa SpA, Eni SpA and Versalis SpA, formerly Polimeri Europa SpA, Eni SpA v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Chloroprene rubber market — Succession of production entities — Imputability of the unlawful conduct — Fines — Repeated infringement — Unlimited jurisdiction)

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 March 2015 — European Commission v Versalis SpA, formerly Polimeri Europa SpA, Eni SpA and Versalis SpA, formerly Polimeri Europa SpA, Eni SpA v European Commission
   (Joined Cases C-93/13 P and C-123/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Chloroprene rubber market - Succession of production entities - Imputability of the unlawful conduct - Fines - Repeated infringement - Unlimited jurisdiction))
   (2015/C 138/03)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      (C-93/13 P)

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, G. Conte and R. Striani, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Versalis SpA, formerly Polimeri Europa SpA, Eni SpA (represented by: M. Siragusa, G.M. Roberti, F. Moretti, I. Perego, F. Cannizzaro, A. Bardanzellu, D. Durante, and V. Laroccia, avvocati)

      (C-123/13 P)

      Appellants: Versalis SpA, formerly Polimeri Europa SpA, Eni SpA (represented by: M. Siragusa, G.M. Roberti, F. Moretti, I. Perego, F. Cannizzaro, A. Bardanzellu, D. Durante, and V. Laroccia, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, G. Conte and R. Striani, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Rejects the appeals in Cases C-93/13 P and C-123/13 P;

               2)

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs relating to the appeal in Case C-93/13 P;

               3)

               Orders Versalis SpA and Eni SpA to pay the costs relating to the appeal in Case C-123/13 P.

      (1)  OJ C 114, 20.4.2013.

      OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.


title: Case C-600/15: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 8 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — the Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Lemnis Lighting BV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 — Customs union and Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Headings 8539, 8541, 8543, 8548 and 9405 — Light-emitting diode bulbs (LED))

text:
               6.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/5

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 8 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — the Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Lemnis Lighting BV
   (Case C-600/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 - Customs union and Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Headings 8539, 8541, 8543, 8548 and 9405 - Light-emitting diode bulbs (LED)))
   (2017/C 038/07)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Defendant: Lemnis Lighting BV

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1214/2007 of 20 September 2007, must be interpreted as meaning that goods such as the LED bulbs at issue in the main proceedings fall, subject to the referring court’s assessment of all the facts before it, under heading 8543 of that nomenclature.

      (1)  OJ C 48, 8.2.2016.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber) of 5 November 1997 in Case T-12/97: Anna Barnett v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Article 31 (2) of the Staff Regulations)

text:
20 . 12 . 97              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 387/ 17
sector (Ilva group ) ( OJ 1994 L 112, p. 64 ) — the Court of               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
First Instance ( First Chamber, Extended Composition ),                                          of 5 November 1997
composed of: A. Saggio, President, A. Kalogeropoulos, V.
Tiili, A. Potocki and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; H.                      in Case T- 149/95 : Etablissements J. Richard Ducros v.
Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 October                              Commission of the European Communities (')
1997, in which it:
                                                                         (State aid — Restructuring aid — Commission decision —
                                                                                Annulment — Admissibility)
1 . dismisses the application;                                                                        ( 97/C 387/29 )
2 . orders the applicants to pay the costs of the defendant                              (Language of the case: French)
     and of the intervener Ilva Laminati Piani SpA;
                                                                         In Case T-149/95 : Etablissements J. Richard Ducros,
                                                                         established in Paris, represented by Philippe Genin, of the
3 . orders the Council and the Italian Republic to bear                  Lyons Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
     their own costs.
                                                                         the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, v.
                                                                         Commission of the European Communities, ( Agents :
(>) OJ C 233 , 20 . 8 . 1994 .                                           initially Jean-Paul Keppenne, then Xavier Lewis )
                                                                         supported by CMF S.p.A. and CMF Sud S.p.A. ,
                                                                         established in Pignatero Maggiore, Italy, represented by
                                                                         Mario Siragusa , of the Rome Bar, and Giuseppe
                                                                         Scassellati-Sforzolini , of the Bologna Bar, with an address
                                                                         for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Messrs
                                                                         Elvinger, Hoss & Prussen, 2 Place Winston Churchill —
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                Application for annulment of the decision reproduced in
                         of 5 November 1997                              Commission Notice 95/C 120/03 pursuant to Article 93 ( 2 )
                                                                         of the EC Treaty to other Member States and other parties
in Case T-26/89 ( 125 ): Henri de Compte v. European                     concerned regarding aid which Italy granted to CMF Sud
                              Parliament (')                             S.p.A. and CMF S.p.A. [ State aid C 6/92 ( ex NN 149/91 )]
                                                                         ( OJ C 120, 16 . 5 . 1995 , p. 4 ) — the Court of
    (Officials — Application for revision — Admissibility)               First Instance ( First Chamber, Extended Composition ),
                              ( 97/C 387/28 )                            composed of: A. Saggio, President, C. P. Briët, A.
                                                                         Kalogeropoulos, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges;
                                                                         B. Pastor, Principal Administrator for the Registrar; has
                   (Language of the case: French)                        given a judgment on 5 November 1997, in which it :
In Case T-26/89 ( 125 ): Henri de Compte, a former official               1 . dismisses the application;
of the European Parliament, represented initially by
Francesco Pasetti Bombardella, of the Venice Bar, and                    2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs, including those
subsequently by Henri Ferretti, of the Thionville Bar, with                   of the interveners.
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Guy Harles, 8— 10 Rue Mathias Hardt, v. European
                                                                         (') OJ C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 .
Parliament ( Agents : Francois Vainker and Evelyn
Waldherr) — application for revision of the judgment of
the Court of First Instance of 17 October 1991 in Case
T-26/89 de Compte v. European Parliament [ 1991 ] ECR
11-781 — the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ),
composed of: A. Saggio, President, B. Vesterdorf and R. M.
Moura Ramos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
judgment on 5 November 1997, the operative part of
which is as follows :                                                                               ( First Chamber)
                                                                                of 5 November 1997
 1 . the application for revision is dismissed as being                  in Case T-12/97: Anna Barnett v. Commission of the
      inadmissible;                                                                          European Communities (')
                                                                              (Officials — Article 31 (2) of the Staff Regulations)
 2 . the applicant seeking revision is ordered to pay the                                              ( 97/C 387/30 )
      costs .
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
 (') OJ C 89 , 6 . 4 . 1988 .
                                                                          In Case T-12/97: Anna Barnett, official of the Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities, residing in Brussels,
 ---pagebreak--- C 387/ 18                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 20 . 12 . 97
represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and                    3 . orders the Commission to pay the costs.
Ariane Tornel , of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30                   (') OJ C 46 , 17 . 2 . 1996 .
Rue de Cessange , v. Commission of the European
Communities ( Agents : Julian Currall and Florence
Clotuche ) — application for the annulment of a
Commission decision of 9 October 1996 rejecting a review
of the decision on the applicant's classification in grade —
the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ), composed of
A. Saggio, President, B. Vesterdorf and J. Pirrung, Judges;                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 5 November 1997,                                          of 6 November 1997
the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                         in Case T-15/96: Lino Liao v. Council of the European
                                                                                Union (')
I . the application is dismissed;
                                                                         (Officials — Actions for annulment — Delay in drawing
                                                                         up staff report — Actions for damages — Admissibility —
2 . each party shall hear its own costs.                                                                   Damage)
                                                                                ( 97IC 387/32 )
(') OJ C 94 , 22 . 3 . 1997 .
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         In Case T-15/96 : Lino Liao, an official of the Council of
                                                                         the European Union, residing in Brussels, represented by
                                                                         Pierre-Paul Gehuchten and Constantin Nikis, of the
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                        of 6 November 1997                               the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim,
                                                                         v. Council of the European Union ( Agents: Diego Canga
in Case T-223/95 : Luigi Ronchi v. Commission of the                     Fano and Marie-Jeanne Vernier ) — application for
                     European Communities (')                            annulment of the definitive staff report, dated 6 November
 (Officials — Article 90 (1 ) of the Staff Regulations —                  1995 , for the period from 1 July 1991 to 30 June 1993 ,
Decision implicitly rejecting an application — Article 24                notified to the applicant on 9 November 1995 , and for
     of the Staff Regulations — Duty to provide assistance)              damages — the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber ),
                                                                         composed of: C. W. Bellamy, President, and A.
                              ( 97/C 387/31 )                            Kalogeropoulos and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; A.
                                                                         Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                         judgment on 6 November 1997, in which it:
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          1 . dismisses the action;
 In Case T-223/95 : Luigi Ronchi , a former official of the
 Commission of the European Communities, residing in
 Luxembourg, represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry                     2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.
 Demaseure , Veronique Leclercq and Ariane Tornel , of the
 Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at               (') OJ C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .
 the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de
 Cessange , v. Commission of the European Communities
 ( Agents : Gianluigi Valsesia and Julian Currall ) —
 application, first, for annulment of a decision implicitly
 rejecting an application for assistance submitted by the
 applicant on 30 January 1995 and, second, for payment of
                                                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 the token sum of ECU 1 - by way of compensation for the
 non-material damage allegedly suffered by him — the                                              of 6 November 1997
 Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber ), composed of:
                                                                          in Case T-71/96: Sonja Edith Berlingieri Vinzek v.
 C. W. Bellamy, President, and A. Kalogeropoulos and
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities ( 1 )
 M. Jaeger, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the
 Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 November 1997, in                   (Officials — Competition based on qualifications and tests
 which it :                                                                             — Non-admission to the oral tests)
                                                                                ( 97/C 387/33 )
  1 . annuls the Commission 's decision implicitly rejecting
       the application for assistance submitted by the                                      (Language of the case: French)
      applicant on 30 January 1995;
                                                                          In Case T-71 /96 : Sonja Edith Berlingieri Vinzek, a
 2 . dismisses the remainder of the application;                          probationer official of the Commission of the European


title: Case T-226/02: Action brought on 26 July 2002 by André Hecq against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 247/18              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                 12.10.2002
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            —     order the Commission to pay him 8 % annual interest on
                                                                             those amounts, dating from 23 July 2002 until payment
—    annul the decision of 8 December 1998 of the Director-                  in full;
     General of DG DEV;
                                                                       —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
—    in so far as necessary, annul the instructions attached to
     the note of 29 July 1999 from the Head of the ‘Human
     Resources’ unit of DG DEV;
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
—    annul the decision of 21 October 1999 of the Director-
     General of DG DEV;
                                                                       The applicant, a former Head of Unit, in Grade A3, requests
—    annul the decision of 22 December 1999 of the Director-           annulment of the Commission’s decision to reassign him as a
     General of DG DEV;
                                                                       counsellor and to entrust him with certain duties in that
                                                                       capacity. He also asks the Court to find that the Commission
—    annul the decision of 19 February 2001 of the Director-           is acting unlawfully by failing to reassign him in a middle
     General of DG DEV;                                                management post or to second him outside the institution in
                                                                       the interest of the service. In addition, he is requesting
—    annul the decision of 14 November 2001 of the Director            the annulment of his periodic report for 1999-2001 and
     of Directorate D of DG DEV, approved by its Director-             compensation for the material and non-material damage he
     General;                                                          has suffered.
—    annul his staff report for 1999-2001, drawn up on
     18 March 2002 by the Director of Directorate D of DG              In support of the forms of order sought, the applicant claims
     DEV;                                                              that the Commission infringed Articles 5(4) and 7 of the Staff
                                                                       Regulations, as well as Annex IV to the General Implementing
—    annul the decision by the External Service Steering               Provisions, of 10 March 1997, of Article 5(4) of the Staff
     Committee to reject his application for a post as Head of         Regulations, in that he was not assigned the functions or was
     Delegation under the 2002 rotation exercise, as well as           assigned functions which did not correspond to his post and
     the confirmation of that decision;                                grade. Moreover, he claims that the Commission infringed the
                                                                       principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate
                                                                       expectations in that not reassigning him in certain middle
—    annul the implied decision of 16 September 2001 to
                                                                       management posts and not seconding him outside the insti-
     reject his request of 16 May 2001;
                                                                       tution in the interest of the service went against promises,
                                                                       decisions and commitments made by the administration.
—    should they constitute a response to the request of
     16 May 2001, annul the decisions of 31 October and
     14 December 2001 by the Chef de Cabinet of the Vice-
     President of the Commission and of the Director-General
     of DG DEV;
—    establish the unlawfulness of the failure to reassign the
     applicant as Head of the ‘Indian Ocean’ unit of DG DEV
     by his Director-General in March 2000;
                                                                       Action brought on 26 July 2002 by André Hecq against
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
—    establish the unlawfulness of the failure to second the
     applicant, in the interest of the service, to the Spanish
     civil service in Madrid or to the FAO in Rome;                                            (Case T-226/02)
—    order the Commission to pay him, as compensation for
     non-material damage, the sum of EUR 10 000 assessed                                       (2002/C 247/29)
     ex aequo et bono;
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
—    order the Commission to pay him, as compensation for
     the damage to his career, a sum corresponding to the
     difference between the retirement pension and other
     benefits to which he is entitled under the second indent
     of Article 52 of the Staff Regulations on the date on             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
     which he requests early retirement and the remuneration,          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
     retirement pension and other benefits to which he would           European Communities on 26 July 2002 by André Hecq,
     be entitled if he could have retired from his post at the         residing in Mondercange (Luxembourg), represented by Lucas
     age of 65;                                                        Vogel and Dominique Amatulli, lawyers.
 ---pagebreak--- 12.10.2002             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 247/19
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            Action brought on 26 July 2002 by Syndicat des Fonction-
                                                                       naires Internationaux et Européens against Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities
—     annul the decision of the appointing authority on
      27 March 2002 and notified to the applicant on 16 April
      2002, rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant on
      18 October 2001, adopting the decision of the Members                                     (Case T-227/02)
      of the Commission of 15 June 2001, ‘approving’ the
      alleged agreement of 4 April 2001 between Vice President
      Kinnock and the trade unions and staff associations
      concerning the resources available to the staff representa-                               (2002/C 247/30)
      tives and the rules regarding resources available to the
      staff representatives from 1 January 2002;
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
—     annul the abovementioned decision of 15 June 2001;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                       ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                       European Communities on 26 July 2002 by Syndicat des
                                                                       Fonctionnaires Internationaux et Européens (SFIE), whose
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        main offices are in Brussels, represented by Lucas Vogel and
                                                                       Dominique Amatulli, lawyers.
The applicant is the secretary general of the Syndicat des
Fonctionnaires Internationaux et Européens (SFIE). He is
contesting the decision laying down the rules regarding                The applicant claims that the Court should:
resources available to the staff representatives from 1 January
2002 approving an agreement between certain union organis-
ations and the Commission. Not being a signatory to that               —     annul the decision of the appointing authority on
agreement of 4 April 2001, the SFIE was informed that it                     27 March 2002 and notified to the applicant on 16 April
would not be able to benefit from the budgetary facilities                   2002, rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant on
under those provisions.                                                      18 October 2001, adopting the decision of the Members
                                                                             of the Commission of 15 June 2001, ‘approving’ the
                                                                             alleged agreement of 4 April 2001 between Vice President
                                                                             Kinnock and the trade unions and staff associations
                                                                             concerning the resources available to the staff representa-
In support of his application, the applicant pleads, first,
infringement of Articles 11 and 12 of the agreement entered                  tives and the rules regarding resources available to the
into by the Commission and the unions adopted on 20 Septem-                  staff representatives from 1 January 2002;
ber 1974. According to the applicant, the contested decision
merely approved the agreement of 4 April 2001, whereas the
said agreement had not been agreed to by all the unions and            —     annul the abovementioned decision of 15 June 2001;
could not therefore be regarded as effective.
                                                                       —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
Secondly, the applicant pleads infringement of Article 24a of
the Staff Regulations, Articles 18, 19 and 20 of the framework
agreement of 20 September 1974, manifest error of assessment
and breach of the principle of non-discrimination. According
to the applicant, the effect of the agreement of 4 April 2001 is       Pleas in law and main arguments
that of sharing the financial and human resources necessary to
the running of the unions in accordance with the criteria of
representativity. The applicant claims that those criteria are
erroneous and arbitrary, since they favour unfairly certain
                                                                       The pleas in law and main arguments put forward in this case
unions and no longer allow unions freely to choose their own
political action.                                                      are identical with those in Case T-226/02.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 8 June 1995 in Case T-583/93: P v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Decision compulsorily reassigning the applicant to a post entailing, in particular, loss of the allowance provided for by Article 56a of the Staff Regulations - Duty to provide a statement of reasons)

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: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Bremen by order of that court of 7 March 1995 in the case of Brigitte Kording v. Senator für Finanzen (Case C-100/95)

text:
3 . 6 . 95             EN |                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 137/ 13
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht                    amended by Royal Decree Law 3/89 of 31 March 1989
Bremen by order of that court of 7 March 1995 in the case of                 ( now Article 215 ( 3 ) of Royal Legislative Decree 1 /1994
            Brigitte Kording v. Senator fur Finanzen                         of 20 June 1994 ) be considered an unemployment
                         ( Case C-100/95 )                                   benefit within the meaning of Article 4 ( 1 ) of Regulation
                                                                             ( EEC ) No 1408/71 ?
                           ( 95/C 137/26 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        If the foregoing question is answered in the affirmative :
European Communities by an order of the Finanzgericht
( Finance Court ) Bremen, Second Senate, of 7 March 1995 ,              2 . Must Article 67 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 ( in
which was received at the Court Registry on 30 March                         its present version ) be interpreted, as regards the
1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Brigitte Kording              particular facts to which it is to be applied , as meaning
v. Senator fur Finanzen on the following question :                          that periods of insurance or of employment completed
                                                                             under the legislation of any other Member State must be
Is there an infringement, in the form of ' indirect                          taken into account for the purposes of obtaining the
discrimination against women', of Article 3 ( 1 ) of Directive               unemployment allowance for persons over 52 years of
76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 (') or other Community                         age, provided for by Article 215 ( 3 ) of Royal Legislative
law, where, under domestic legislation ( Paragraph 38 ( 1 ),                 Decree 1 /1994 of 20 June 1994, which approves the
                                                                             consolidated version of the General Law on Social
No 4a , second subparagraph, in conjunction with
Paragraph 36 ( 3 ) of the Steuerberatungsgesetz ( Law on Tax                 Security, to the extent to which the right to a retirement
Consultancy ), the 15-year minimum period of employment                      pension may be obtained on the basis of such
as a case officer in the executive class of the revenue                      contributions, subject to age requirements , in a Member
administration, which is required for exemption from the                     State other than that of the competent institution ?
tax consultants ' examination, is proportionately extended
in the case of part-time employment involving working                   3 . Can that be the case even though the worker has not
hours of no less than one-half of the normal working hours ,                 paid contributions in Spain or has paid contributions for
and where, of the 119 part-time executive-class officers in                  less than one year, provided that he is entitled to a
the Bremen revenue administration, 110 are women                             retirement pension in any Member State ?
( 92,4% )?
                                                                        4 . Is the requirement that, for migrant workers to receive
(') OJ No L 39 , 14 . 2 . 1976 , p . 40 .                                    the unemployment allowance available for persons of
                                                                             more than 52 years of age, it must be shown that, subject
                                                                             to age requirements , they are entitled to a retirement
                                                                             pension payable by the Spanish social security scheme
                                                                              ( persons having such an entitlement in any other
                                                                             Member State being precluded from receiving such
                                                                             allowance ) contrary to Articles 48 ( 2 ) and 51 of the EC
                                                                             Treaty ?
References for preliminary rulings by Juzgado de lo Social
No 1 , Santiago de Compostela, by order of that court of
 13 March 1995 in the cases of Manuel Eugenio Fernandez
Balado and Jose Paredes v. Instituto Nacional de Empleo
           and Instituto Nacional de Seguridad Social
                ( Cases C-102/95 and C-103/95 )
                            ( 95 /C 137/27 )
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
                                                                        Bundesgerichtshof by order of that court of 6 March 1995
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  in the case of MSG, Mainschiffahrts-Genossenschaft e.G.
European Communities by an order of Juzgado de lo Social                                v. Les Gravieres Rhenanes Sari
 ( Social Court) No 1 , Santiago de Compostela, of 13 March                                      Case C-106/95 )
 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on                                               ( 95/C 137/28 )
 13 March 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the cases of
Manuel Eugenio Fernandez Balado and Jose Paredes against
Instituto Nacional de Empleo ( National Employment                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Institute ) and Instituto Nacional de Seguridad Social
                                                                        European Communities by an order of the
 ( National Social Security Institute ) on the following
                                                                        Bundesgerichtshof ( Federal Court of Justice ) — Second
 questions :                                                            Civil Senate — of 6 March 1995 , which was received at the
                                                                         Court Registry on 31 March 1995 , for a preliminary ruling
 1 . Must the unemployment allowance for persons over 52                in the case of MSG, Mainschiffahrts-Genossenschaft e.G.
      years of age applied for by the plaintiff, provided for by        v. Les Gravieres Rhenanes Sari on the following
      Article 13 ( 2 ) of Law 31 /84 of 2 August 1984, as                questions :


title: Case T-108/01: Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 June 2006 — Free Trade Foods v Commission (Action for annulment — Action for damages — Sugar qualifying as EC/OCT originating products — Safeguard measure — Applicant's failure to proceed — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/41

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 June 2006 — Free Trade Foods v Commission
   (Case T-108/01) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Action for damages - Sugar qualifying as EC/OCT originating products - Safeguard measure - Applicant's failure to proceed - No need to adjudicate)
   (2006/C 224/88)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Free Trade Foods NV (Curaçao, Netherlands Antilles) (represented by: M. Slotboom and N. Helder, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: T. van Rijn, Agent)

      Parties intervening in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, Agent) and French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and L. Bernheim, Agents)
   Re:
   First, an application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 396/2001 of 27 February 2001 providing for the continued application of safeguard measures for imports from the overseas countries and territories of sugar sector products with EC/OCT cumulation of origin for the period 1 March to 30 June 2001 (OJ 2001 L 58, p. 13), and, second, an application for compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant following the adoption of the contested regulation.
   Operative part of the order
   The Court hereby orders:

               1.

               There is need to adjudicate on this action.

               2.

               The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay those of the defendant. The Kingdom of Spain and the French Republic must bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 227, 11.8.2001.


title: Case T-407/08: Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2010 — MIP Metro v OHIM — CBT Comunicación Multimedia (Metromeet) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark ‘Metromeet’ — Earlier national word mark ‘meeting metro’ — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/40

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2010 — MIP Metro v OHIM — CBT Comunicación Multimedia (Metromeet)
   (Case T-407/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark ‘Metromeet’ - Earlier national word mark ‘meeting metro’ - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2010/C 221/64
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: CBT Comunicación Multimedia, SL (Getxo, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 June 2008 (Case R 387/2007-1) relating to opposition proceedings between MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG and CBT Comunicación Multimedia, SL.

      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 12 June 2008 (Case R 387/2007-1) concerning opposition proceedings between MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG and CBT Comunicación Multimedia, SL.

               2.

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 327, 20.12.2008.


title: Case C-36/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Minden (Germany) lodged on 25 January 2017 — Daher Muse Ahmed v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

text:
               3.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Minden (Germany) lodged on 25 January 2017 — Daher Muse Ahmed v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   (Case C-36/17)
   (2017/C 213/18)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Minden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Daher Muse Ahmed

      Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   By order of 5 April 2017, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Third Chamber) ruled that the provisions and principles of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (1) which govern, directly or indirectly, the time limits for lodging an application for a take-back are not applicable in a situation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which a third-country national has lodged an application for international protection in one Member State after being granted the benefit of subsidiary protection by another Member State.

      (1)  OJ 2013 L 180, p. 31.


title: Case C-155/16: Order of the President of the Court of 8 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Sarval Sud-Est SAS, Siffda Bretagne SAS, Siffda Centre SAS, Siram SARL, Francisque Gay, Patrick Legras de Grandcourt v Association ATM Porc, Association ATM Avicole, Association ATM équidés Angee, Association ATM éleveurs de ruminants, Association ATM lapins Clipp, Association ATM palmipèdes gras — Cifog, Association ATM ponte — CNPO, Atemax France, Monnard Jura SNC, Fédération nationale bovine (FNB), Fédération nationale porcine

text:
               19.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/37

         Order of the President of the Court of 8 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Sarval Sud-Est SAS, Siffda Bretagne SAS, Siffda Centre SAS, Siram SARL, Francisque Gay, Patrick Legras de Grandcourt v Association ATM Porc, Association ATM Avicole, Association ATM équidés Angee, Association ATM éleveurs de ruminants, Association ATM lapins Clipp, Association ATM palmipèdes gras — Cifog, Association ATM ponte — CNPO, Atemax France, Monnard Jura SNC, Fédération nationale bovine (FNB), Fédération nationale porcine
   (Case C-155/16) (1)

   (2016/C 343/50)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 200, 6.6.2016.


title: Case T-223/10: Order of the General Court of 14 September 2011 — Regione Puglia v Commission (ERDF — Reduction of financial assistance — Withdrawal of the contested debit note — Cessation of existence of the dispute — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               12.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/21

         Order of the General Court of 14 September 2011 — Regione Puglia v Commission
   (Case T-223/10) (1)

   (ERDF - Reduction of financial assistance - Withdrawal of the contested debit note - Cessation of existence of the dispute - No need to adjudicate)
   2011/C 331/40
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Regione Puglia (Bari, Italy) (represented by: F. Brunelli and A. Aloia, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Prete and A. Steiblytė, agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of debit note No 3241001630 of 26 February 2010 concerning Commission Decision C(2009) 10350 of 22 December 2009, incorporating a reduction in the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) assistance granted in application of Commission Decision C(2000) 2349 of 8 August 2000, incorporating approval of the operational programme POR Puglia for the period 2000-2006, on the basis of Objective No 1.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               Each party shall bear its own costs relating to the present proceedings and the Regione Puglia shall bear the costs relating to the interlocutory proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.


title: Case T-341/14: Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2016 — Klyuyev v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the applicant’s name — Proof that inclusion on the list is justified)

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/37

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2016 — Klyuyev v Council
   (Case T-341/14) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the applicant’s name - Proof that inclusion on the list is justified))
   (2016/C 098/48)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sergiy Klyuyev (Donetsk, Ukraine) (represented by: R. Gherson, T. Garner, Solicitors, and B. Kennelly, Barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: Á. de Elera-San Miguel Hurtado and J.-P. Hix, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Gauci and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 66, p. 26), Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 66, p. 1), Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/876 of 5 June 2015 amending Decision 2014/119 (OJ 2015 L 142, p. 30) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/869 of 5 June 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 (OJ 2015 L 142, p. 1), in so far as the applicant’s name was included on the list of persons, entities and bodies covered by those restrictive measures.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine and Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in so far as Mr Sergiy Klyuyev’s name was included on the list of persons, entities and bodies covered by those restrictive measures;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs, and to pay those incurred by Mr Klyuyev, in relation to the claim for annulment made in the application;

               4.

               Orders Mr Klyuyev to bear his own costs, and to pay those incurred by the Council, in relation to the claim for annulment made in the statement modifying the form of order sought;

               5.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.


title: Case T-5/13: Action brought on 9 January 2013 — Iran Liquefied Natural Gas v Council

text:
               23.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/24

         Action brought on 9 January 2013 — Iran Liquefied Natural Gas v Council
   (Case T-5/13)
   2013/C 55/42
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Iran Liquefied Natural Gas Co. (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, G. Pandey, P. Gjørtler, D. Rovetta, D. Sellers and N. Pilkington, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 (2), in so far as the contested acts include the applicant in the list of persons and entities made subject to the restrictive measures.;

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs of the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging violation of the right of hearing, as the Council failed to perform a hearing of the applicant, and that no contrary indications would justify this, especially in relation to the imposition on current contractual engagements.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging violation of the obligation to give notice, as the Council failed to notify the contested measures to the applicant.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging insufficient statement of grounds, as the limited scope of the statement of reasons has been confirmed by the Council to the applicant, while requests for access to documents were not replied to.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging violation of the right of defence, as the applicant was denied the possibility of effectively arguing against the findings of the Council, as these findings were withheld from the applicant.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment, as contrary to the claim of the Council, the applicant is not a subsidiary of the National Iranian Oil Company, and in any case the Council has not substantiated that even if it were a subsidiary of the latter, this would entail an economic benefit for the Iranian State that would be contrary to the aim of the contested measures.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging breach of the fundamental right to property, as by imposing on the bank holdings and current contractual engagements of the applicant the Council has violated the basic right of property by taking measures for which the proportionality cannot be ascertained.

      (1)  Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 58)

      (2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 16)


title: Case C-608/11 P: Order of the Court of 12 July 2012 — Land Wien v European Commission (Appeal — Nuclear energy — Extension of the nuclear power station at Mochovce (Slovak Republic) — Commission decision to take no further action on complaint — Action for annulment — Refusal by the Commission to send the documents requested — Action for failure to act — Minimum requirements laid down in Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Inadmissibility)

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/21

         Order of the Court of 12 July 2012 — Land Wien v European Commission
   (Case C-608/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Nuclear energy - Extension of the nuclear power station at Mochovce (Slovak Republic) - Commission decision to take no further action on complaint - Action for annulment - Refusal by the Commission to send the documents requested - Action for failure to act - Minimum requirements laid down in Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court - Inadmissibility)
   2012/C 366/37
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Land Wien (represented by: W.-G. Schärf, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. Patakia, P. Oliver and G. Wilms, agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 September 2011 in Case T-267/10 Land Wien v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed the applicant’s action seeking, on the one hand, annulment of the Commission’s decision of 25 March 2010 to take no further action on its complaint regarding the project to extend blocks 3 and 4 of the nuclear power station at Mochovce (Slovak Republic) and, on the other hand, a declaration that the Commission failed to act, within the meaning of Article 265 TFEU, to the extent that not all the documents relating to that project were sent to the applicant, in breach of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43) — Infringement of the right of access to documents, of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and of the Euratom Treaty

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Land Wien is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.


title: Case F-75/07: Action brought on 29 July 2007 — Brown and Volpato v Commission

text:
               6.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/30

         Action brought on 29 July 2007 — Brown and Volpato v Commission
   (Case F-75/07)
   (2007/C 235/55)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Colin Brown (Brussels, Belgium) and Alberto Volpato (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: B. Cortese and C. Cortese, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Commission of the European Communities published in Administrative Notices No 55-2006 of 17 November 2006 inasmuch as it promoted the applicants to grade AD9, step 1, under the 2006 promotion exercise;

               —

               in so far as is necessary, annul the Commission decisions of 23 April 2007 inasmuch as they dismissed the complaints brought by the applicants;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants, Commission officials, challenge the decision to promote them, under the 2006 promotion exercise, to grade AD9, a new grade inserted, since 1 May 2004 between grades AD8 (formerly A7) and AD10 (formerly A6). They submit that they should have been promoted not to grade AD9 but to grade AD10, following the example of what had been done in the 2004 promotion exercise in respect of officials who, like the applicants, were in grade A7 on 30 April 2004 and were eligible for promotion to the next grade, A6.
   The applicants rely on very similar pleas in law to the first and third pleas in law relied on in Case F-105/06 (1).

      (1)  OJ C 281, 18.11.2006, p. 45.


title: Case T-216/14: Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2015 — Volkswagen v OHIM (EXTRA) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark EXTRA — Mark comprised of an advertising slogan — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               15.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 198/38

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2015 — Volkswagen v OHIM (EXTRA)
   (Case T-216/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark EXTRA - Mark comprised of an advertising slogan - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 198/51)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by: U. Sander and J. Eberhardt, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially M. Fischer, then A. Schifko, agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 February 2014 (Case R 1788/2013-1) relating to the application for registration of the word sign EXTRA as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Volkswagen AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 194, 24.6.2014.


title: Case T-471/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 2 December 2008 — Karatzoglou v EAR (Staff cases — Temporary staff — Referral back to the Court of First Instance after setting aside — Termination of contract — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Misuse of powers — Principle of sound administration)

text:
               24.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/24

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 2 December 2008 — Karatzoglou v EAR
   (Case T-471/04) (1)

   (Staff cases - Temporary staff - Referral back to the Court of First Instance after setting aside - Termination of contract - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Misuse of powers - Principle of sound administration)
   (2009/C 19/43)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Georgios Karatzoglou (Préveza, Greece) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR) (represented by: S. Orlandi and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the decision of the EAR of 26 February 2004 to terminate the applicant's contract of employment
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Georgios Karatzoglou and the European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR) each to bear their own costs incurred before the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance.

      (1)  OJ C 57, 5.3.2005.


title: Case F-8/13: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 26 March 2014  — CP v Parliament (Civil service  — Official  — Head of Unit  — Trial period  — Non-confirmation of the post of Head of Unit  — Reassignment to a post other than management  — Internal rules of the Parliament)

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/56

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 26 March 2014 — CP v Parliament
   (Case F-8/13) (1)

   ((Civil service - Official - Head of Unit - Trial period - Non-confirmation of the post of Head of Unit - Reassignment to a post other than management - Internal rules of the Parliament))
   2014/C 142/75
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

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

      Defendant: Parliament (represented by: O. Caisou-Rousseau and V. Montebello-Demogeot, Agents)

      Re:

   The application to annul the decision not to confirm the applicant in his post of Head of Unit and to transfer him to the Directorate General for Internal Policies

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of 23 March 2012 by which the European Parliament did not confirm CP in his post as Head of Unit and transferred him with his post to the Directorate General for Internal Policies;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by CP.

      (1)  OJ C 108 13/04/2013, p. 39.


title: Case T-93/13: Order of the General Court of 8 May 2015 — United Kingdom v ECB

text:
               13.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/25

         Order of the General Court of 8 May 2015 — United Kingdom v ECB
   (Case T-93/13) (1)

   (2015/C 228/34)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 114, 20.4.2013.


title: Case T-125/04: Action brought on 28 March 2004 by Patrick Rousseaux against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/49

         Action brought on 28 March 2004 by Patrick Rousseaux against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-125/04)
   (2004/C 118/106)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 28 March 2004 by Patrick Rousseaux, resident in Brussels, represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

               —

               annul the decision of the appointing authority of 14 April 2003 inasmuch as it:

                           —

                           did not classify the applicant in Grade A6, step 3, at the time of his recruitment;

                           —

                           did not reconstitute the career in terms of the applicant's grade by bringing forward the date of his promotions to Grades A5 and A4;

                           —

                           limited the date of effect of the reclassification decision in regard to its pecuniary effects to 5 October 1995;

               —

               annul the decision of the appointing authority of 11 December 2003, served on the applicant on 19 December 2003, rejecting his complaint R/474/03;

               —

               order the defendant to pay compensation provisionally set in the amount of EUR 125 000 per annum in the event that, owing to impossibility, it is unable to reconstitute the applicant's career in terms of his grade;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all the costs.

         Pleas and main arguments
   The applicant in these proceedings who, on his recruitment in October 1986, was classified in Grade A7, step 3, challenges the decision of the appointing authority classifying him, on revision, in Grade A6, step 2, and not in Grade A6, step 3, refusing to reconstitute his career and limiting the date of effect of the decision on his reclassification to 5 October 1995.
   The pleas raised are identical to those in Case T-125/04 Rousseaux v Commisison
   In support of his claims he asserts:

               —

               on seniority in terms of step as at the date of recruitment, infringement of the Commission Decision of 6 June 1973 and 1 September 1983 on the criteria applicable to the appointment to grade and step classification on recruitment, infringement of Article 4(3) of the Staff Regulations and the principles of equal treatment, as well as breach of the duty to provide a statement of reasons;

               —

               in regard to the refusal to reconstitute the applicant's career, infringement of Article 5(3) and 45 of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               infringement of Article 62 of the Staff Regulations in regard to limitation of the pecuniary effects of the decision concerning his classification.


title: Case C-201/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 13 April 2017 — Holger Schlosser and Nicole Schlosser v TUIfly GmbH

text:
               17.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 231/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 13 April 2017 — Holger Schlosser and Nicole Schlosser v TUIfly GmbH
   (Case C-201/17)
   (2017/C 231/14)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Hannover

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Holger Schlosser and Nicole Schlosser

      Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the absence on sick leave of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1) In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?

               2.

               In the event that the first question is answered in the negative: is the spontaneous absence, due to unauthorised work stoppage under employment law or collective agreements (‘wildcat strike’), of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? In the event that the second question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?

               3.

               In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: must the extraordinary circumstance itself have been present at the time the flight was cancelled or is the operating air carrier entitled to devise a new flight plan pursuant to economic considerations?

               4.

               In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: does the avoidability criterion relate to the extraordinary circumstance or, rather, to the consequences of the occurrence of the extraordinary circumstance?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.