title: Case C-152/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Munich (Germany) lodged on 28 March 2011 — Johann Odar v Baxter Deutschland GmbH

text:
               9.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 204/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Munich (Germany) lodged on 28 March 2011 — Johann Odar v Baxter Deutschland GmbH
   (Case C-152/11)
   2011/C 204/24
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Arbeitsgericht Munich

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Johann Odar

      Defendant: Baxter Deutschland GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is a national rule which provides that different treatment on the ground of age may be lawful if, in the framework of an occupational social security scheme, the management and the works council have excluded from social plan benefits employees who are financially secure because they are entitled to a pension after, as the case may be, drawing unemployment benefit, contrary to the prohibition of discrimination on the ground of age, laid down by Articles 1 and 16 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, (1) or is that unequal treatment justified under Article 6(1), second sentence, point (a), of Directive 2000/78/EC?

               2.

               Is a national rule which provides that different treatment on the ground of age may be lawful if, in the framework of an occupational social security scheme, the management and the works council have excluded from social plan benefits employees who are financially secure because they are entitled to a pension after, as the case may be, drawing unemployment benefit, contrary to the prohibition of discrimination on the ground of disability laid down by Articles 1 and 16 of Directive 2000/78/EC?

               3.

               Is a rule of an occupational social security scheme which provides that, in the case of employees older than 54 years of age who are made redundant on operational grounds, an alternative calculation will be made of the compensation on the basis of the earliest possible date on which their pension will begin and, by comparison with the more normal method of calculation, will in particular take account of the length of service, whereby the smaller amount of compensation, of at least one half of the normal sum in compensation, will be paid, contrary to the prohibition of discrimination on the ground of age laid down by Articles 1 and 16 of Directive 2000/78/EC, or is that unequal treatment justified under Article 6(1), second sentence, point (a), of Directive 2000/78/EC?

               4.

               Is a rule of an occupational social security scheme which provides that, in the case of employees older than 54 years of age who are made redundant on operational grounds, an alternative calculation will be made of the compensation on the basis of the earliest possible date on which their pension will begin and, by comparison with the more normal method of calculation, will in particular take account of the length of service, whereby the smaller amount of compensation, of at least one half of the normal sum in compensation, will be paid, the alternative method of calculation taking into account a retirement pension on the ground of disability, contrary to the prohibition of discrimination on the ground of disability laid down by Articles 1 and 16 of Directive 2000/78/EC?

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.


title: Case C-376/07: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 February 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Kamino International Logistics BV (Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Tariff classification — Monitors of the liquid crystal display (LCD) type with SUB-D, DVI-D, USB, S-video and composite-video sockets — Heading 8471 — Heading 8528 — Regulation (EC) No 754/2004)

text:
               18.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/3

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 February 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Kamino International Logistics BV
   (Case C-376/07) (1)

   (Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff classification - Monitors of the liquid crystal display (LCD) type with SUB-D, DVI-D, USB, S-video and composite-video sockets - Heading 8471 - Heading 8528 - Regulation (EC) No 754/2004)
   2009/C 90/05
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Defendant: Kamino International Logistics BV

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1789/2003 of 11 September 2003 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2003 L 281, p. 1) — Colour monitor capable of displaying signals from an automatic data-processing machine and from another source — Classification under heading 8471 of the CN — Applicability and validity of Commission Regulation (EC) No 754/2004 of 21 April 2004 on the classification of certain goods in the CN (OJ 2004 L 118, p. 32)

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Monitors such as those at issue in the main proceedings are not excluded from classification in subheading 8471 60 90, as units of the kind used ‘principally’ in an automatic data-processing system within the meaning of Note 5(B)(a) to Chapter 84 of the combined nomenclature constituting 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 1789/2003 of 11 September 2003, solely because they are capable of displaying signals coming both from an automatic data-processing machine and from other sources.

               2.

               In order to determine whether monitors such as those at issue in the main proceedings are units of the kind used principally in an automatic data-processing system, the national authorities, including the courts, must refer to the indications given in the Explanatory Notes relating to heading 8471 of the Harmonised System introduced by the International Convention on the Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System, concluded in Brussels on 14 June 1983, and the Protocol of Amendment thereto of 24 June 1986, in particular to points 1 to 5 of Part One, Chapter I(D), relating to display units of automatic data-processing machines.

               3.

               Commission Regulation (EC) No 754/2004 of 21 April 2004 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature is not applicable for the purposes of tariff classification of the monitors at issue in the main proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.


title: Case C-84/14 P: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 July 2015 — Forgital Italy SpA v Council of the European Union, European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Action for annulment — Fourth subparagraph of Article 263 TFEU — Right to bring proceedings — Locus standi — Natural or legal persons — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Customs rules amending the conditions of tariff suspension — Possible to bring proceedings before the national courts)

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/4

         Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 July 2015 — Forgital Italy SpA v Council of the European Union, European Commission
   (Case C-84/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Action for annulment - Fourth subparagraph of Article 263 TFEU - Right to bring proceedings - Locus standi - Natural or legal persons - Regulatory act entailing implementing measures - Customs rules amending the conditions of tariff suspension - Possible to bring proceedings before the national courts))
   (2015/C 320/05)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Forgital Italy SpA (represented by: V. Turinetti di Priero and R. Mastroianni, avvocati)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Florindo Gijón and K. Pellinghelli, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: A. Caeiros and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Forgital Italy SpA shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 28.4.2014.


title: Case C-54/07: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Brussel (Belgium)) — Centrum voor gelijkheid van kansen en voor racismebestrijding v Firma Feryn NV (Directive 2000/43/EC — Discriminatory criteria for selecting staff — Burden of proof — Penalties)

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/11

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Brussel (Belgium)) — Centrum voor gelijkheid van kansen en voor racismebestrijding v Firma Feryn NV
   (Case C-54/07) (1)

   (Directive 2000/43/EC - Discriminatory criteria for selecting staff - Burden of proof - Penalties)
   (2008/C 223/17)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Arbeidshof te Brussel
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Centrum voor gelijkheid van kansen en voor racismebestrijding

      Defendant: Firma Feryn NV
   Re:
   Preliminary ruling — Arbeidshof te Brussel — Interpretation of Articles 2(2)(a), 8(1) and 15 of Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (OJ 2000 L 180, p. 22) — Staff selection criteria that discriminate directly on grounds of racial or ethnic origin — Burden of proof — Appraisal and establishment by a national court — Whether the national court is, or is not, under an obligation to order that an end be put to the discrimination
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The fact that an employer states publicly that it will not recruit employees of a certain ethnic or racial origin constitutes direct discrimination in respect of recruitment within the meaning of Article 2(2)(a) of Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin, such statements being likely strongly to dissuade certain candidates from submitting their candidature and, accordingly, to hinder their access to the labour market.

               2.

               Public statements by which an employer lets it be known that under its recruitment policy it will not recruit any employees of a certain ethnic or racial origin are sufficient for a presumption of the existence of a recruitment policy which is directly discriminatory within the meaning of Article 8(1) of Directive 2000/43. It is then for that employer to prove that there was no breach of the principle of equal treatment. It can do so by showing that the undertaking's actual recruitment practice does not correspond to those statements. It is for the national court to verify that the facts alleged are established and to assess the sufficiency of the evidence submitted in support of the employer's contentions that it has not breached the principle of equal treatment.

               3.

               Article 15 of Directive 2000/43 requires that rules on sanctions applicable to breaches of national provisions adopted in order to transpose that directive must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive, even where there is no identifiable victim.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.


title: Case C-57/13: Order of the President of the Court of 13 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Norte — Portugal) — Marina da Conceição Pacheco Almeida v Fundo de Garantia Salarial, IP, Instituto da Segurança Social, IP

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/23

         Order of the President of the Court of 13 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Norte — Portugal) — Marina da Conceição Pacheco Almeida v Fundo de Garantia Salarial, IP, Instituto da Segurança Social, IP
   (Case C-57/13) (1)

   2014/C 184/34
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 108, 13. 4. 2013.


title: Case T-246/09: Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2012 — Insula v Commission (Arbitration clause — Financing contracts for research and development projects — MEDIS and Dias.Net contracts — Lack of supporting documents and non-compliance with the contractual requirements in respect of some of the declared expenses — Retention of a sum intended for another co-contractor — Reimbursement of sums advanced — Partial inadmissibility of the action — Counterclaim by the Commission — Partial removal of need to adjudicate in relation to the counterclaim)

text:
               21.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2012 — Insula v Commission
   (Case T-246/09) (1)

   (Arbitration clause - Financing contracts for research and development projects - MEDIS and Dias.Net contracts - Lack of supporting documents and non-compliance with the contractual requirements in respect of some of the declared expenses - Retention of a sum intended for another co-contractor - Reimbursement of sums advanced - Partial inadmissibility of the action - Counterclaim by the Commission - Partial removal of need to adjudicate in relation to the counterclaim)
   2012/C 217/33
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Conseil scientifique international pour le développement des îles (Insula) (Paris, France) (represented by: J.-D. Simonet and P. Marsal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët and F. Mirza, and subsequently by A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët and D. Calciu, Agents, and by L. Defalque and S. Woog, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application, first, for a declaration that a claim of the Commission of EUR 189 241,64 is unfounded, second, that the Commission be ordered to issue a ‘credit note’ in that amount and, lastly, that the Commission be ordered to pay damages of EUR 212 597, principally, and EUR 230 025, in the alternative.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action brought by the Conseil scientifique international pour le développement des îles (Insula);

               2.

               Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the counterclaims submitted by the Commission in so far as they seek a declaration that Insula be ordered to pay the principal sum due and the interest thereon under the Dias.Net contract;

               3.

               Orders Insula to pay the Commission the principal sum of EUR 157 983,11, increased by default interest at the rate of 2,75 % per annum, from 16 May 2009 until full payment of that principal sum;

               4.

               Orders Insula to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission, including those relating to the procedure for interim relief.

      (1)  OJ C 193, 15.8.2009.


title: Case C-87/14: Action brought on 18February 2014 — European Commission v Ireland

text:
               7.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/27

         Action brought on 18February 2014 — European Commission v Ireland
   (Case C-87/14)
   2014/C 102/37
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Enegren, M. van Beek, Agents)

      Defendant: Ireland

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that:by failing to apply the provisions of Directive 2003/88/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of working time to the organisation of the working time of junior doctors (non-consultant hospital doctors), Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3, 5, 6, 17(2) and 17(5) of the Directive.

               —

               order Ireland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Article 3
   Ireland has failed to ensure, with regard to junior doctors, that they are provided with the minimum daily rest period per 24 hours.
   Article 5
   Ireland has failed to ensure that junior doctors are provided with the minimum uninterrupted rest period per each seven day period.
   Article 6
   Ireland has failed to ensure that that the average working time for each seven day period does not exceed 48 hours.
   Article 17(2)
   Ireland has failed to ensure that junior doctors are afforded equivalent periods of compensatory rest when required to work without having recourse to the rest periods indicated in Articles 3 and 5.
   Article 17(5)
   Ireland has not ensured that doctors in training do not exceed the weekly working time after the end of the transitional period laid down in Article 17(5).

      (1)  OJ L 299, p. 9


title: Case T-433/13: Judgment of the General Court of 5 May 2015 — Petropars Iran and Others v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Obligation to state reasons — Error of assessment — Plea of illegality — Right to conduct business — Right to property — Protection of public health, security and the environment — Precautionary principle — Proportionality — Rights of defence)

text:
               22.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 5 May 2015 — Petropars Iran and Others v Council
   (Case T-433/13) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Obligation to state reasons - Error of assessment - Plea of illegality - Right to conduct business - Right to property - Protection of public health, security and the environment - Precautionary principle - Proportionality - Rights of defence))
   (2015/C 205/38)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Petropars Iran Co. (Kish Island, Iran); Petropars Oilfields Services Co. (Kish Island); Petropars Aria Kish Operation and Management Co. (Tehran, Iran); Petropars Resources Engineering Kish Co. (Tehran) (represented by: S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy, Z. Burbeza, Solicitors, R. Blakeley, G. Beck, Barristers, and M. Brindle QC)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for (i) annulment of Council Decision 2013/270/CFSP of 6 June 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 156, p. 10) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 522/2013 of 6 June 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 156, p. 3) and (ii) a declaration that Article 20(1)(c) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39) and Article 23(2)(d) of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1) are inapplicable.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the following, in so far as they concern Petropars Aria Kish Operation and Management Co. and Petropars Resources Engineering Kish Co.:

                           —

                           Council Decision 2013/270/CFSP of 6 June 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran;

                           —

                           Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 522/2013 of 6 June 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran;

               2.

               Orders that the effects of Decision 2013/270 and Regulation No 522/2013 be maintained as regards Petropars Aria Kish Operation and Management Co. and Petropars Resources Engineering Kish Co. until the date of expiry of the period for bringing an appeal, as provided for in the first paragraph of Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, or, if an appeal is brought within that period, until the date of any dismissal of that appeal;

               3.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               4.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 313, 26.10.2013.


title: Case C-97/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid lodged on  20 February 2006  — Navicon SA v Administración del Estado

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/28

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid lodged on 20 February 2006 — Navicon SA v Administración del Estado
   (Case C-97/06)
   (2006/C 131/51)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Referring court
   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Navicon SA

      Defendant: Administración del Estado
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is the term ‘chartering’ in the exemption provided for in Article 15(5) of the Sixth Directive (1) to be interpreted as including only chartering of the entire capacity of the vessel (full chartering) or as including chartering relating to a part or percentage of the vessel's capacity (partial chartering)?

               2.

               Does the Sixth Directive preclude a national law which allows exemption only for full chartering?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).


title: Case T-551/08: Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2014  — H&R ChemParm v Commission (Competition — Agreements — Paraffin waxes market — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price fixing — Proof of the infringement — 2006 Guidelines for calculating the amount of fines — Reference period — Calculation of the value of sales — Gravity of the infringement — Cartel during the period of the infringement — Equal treatment — Proportionality)

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/39

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2014 — H&R ChemParm v Commission
   (Case T-551/08) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements - Paraffin waxes market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price fixing - Proof of the infringement - 2006 Guidelines for calculating the amount of fines - Reference period - Calculation of the value of sales - Gravity of the infringement - Cartel during the period of the infringement - Equal treatment - Proportionality))
   (2015/C 046/46)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: H&R ChemParm GmbH (Salzbergen, Germany) (represented by: initially M. Klusmann, lawyer, and S. Thomas, professor, then M. Klusmann)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Antoniadis and R. Sauer, Agents)

      Re:

   Primarily, an application for annulment of Commission Decision C (2008) 5476 final of 1 October 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.181 — Candle Waxes), in that it concerns the applicant, and, in the alternative, an application for a reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on it.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders H&R ChemPharm GmbH to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission;

               3.

               Orders H&R ChemPharm GmbH to refund the General Court the sum of EUR 10  000 under Article 90(a) of its Rules of Procedure.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.


title: Case C-224/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 April 2014  — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands, ING Groep NV, De Nederlandsche Bank NV (Appeal — Financial sector — Serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State — State Aid to a banking group — Form — Capital injection as part of a restructuring plan — Decision — Whether the aid compatible with the common market — Conditions — Amendment to the repayment terms of the aid — Private investor test)

text:
               26.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 159/3

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 April 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands, ING Groep NV, De Nederlandsche Bank NV
   (Case C-224/12 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Financial sector - Serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State - State Aid to a banking group - Form - Capital injection as part of a restructuring plan - Decision - Whether the aid compatible with the common market - Conditions - Amendment to the repayment terms of the aid - Private investor test))
   2014/C 159/03
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, S. Noë and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. de Ree, C. Wissels and J. Langer, acting as Agents, and P. Glazener, advocaat), ING Groep NV (represented by: O.W. Brouwer and J. Blockx, advocaten, and M. O’Regan, Solicitor), De Nederlandsche Bank NV (represented by: S. Verschuur and H. Gornall, advocaten, and M. Petite, avocat)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 2 March 2012 in Joined Cases T-29/10 and T-33/10 Netherlands and ING Groep v Commission by which the General Court granted the applications for the partial annulment of Commission Decision 2010/608/EC of 18 November 2009 on State aid C 10/09 (ex N 138/09) implemented by the Netherlands for ING’s Illiquid Assets Back Facility and Restructuring Plan (OJ 2010 L 274, p. 139)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders De Nederlandsche Bank NV to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 258, 25.8.2012.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 June 2001 in Case C-173/99 [reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division (Crown Office)]: The Queen v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Social policy — Protection of the health and safety of workers — Directive 93/104/EC — Entitlement to paid annual leave — Condition imposed by national legislation — Completion of a qualifying period of employment with the same employer)

text:
C 227/2                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          11.8.2001
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                         (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 26 June 2001
                         of 26 June 2001
                                                                         In Case C-212/99: Commission of the European Comuni-
                                                                                ties v Italien Republic (1)
in Case C-173/99 [reference for a preliminary ruling from
the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s
Bench Division (Crown Office)]: The Queen v Secretary                    (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Free
               of State for Trade and Industry (1)                       movement of workers — Principle of non-discrimination
                                                                         — Former foreign-language assistants — Recognition of
                                                                                acquired rights)
(Social policy — Protection of the health and safety of
workers — Directive 93/104/EC — Entitlement to paid                                                 (2001/C 227/03)
annual leave — Condition imposed by national legislation
— Completion of a qualifying period of employment with
                        the same employer)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                         (2001/C 227/02)
                                                                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                         In Case C-212/99, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         (Agents: P. J. Kuijper and E. Traversa), supported by United
                                                                         Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent:
In Case C-173/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of            J. E. Collins, assisted by C. Lewis) against Italian Republic
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the High Court of                (Agent: U. Leanza, assisted by G. Aiello) — application for a
Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Crown              declaration that, because of the administrative and contractual
Office) (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)           practices applied by certain public universities, which result in
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that          the non-recognition of the acquired rights of foreign-language
court between The Queen v Secretary of State for Trade and               assistants, although such recognition is guaranteed to its
Industry, ex parte: Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinemato-               national work-force, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
graphic and Theatre Union (BECTU) — on the interpretation                obligations under Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now Article 39
of Article 7 of Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November               EC) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann,
1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of work-             President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, F. Macken, N. Col-
ing time (OJ 1993 L 307, p. 18) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),             neric and J. N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), Judges;
composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, V. Skour-             L. A. Geelgoed, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,
is, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha                for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 June 2001, in
Rodrigues, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,             which it:
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
26 June 2001, in which it has ruled:
                                                                         1.    Declares that by not guaranteeing recognition of the rights
                                                                               acquired by foreign-language assistants, who have become
                                                                               associates and linguistic experts in their mother-tongue,
Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993                although such recognition is guaranteed to its national work-
concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time does            force, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
not allow a Member State to adopt national rules under which a                 under Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
worker does not begin to accrue rights to paid annual leave until he           Article 39 EC).
has completed a minimum period of 13 weeks’ uninterrupted
employment with the same employer.                                       2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                         3.    Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                                                                               Ireland to pay its own costs.
(1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.


title: Case F-5/12: Action brought on 10 January 2012 — ZZ v Frontex

text:
               5.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 133/29

         Action brought on 10 January 2012 — ZZ v Frontex
   (Case F-5/12)
   2012/C 133/58
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Frontex

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the decision of Frontex imposing a penalty on the applicant and the decision dismissing him.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 24 May 2011 dismissing the applicant;

               —

               Annul the decision of 16 April 2011 imposing a penalty on him;

               —

               Order Frontex to pay the costs.


title: Case T-320/16: Action brought on 24 June 2016 — Make up for ever v EUIPO — L’Oréal (MAKE UP FOR EVER)

text:
               16.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/28

         Action brought on 24 June 2016 — Make up for ever v EUIPO — L’Oréal (MAKE UP FOR EVER)
   (Case T-320/16)
   (2016/C 296/37)
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Make up for ever (Paris, France) (represented by: C. Caron, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: L’Oréal SA (Paris, France)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘MAKE UP FOR EVER’ — EU trade mark No 3 416 443

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2016 in Case R 985/2015-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the Community word mark ‘MAKE UP FOR EVER’ No 003416443 valid for all of the goods and services remaining referred to in the application;

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               remit the case to EUIPO for further prosecution if necessary;

               —

               render the company l’OREAL liable for the costs resulting from the proceedings before the Cancellation Division of EUIPO, the Board of Appeal of EUIPO and the present action before the General Court.

      Pleas in law

               —

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

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-149/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 November 2007 — Castellani v OHIM — Markant Handels und Service (CASTELLANI) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the figurative Community trade mark CASTELLANI — Earlier national word marks CASTELLUM and CASTELLUCA — Relative ground of refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               12.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 8/14

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 November 2007 — Castellani v OHIM — Markant Handels und Service (CASTELLANI)
   (Case T-149/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the figurative Community trade mark CASTELLANI - Earlier national word marks CASTELLUM and CASTELLUCA - Relative ground of refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2008/C 8/27)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Castellani SpA (Campagna Gello, Italy) (represented by: A. Di Maso and M. Di Maso, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. García Murillo, agent)

      The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Markant Handels und Service GmbH (Offenburg, Germany)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 February 2006 (Case R 449/2005-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Markant Handels und Service GmbH and Castellani SpA.
   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 22 February 2006 (Case R 449/2005 1);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 178, 29.7.2006.


title: Case F-82/12: Action brought on 30 July 2012 — ZZ v EIB

text:
               20.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/18

         Action brought on 30 July 2012 — ZZ v EIB
   (Case F-82/12)
   2012/C 319/35
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Isola, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Investment Bank

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the Adjudication Panel’s decision dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the result of the second overall appraisal of his work for 2007.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision adopted on 15 February 2012, in so far as the Adjudication Panel:

                           —

                           dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the 2007 staff report drawn up in 2011 following the annulment of that report as drafted in 2008 ordered by the Civil Service Tribunal by judgment of 8 March 2011, which determined Case F-59/09;

                           —

                           dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the refusal to recommend that he be promoted, following the annulment ordered by the Civil Service Tribunal by that judgment in Case F-59/09;

                           —

                           refused to conduct proceedings on the substance and, in reviewing only the issue of lawfulness, denied the applicant the right to obtain a second, effective appraisal of his work;

               —

               annul the promotion decisions of 29 April 2008 given that, in view of the appraisal made by his superiors, the EIB failed to take the applicant into consideration in the point ‘Promotions from Function E to D’;

               —

               annul all the related, consequent and previous measures, including the entire staff report for 2007 and the appraisal by the applicant’s superiors in so far as it fails to propose that he be given a mark A or B+ and promotion to Function D and, if appropriate, declare unlawful, and disapply, the guidelines, at least to the extent to which they unlawfully restrict the number of employees who may receive an overall mark of A or B+;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case T-293/10: Judgment of the General Court of 14 June 2012 — Seven Towns Ltd v OHIM (Representation of seven squares of different colours) (Community trade mark — Application for Community mark representing seven squares of different colours — Sign of which a Community trade mark may consist — Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               21.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 June 2012 — Seven Towns Ltd v OHIM (Representation of seven squares of different colours)
   (Case T-293/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community mark representing seven squares of different colours - Sign of which a Community trade mark may consist - Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 217/38
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Seven Towns Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: E. Schäfer, lawyer,)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 April 2010 (Case R 1475/2009-1), concerning an application for registration of a sign representing seven squares of different colours as a Community mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The General Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 25.9.2010.


title: Case T-427/08: Action brought on 24 September 2008 — CEAHR v Commission

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/44

         Action brought on 24 September 2008 — CEAHR v Commission
   (Case T-427/08)
   (2008/C 313/80)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Confédération Européenne des Associations d'Horlogers-Réparateurs (CEAHR) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Mathijsen, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision SG-Greffe(2008) D/204448 of 10 July 2008;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In the present case, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision SG-Greffe(2008) D/204448 of 10 July 2008 by which the Commission rejected, for lack of Community interest, the applicant's complaint regarding the alleged violations of Article 81 and 82 EC in connection with the watch manufacturers' refusal to supply spare parts to independent watch repairers [Case C(2008) 3600].
   In support of its claims the applicant argues that the Commission infringed the Treaty by deforming the applicant's complaint and thus, using materially incorrect facts in its decision.
   Furthermore, the applicant submits that the Commission committed errors in law and infringed Articles 81 and 82 EC by deciding that the watch manufacturers complained of didn't held a dominant position and that their refusal to sell spare parts outside the selective distribution system didn't constitute an abuse of their dominant position. The applicant also contests the Commission's conclusions that there were agreements or concerted practices between watch manufacturers.
   The applicant contends that the Commission misused its power by using the argument of lack of Community interest after a four-year investigation of the applicant's complaint.
   Moreover, the applicant claims that the Commission failed to state reasons thereby infringing Article 253 EC.
   Finally, in the applicant's opinion, the Commission infringed the principle of impartiality in investigating its complaint.


title: Case T-802/14: Action brought on 4 December 2014 — Laboratorios ERN v OHIM — michelle menard (Lenah.C)

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/58

         Action brought on 4 December 2014 — Laboratorios ERN v OHIM — michelle menard (Lenah.C)
   (Case T-802/14)
   (2015/C 046/75)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Laboratorios ERN, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: S. Correa, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: michelle menard GmbH — Berlin cosmetics (Berlin, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Lenah.C’ — Application for registration No 10 426 617

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 September 2014 in Case R 2260/2013-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM and, if applicable, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs (jointly and severally).

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-227/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden, sitting in Arnhem (Netherlands) lodged on 22 April 2016 — Jan Theodorus Arts v Veevoederbedrijf Alpuro BV

text:
               1.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden, sitting in Arnhem (Netherlands) lodged on 22 April 2016 — Jan Theodorus Arts v Veevoederbedrijf Alpuro BV
   (Case C-227/16)
   (2016/C 279/15)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden, sitting in Arnhem

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Jan Theodorus Arts

      Respondent: Veevoederbedrijf Alpuro BV

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is a set of clauses in an agreement between a calf fattener and an integration undertaking, …, from which it follows that the single payment allocated to the calf fattener pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (1) of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers is payable to the integration undertaking by means of a deduction from the price for the fattened calves, valid, given the objectives of that regulation, in particular the objective of ensuring a fair standard of living for farmers by means of direct income support and the promotion of public health, animal health, the environment and animal welfare?

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered in the negative: does the national court, given the conflict which exists with the objectives of Regulation No 73/2009, have the power to modify the agreement on the basis of the clausula rebus sic stantibus doctrine in such a way that the disadvantage resulting from the nullity of that set of clauses is fully or partially eliminated for the integration undertaking, in particular by lowering the price for fattened calves?

      (1)  Regulation establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16).


title: Case T-216/11: Action brought on 18 April 2011 — Progust v OHIM — Sopralex & Vosmarques (IMPERIA)

text:
               2.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/15

         Action brought on 18 April 2011 — Progust v OHIM — Sopralex & Vosmarques (IMPERIA)
   (Case T-216/11)
   2011/C 194/24
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Progust, SL (Girona, Spain) (represented by: M. E. López Camba and J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sopralex & Vosmarques SA (Brussels, Belgium)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant requests the Court to:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal in Case R 1036/2010-1 in its entirety;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by Progust, SL;

               —

               order Sopralex & Vosmarques SA to pay the costs incurred by Progust, SL.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Progust, SL.

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘IMPERIA’ (application for registration No 7.008.154), for goods and services in Classes 29, 30, 31, 32 and 43.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Sopralex & Vosmarques SA.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community figurative mark (No 3.260.288), containing the word element ‘IMPERIAL’ for goods in Class 29.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld and application for registration refused.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

      Pleas in law: Incorrect interpretation and application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


               19.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/20

         Removal from the register of Case C-106/04 (1)

   (2005/C 45/42)

      (Language of the case: French)

   By order of 29 November 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-106/04: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.

      (1)  OJ C 94 of 17.04.2004.


title: Case C-2/13: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France)) — Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Chef de l’agence de la direction nationale du renseignement et des enquêtes douanières v Humeau Beaupréau SAS (Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Chapter 64 — Import of components required for the manufacture of sports footwear — Heading 6404 — Footwear with outer soles of rubber, plastics, leather or composition leather and uppers of textile materials — Heading 6406 — Parts of footwear — General Rule 2(a) for the Interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature — Incomplete or unfinished article having the ‘essential character of the complete or finished article’ — Article ‘presented unassembled or disassembled’ — Explanatory Note for the interpretation of the Harmonised System — Assembly operations and not ‘working operations for completion into the finished state’ )

text:
               29.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/15

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France)) — Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Chef de l’agence de la direction nationale du renseignement et des enquêtes douanières v Humeau Beaupréau SAS
   (Case C-2/13) (1)

   (Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Chapter 64 - Import of components required for the manufacture of sports footwear - Heading 6404 - Footwear with outer soles of rubber, plastics, leather or composition leather and uppers of textile materials - Heading 6406 - Parts of footwear - General Rule 2(a) for the Interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature - Incomplete or unfinished article having the ‘essential character of the complete or finished article’ - Article ‘presented unassembled or disassembled’ - Explanatory Note for the interpretation of the Harmonised System - Assembly operations and not ‘working operations for completion into the finished state’)
   2014/C 93/24
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Chef de l’agence de la direction nationale du renseignement et des enquêtes douanières

      Defendant: Humeau Beaupréau SAS

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation (France) — Interpretation of Article 2(a) to the General Rule for the Interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature and of paragraph 7 of the Explanatory Notes to the Harmonised System — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Footwear manufacturing process — Assembly operations or working operations for completion into the finished state.

      Operative part of the judgment

   General Rule 2(a) for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature set out 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, in the version in force at the material time, must be interpreted as meaning that an upper, an outer sole and an inner sole, as an article presented unassembled having the essential character of footwear, come under heading 6404 of the combined nomenclature where, following their import, a counter must be inserted into the upper and the outer sole and the upper must be roughed for the purpose of their assembly.

      (1)  OJ C 71, 9.3.2013.


title: Case T-301/00: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  14 December 2005  — Groupe Fremaux and Palais Royal v Council and Commission (Non-contractual liability of the Community — Incompatibility of the Community regime governing the import of bananas with the rules of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) — Imposition by the United States of America of retaliatory measures in the form of increased customs duty levied on imports from the Community, pursuant to a WTO authorisation — Decision of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body — Legal effects — Community liability in the absence of unlawful conduct of its institutions — Causal link — Unusual and special damage)

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/23

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2005 — Groupe Fremaux and Palais Royal v Council and Commission
   (Case T-301/00) (1)

   (Non-contractual liability of the Community - Incompatibility of the Community regime governing the import of bananas with the rules of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) - Imposition by the United States of America of retaliatory measures in the form of increased customs duty levied on imports from the Community, pursuant to a WTO authorisation - Decision of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body - Legal effects - Community liability in the absence of unlawful conduct of its institutions - Causal link - Unusual and special damage)
   (2006/C 48/43)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Groupe Fremaux SA (Paris, France) and Palais Royal Inc. (Charlottesville, Virginia, United States) (represented by C. Lazarus, F. Prunet and L. Van den Hende, lawyers)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by J. Huber, F. Ruggeri Laderchi and S. Marquardt, acting as Agents) and Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by E. Righini, L. Gussetti and M. de Pauw, and subsequently by P. Kuijper, V. Di Bucci, C. Brown and E. Righini, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendants: Kingdom of Spain (represented initially by R. Silva de Lapuerta, and subsequently by E. Braquehais Conesa, acting as Agents)
   Application for
   compensation in respect of the damage allegedly caused by the levying by the United States of America of increased customs duty on imports of the applicants' cotton bed linen, as authorised by the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), following a finding that the Community regime governing the import of bananas was incompatible with the agreements and understandings annexed to the Agreement establishing the WTO
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders the applicants to bear, in addition to their own costs, the costs incurred by the Council and the Commission;

               3)

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.


title: Case T-262/07: Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2012 — Lithuania v Commission (Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Measures to be adopted as a result of the accession of new Member States — 2003 Act of Accession — Determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar, and the financial consequences of their elimination — Objective pursued by a provision of primary law — Decision 2007/361/EC)

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/12

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2012 — Lithuania v Commission
   (Case T-262/07) (1)

   (Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Measures to be adopted as a result of the accession of new Member States - 2003 Act of Accession - Determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar, and the financial consequences of their elimination - Objective pursued by a provision of primary law - Decision 2007/361/EC)
   2012/C 138/20
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas, E. Matulionytė and R. Krasuckaitė, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Tserepa-Lacombe and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: Republic of Poland (represented: initially by T. Nowakowski, subsequently by M. Dowgielewicz and lastly by M. Szpunar, B. Majczyna and D. Krawczyk, acting as Agents); and Slovak Republic (represented: initially by J. Čorba, and subsequently by B. Ricziová, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2007/361/EC of 4 May 2007 on the determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar and the financial consequences of their elimination in relation to the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (OJ 2007 L 138, p. 14)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision 2007/361/EC of 4 May 2007 on the determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar and the financial consequences of their elimination in relation to the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Republic of Lithuania;

               3.

               Orders the Slovak Republic and the Republic of Poland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.


title: Case C-141/09: Action brought on 21 April 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/33

         Action brought on 21 April 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-141/09)
   2009/C 141/59
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Dejmek and J. Sénéchal, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies, (1) and in particular Articles 1 to 4, 5 to 8, 9(2), 13 and 16 thereof, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 19 of that directive;

               —

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period prescribed for transposition of Directive 2005/56/EC expired on 14 December 2007. At the time the present action was brought, the defendant had not yet adopted all the measures necessary to transpose the directive or, in any event, had not notified those measures to the Commission.

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 310, p. 1.


title: Action brought on 5 September 1995 by Eridania Zuccherifici Nazionali SpA and others against the Council of the European Union (Case T-168/95)

text:
No C 299/ 1 6         EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      11 . 11 . 95
That      legislative   omission     unjustifiably    penalizes      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
manufacturers in those countries where the real rate of
financing costs is higher than 6,75% , and particularly              The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
Italian manufacturers, since in Italy the interest rate in           in Case T-20/ 94 .
question is 11,65% .
In the applicants' submission, the new Community rules
manifestly infringe :
                                                                     Action brought on 5 September 1995 by Eridania
                                                                     Zuccherifici Nazionali SpA and others against the Council
— Article 40 of the EEC Treaty , which excludes any                                       of the European Union
     discrimination between producers or consumers within                                     ( Case T-168/95 )
     the Community, and
                                                                                ( 95 /C 299/28 )
— Articles 30 and 34 of the EEC Treaty, since the
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
     mechanism in question places unjustified obstacles to
     applying free market principles to Italian producers . The
     distortion in question increases the competitiveness of         An action against the Council of the European Union was
     foreign products on the Italian market while decreasing         brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
     that of Italian products on other Community                     Communities on 5 September 1 995 by Eridania Zuccherifici
     markets .                                                       Nazionali SpA , with its registered office in Genoa , and
                                                                     Industria Saccarifera Italiana Agroindustriale SpA , with its
                                                                     registered office in Padua ( the Eridania-Zuccherifici
                                                                     Nazionali SpA Group ); Societa Sadam Zuccherifici , a
                                                                     division of Societa Esercizi Commerciali Industriali SpA,
                                                                     Societa Sadam Castiglionese SpA and Societa Sadam
                                                                     Abruzzo SpA, all registered in Bologna , and Societa
                                                                     Zuccherifico del Molise SpA, with its registered office in
                                                                     Termoli ( the Sadam Zuccherifici Group ); Societa Fondiaria
Action brought on 22 August 1995 by Hubertus Freiherr                Industriale Romagnola SpA, with its registered office in
von Marschalck against the Council of the European Union             Gesena , and Societa Ponteco Zuccheri SpA, with its
     and the Commission of the European Communities                  registered office in Pontelagoscuro ( the SFIR Group ),
                                                                     represented by Bernard O'Connor, Solicitor of the High
                       ( Case T-162/95 )                             Court of Ireland , and by Ivano Vigliotti and Paolo Crocetta,
                         ( 95/C 299/27 )                             of the Genoa Bar, with an adress for service in Luxembourg
                                                                     at the Chambers of Arsene Kronshagen , 12 Boulevard de la
                                                                     Foire .
               (Language of the Case: German)
                                                                     The applicants claim that the Court should :
An action against the Council of the European Union and              — annul Council Regulation ( EC ) No 1534/95 of 29 June
the Commission of the European Communities was brought                    1995 fixing, for the 1 995/96 marketing year, the derived
before the Court of First Instance of the European                       intervention prices for white sugar , the intervention
Communities on 22 August 1995 by Hubertus Freiherr von                   price for raw sugar, the minimum prices for A and B
Marschalck, represented by Bernd Meisterernst, Mechtild                  beet, and the amount of compensation for storage costs
Düsing, Dietrich Manstetten, Dr Frank Schulze and                        ( OJ 1995 L 148 , p. 1 1 ); or in any event annul Article 1 ( f)
Dr Winfried Haneklaus, Rechtsanwälte , Münster, with an                  thereof, fixing the derived intervention price for white
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                     sugar for all the areas in Italy,
Dupong & Associés, 14a Rue des Bains .
                                                                     — annul       all   other     measures      in relation    to    the
                                                                         abovementioned, whether prior, subsequent or
The applicant claims that the Court should :                              howsoever connected , including Council Regulation
                                                                          ( EEC ) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 and successive
                                                                         amendments thereto , concerning the common
 1 . order the defendants to pay the applicant milk                      organization of the markets in the sugar sector, or in
      quota compensation ( SLOM-II ) pursuant to Council                  any event annul Articles 3 , 5 and 6 thereof and all
      Regulation No 2187/93 of 22 July 1993 for the period                implementing measures,
      from 2 April 1984 to 15 June 1991 , amounting to
      DM 75 634,65 , together with 8 % interest from 1 9 May         — award costs in favour of the applicants .
      1992 , and to pay the costs of the proceedings,
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
2 . join the present case to Case T-77/93 Hülseberg and
      Others v. Council and Commission and likewise stay the         A number of Italian sugar-manufacturing companies, which
      proceedings .                                                  form groups within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation
 ---pagebreak--- 11 . 11 . 95          EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 299/ 17
( EEC ) No 193/82 and which together hold about 92% of                The applicant claims that the Court should :
the production quotas assigned to Italy as a whole, challenge
the new rules for the sugar sector in as much as they provide         — annul the Commission 's decision to regard the
for the total elimination of the aids to the Italian industry             applicant's absence from work between 8 and 23 August
which had been permitted until the 1994/95 marketing year                  1994 as unauthorized and to impute 10 days against his
while at the same time maintaining in force the system                    annual holiday entitlement,
whereby in deficit areas ( being those in which production is
lower than consumption ( sugar manufacturers pay a higher             — order the Commission to pay the costs .
minimum price for beet than that paid by manufacturers in
non-deficit areas . That difference, like the corresponding           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
difference between the intervention price and the derived
intervention price for sugar, is referred to as regionalization ,     The applicant challenges the Commission 's determination
and its original purpose was to allow producers in countries          that his absence from work during the second and third
with a surplus to supply deficit countries , covering the             weeks of August 1994 was unauthorized .
higher transport costs necessary .
                                                                      He states that it was not until he became aware of the
Given that Italy is not a deficit country, the fact that              contested decision of 21 September 1994 that he was told
regionalized prices are applied indicates, in the applicants'         that the Commission 's medical officer had concluded that
submission , that the arrangement has lost its original               the cessation of work prescribed by his attending doctor was
function and become a gratuitous and undue benefit for beet           unjustified , and that he should have resumed work
growers, entirely at the cost and to the enormous and                 immediately .
unwarranted detriment of Italian sugar manufacturers, who
are no longer compensated by the receipt of aids . In order to        The applicant considers that the institution 's medical
maintain the coherence of the system, abolition of the aids           officer, being merely a general practitioner engaged at given
and abolition of the regionalized prices should have gone             times to perform specific functions , had no jurisdiction in
hand in hand under the new system .                                   the matter beyond submitting a report to the appointing
                                                                      authority as to the validity of the medical certificate; only the
In the applicants' submission, the new Community rules :              institution had the authority to form the opinion that sick
                                                                      leave prescribed by an attending doctor was not binding
— infringe Article 40 of the EEC Treaty, which excludes               upon it and to order an official to resume work immediately .
     any discrimination between producers within the                  Moreover, pursuant to Article 25 of the Staff Regulations,
     Community and provides that any common price policy              such a decision must be communicated to the official
     is to be based on common criteria and uniform methods            concerned immediately in writing, which was not done in
     of calculation ,                                                 this case .
— are contrary to Articles 30 and 34 of the EEC Treaty,               The applicant also claims that he sent the Commission a
     since the mechanism in question places unjustified               medical certificate from his doctor prescribing cessation of
     obstacles to applying free market principles to Italian          work from 25 July to 19 August 1994 , and that under
     producers,                                                       Article 59 of the Staff Regulations he was therefore
                                                                      automatically entitled to sick leave . Although Article 59
— introduces a ' masked' aid to Italian growers , exclusively         permits the institution to require the applicant to undergo a
     at the expense of Italian sugar producers .                      medical examination, it does not authorize it, in the event of
                                                                      the medical officer disputing the validity of the medical
                                                                      certificate produced, to disregard that certificate and order
                                                                      the official concerned to resume work .
 Action brought on 8 September 1995 by Agustin Qui) ano
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                        ( Case T-l 69/95 )                            Action brought on 15 September 1995 by Paolo Carrer
                          ( 95/C 299/29 )                              against the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                                Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-170/95 )
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                ( 95/C 299/30 )
 An action against the Commission of the European
 Communities was brought before the Court of First                                    (Language of the case: Italian)
 Instance of the European Communities on 8 September
  1995 by Agustin Quijano, resident in Luxembourg,                     An action against the Court of Justice of the European
 represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and                 Communities was brought before the Court of First
 Ariane Tornel , all of the Brussels Bar, with an address for          Instance of the European Communities on 15 September
 service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson              1995 by Paolo Carrer, an official of the Court of Justice ,
 Sari , 1 Rue Glesener.                                                residing at Kehlen, Luxembourg, represented by Roberta


title: Case C-264/15 P: Appeal brought on 2 June 2015 by Makro autoservicio mayorista SA against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 12 March 2015 in Case T-269/12: Makro autoservicio mayorista v Commission

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/23

         Appeal brought on 2 June 2015 by Makro autoservicio mayorista SA against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 12 March 2015 in Case T-269/12: Makro autoservicio mayorista v Commission
   (Case C-264/15 P)
   (2015/C 294/29)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Makro autoservicio mayorista SA (represented by: P. De Baere et P. Muñiz, lawyers)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Spain

      Form of order sought

   The appellant requests the Court:

               —

               To set aside, in whole, the judgment delivered by the General Court in Case T-269/12;

               —

               To rule that the appeal is admissible;

               —

               To return the case to the General Court for a ruling on the substantive grounds of appeal;

               —

               To order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings and those before the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   This appeal is brought by Makro Autoservicio Mayorista S.A. against the judgment of 12 March 2015, in case T-269/12, Makro Autoservicio Mayorista S.A. v. Commission, in which the General Court dismissed as inadmissible the application for annulment of Commission Decision COM (2010) 22 final, on the ground that the Commission decision is not of direct concern to the appellant.
   The appellant submits that the General Court erred in law since the Spanish authorities have no discretion with regard to the result when they implement the Commission decision, and the Commission decision is therefore of direct concern to the appellant.
   More in particular, the appellant submits the following grounds of appeal:

               —

               The General Court erred in law when it held that the national authorities have a margin of discretion in the implementation of the contested decision with regard to the appellant.

               —

               Even if the national authorities have a margin of discretion, quod non, the General Court erred in law because the mere existence of discretion is insufficient to exclude direct concern.

               —

               The General Court erred in the legal characterization of the evidence, or incurred in a distortion of the evidence.


title: Case F-106/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 20 June 2011 — Gross and Others v Court of Justice (Staff cases — Annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/55

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 20 June 2011 — Gross and Others v Court of Justice
   (Case F-106/10) (1)

   (Staff cases - Annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants - No need to adjudicate)
   2011/C 252/122
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Ivo Gross (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) and Others (represented by: J. Kayser, lawyer)

      Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: A. V. Placco, Agent)

      Re:

   Claim for annulment of the decisions set out in the applicants’ salary adjustment slips for the period from July to December 2009 and in the salary slips issued since 1 January 2010 within the framework of the annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants pursuant to Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1296/2009 of 23 December 2009.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on Case F-106/10 Gross and Others v Court of Justice.

               2.

               Each party is ordered to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 72, 5.03.2011, p. 34.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 June 2005 in Case T-171/02 Regione autonoma della Sardegna v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Aid scheme for the restructuring of small agricultural enterprises — Aid affecting trade between Member States and distorting or threatening to distort competition — Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty — Conditional decision — Time-limits applicable to the procedure for controlling State aid — Protection of legitimate expectations — Statement of reasons — Intervention — Intervener's claims, pleas and arguments)

text:
               20.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/17

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 15 June 2005
   in Case T-171/02 Regione autonoma della Sardegna v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (State aid - Aid scheme for the restructuring of small agricultural enterprises - Aid affecting trade between Member States and distorting or threatening to distort competition - Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty - Conditional decision - Time-limits applicable to the procedure for controlling State aid - Protection of legitimate expectations - Statement of reasons - Intervention - Intervener's claims, pleas and arguments)
   (2005/C 205/30)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case T-171/02: Regione autonoma della Sardegna, represented by G. Aiello and G. Albenzio, avvocati dello Stato, with an address for service in Luxembourg, supported by Confederazione italiana agricoltori della Sardegna, Federazione regionale coltivatori diretti della Sardegna, Federazione regionale degli agricoltori della Sardegna, established in Cagliari (Italy), represented by F. Ciulli and G. Dore, lawyers, against Commission of the European Communities (Agent: V. Di Bucci, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of Commission Decision 2002/229/EC of 13 November 2001 on the aid scheme which the Sardinia Region (Italy) is planning to implement for the restructuring of holdings in difficulty in the protected crops sector (OJ 2002 L 77, p. 2) — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of H. Legal, President, V. Tiili, A.W.H. Meij, M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 June 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the Regione autonoma della Sardegna to pay the costs, with the exception of those referred to in point 3 below;

               3.

               Orders the Confederazione italiana agricoltori della Sardegna, the Federazione regionale coltivatori diretti della Sardegna and the Federazione regionale degli agricoltori della Sardegna to bear their own costs, in addition to those incurred by the Commission as a result of their intervention.

      (1)  OJ C 191 of 10.8.2002


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 July 2005 in Case C-214/04: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Substances harmful to the ozone layer — Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 — Maintenance of derogations not provided for in the regulation)

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/3

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 7 July 2005
   in Case C-214/04: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (1)

   (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations - Substances harmful to the ozone layer - Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 - Maintenance of derogations not provided for in the regulation)
   (2005/C 229/07)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-214/04 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: U. Wölker and A. Aresu) v Italian Republic (Agent: I.M. Braguglia, assisted by G. Fiengo) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 19 May 2004 — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, P. Kūris and J. Klučka (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 7 July 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that by maintaining arrangements for authorising the use of hydrochlorofluorocarbons in fire protection systems without complying with the restrictions and conditions laid down in Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that regulation.

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 190 of 24.7.2004.


title: Case C-161/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Paris (France) lodged on 6 April 2010 — Olivier Martinez, Robert Martinez v MGN Ltd

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/21

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Paris (France) lodged on 6 April 2010 — Olivier Martinez, Robert Martinez v MGN Ltd
   (Case C-161/10)
   2010/C 148/33
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de grande instance de Paris

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Olivier Martinez, Robert Martinez

      Defendant: MGN Limited

      Question referred

   Must Articles 2 and 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) be interpreted to mean that a court or tribunal of a Member State has jurisdiction to hear an action brought in respect of an infringement of personal rights allegedly committed by the placing on-line of information and/or photographs on an internet site published in another Member State by a company domiciled in that second State — or in a third Member State, but in any event a State other than the first Member State —:

               —

               on the sole condition that the internet site can be accessed from the first Member State,

               —

               on the sole condition that there is between the harmful act and the territory of the first Member State a link which is sufficient, substantial or significant and, in that case, whether that link can be created by:

                           —

                           the number of hits on the page at issue made from the first Member State, as an absolute figure or as a proportion of all hits on that page,

                           —

                           the residence, or nationality, of the person who complains of the infringement of his or her personal rights or, more generally, of the persons concerned,

                           —

                           the language in which the information at issue is broadcast or any other factor which may demonstrate the site publisher’s intention to address specifically the public of the first Member State,

                           —

                           the place where the events described occurred and/or where the photographic-images put on line were taken,

                           —

                           other criteria?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.


title: Case T-426/17: Action brought on 5 July 2017 — Item Industrietechnik v EUIPO (EFUSE)

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/59

         Action brought on 5 July 2017 — Item Industrietechnik v EUIPO (EFUSE)
   (Case T-426/17)
   (2017/C 277/83)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Item Industrietechnik GmbH (Solingen, Germany) (represented by: G. Hasselblatt, V. Töbelmann and M. Vitt, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark including the word element ‘EFUSE’ — Application No 15 463 003

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 April 2017 in Case R 1881/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case F-133/11: Action brought on 13 December 2011 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               5.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 133/29

         Action brought on 13 December 2011 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-133/11)
   2012/C 133/56
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: P. Goergen, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the Commission’s decision classifying the applicant, who was included in the reserve list of competition EPSO/A/17/04, notice of which was published before the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations, at grade AD6, step 2, under less favourable provisions.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the applicant’s classification in grade/step AD6/2 on the applicant’s appointment as a probationer with effect from 1 April 2011;

               —

               declare that, on an objective consideration of the applicant’s professional experience and in accordance with the principles underlying other vacancy notices, and having regard to the principle of pay being commensurate with performance, the applicant is entitled to be classified at grade AD11/2, or, in any event, at another appropriate grade;

               —

               in respect of the material damage caused to the applicant, award the applicant a sum — up to the date on which the decision on the applicant’s classification at the grade appropriate to the applicant’s professional experience and seniority is properly adopted — comprising the full difference (EUR 3 051,43 per month or an amount to be determined by experts) between the amounts corresponding to the applicant’s classification in accordance with the recruitment decision and the classification to which the applicant would have been entitled, together with default interest to the date of the decision on the applicant’s correct classification in grade, at the rate set by the European Central Bank;

               —

               put the applicant in a position whereby pension and other entitlements arising from the applicant’s employment relationship with the defendant are calculated or recalculated in the same way as they would have been had the applicant been correctly classified in grade — in accordance with the present application — and award the applicant the sum of EUR 10 000 for non-pecuniary loss, together with default interest at the rate set by the European Central Bank, from the date of the applicant’s recruitment to the defendant, or alternatively from the date of the present application, until full payment;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.