title: Action brought on 24 September 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic (Case C-312/96)

text:
No C 354/ 16           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  23 . 11 . 96
— order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the                     The Commission of the European Communities claims that
    costs .                                                           the Court should :
                                                                      — declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       administrative measures necessary in order to comply
                                                                          with Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993
— Under Article 1 of Council Directive 89/465/EEC, the                    coordinating the procurement procedures of entities
    Member States are no longer permitted as from                         operating in the water, energy, transport and
     1 January 1990 to exempt supplies of recuperable                     telecommunications sectors ('), the French Republic has
    material and fresh industrial waste pursuant to                       failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive, in
    Article 28 ( 3 ) and point 20 of Annex F of the original              particular Article 45 thereof,
    version of the sixth Directive ( 77/388/EEC ). As a result
    of Article 2 of Directive 77/388/EEC, such supplies are           — declare, in the alternative, that, by failing forthwith to
    now subject to value added tax .                                      inform the Commission of such measures , the French
                                                                          Republic has in any event failed to fulfil its obligations
— Merely making a request pursuant to Article 27 of                       under the said Directive ;
    Directive     77/388/EEC      cannot     detract  from    the
    Commission's power to bring proceedings under                     — order the French Republic to pay the costs .
    Article 169 of the EC Treaty for failure to fulfil
    obligations .                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    Moreover, the Commission denies that the procedure in             The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
    question (') has not been concluded . The short                   paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty is such as to
    time-limits prescribed by Article 27 ( 3 ) and ( 4 ) are          oblige Member States to whom directives are addressed to
    justified by requirements relating to legal certainty.            adopt the measures necessary for the implementation of
    Undertakings and Member States should be made                     such directives within the time-limit prescribed therein . The
    certain as quickly as possible about any national                 time-limit laid down in Article 45 of Directive 93/38/EEC
    measure constituting a derogation from the common                 expired on 1 July 1994 but the French Republic has not
    system of value added tax . The Netherlands                       adopted the necessary measures .
    Government itself has not taken any steps to eliminate
    the present unlawful state of affairs . In particular, it has     (') OJ No L 199 , 9 . 8 . 1993 , p . 84 .
    failed to place the matter on the Council 's agenda . Since
    the Council has not adopted a positive decision after the
    expiry of a reasonable time, the procedure initiated by
    the Netherlands Government under Article 27 must be
    regarded as closed . That Government's position that the
    procedure initiated in 1990 is still pending in mid-1995
                                                                      Action brought on 24 September 1996 by the Commission
    is also unconvincing given that the solution 'put
                                                                      of the European Communities against the French
    forward ' in 1990 was to be valid for only three years
                                                                                Republic
    according to the wording of the request.
                                                                                ( Case C-312/96 )
(') Letter of 24 August 1990 from the Commission to the other                                    ( 96/C 354/32 )
    Member States and the communication to the Council of
    22 October 1990 [ SEC(90 ) 2031 final ].                          An action against the French Republic was brought before
                                                                      the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                      24 September 1996 by the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities, represented by Hendrik van Lier, Legal
                                                                      Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                                                                      Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
                                                                      Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Action brought on 24 September 1996 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the French                        The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                             Republic                                 the Court should :
                        ( Case C-311 /96 )
                          ( 96/C 354/31 )                             — declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
                                                                          administrative measures necessary in order to comply
                                                                          with Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993
An action against the French Republic was brought before                  coordinating procedures for the award of public supply
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                       contracts ( ^ the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
24 September 1996 by the Commission of the European                       obligations under that Directive, in particular Article 34
Communities, represented by Hendrik van Lier, Legal                       thereof;
Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                  — declare, in the alternative, that, by failing forthwith to
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                                 inform the Commission of such measures, the French
 ---pagebreak--- 23 . 11 . 96              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 354/ 17
        Republic has in any event failed to fulfil its obligations        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the 0stre Landsret by
        under the said Directive;                                         a decision of that court of 4 September 1996 in the case of
                                                                             Brinkmann Tabakfabriken GmbH v. Skatteministeriet
— order the French Republic to pay the costs .                                                     ( Case C-3 19/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 354/34 )
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
C-3 1 1 /96 ( 2 ); the time-limit laid down in Article 34 of              European Communities by a decision of the 0stre Landsret
Directive 93/36/EEC expired on 14 June 1994 .                             [Eastern Regional Court] of 4 September 1996 , which was
                                                                          received at the Court Registry on 1 October 1996 , for a
(') OJ No L 199 , 9 . 8 . 1993 , p . 1 .                                  preliminary ruling in the case of Brinkmann Tabakfabriken
( 2 ) See Case C-3 11 /96 above .                                         GmbH against Skatteministeriet ( Ministry of Fiscal Affairs )
                                                                          on the following questions :
                                                                          1.   Should the definitions in the Council 's second Directive
                                                                               79/32/EEC of 18 December 1978 on taxes other than
                                                                               turnover taxes which affect the consumption of
Action brought on 25 September 1996 by the Commission                          manufactured tobacco ('), in the version in force on
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                             14 May 1990 , be interpreted to the effect that a product
                                  Belgium                                      with the following characteristics should be classified as
                            ( Case C-3 13/96 )                                 cigarettes or as smoking tobacco :
                              ( 96/C 354/33
                                                                               — there is a packet containing 25 g of fine-cut smoking
                                                                                tobacco divided up into 30 rolls of tobacco,
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                                industrially manufactured , each roll being of the
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                          same size, consistency and uniformity;
25 September 1996 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Henrik van Lier, Legal                             — each roll of tobacco is 68,6 mm long and consists of
Adviser, and Jean-Francis Pasquier, a national civil servant                        approximately 833 mg of fine-cut smoking tobacco
on secondment to the Legal Service pursuant to the scheme                           wrapped in cellulose , and pressed out into a thin
for the secondment of national experts, acting as Agents ,                          block;
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
 Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                            — the wrapping is porous, and the roll of tobacco
                                                                                cannot be smoked as it is but must be inserted into a
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                              cigarette-paper tube or wrapped in ordinary
 the Court should :                                                                 cigarette paper, which in both cases can be done
                                                                                without the use of implements ?
— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
        administrative measures ( with the exception of those                  If the answer to Question 1 is that the product should be
        applicable to mobile gas cylinders containing butane,                  classified as smoking tobacco, the Court is asked to
        propane or liquid petroleum gas ) necessary in order to                 reply to the following questions :
        comply with Commission Directive 93/21 /EEC of
        27 April 1 993 ( 1 ) adapting to technical progress for the       2 . Under Community law is an undertaking entitled to
        18th time Council Directive 67/548/EEC (2 ) on the                     compensation for every loss suffered by it as a
        approximation of the laws , regulations and                             consequence of a Member State's infringement of
        administrative provisions relating to the classification,               Community law, consisting in the fact that an authority
        packaging and labelling of dangerous substances, and by                 responsible for the final administrative decision as to
        failing in any event to communicate such measures, the                  which tax group a tobacco product should fall under has
        Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations                 reached a decision which conflicts with Article 3 ( 1 ) of
        under that directive;                                                   Directive 79/32/EEC and, if so , what are the conditions
                                                                                governing such liability ?
 — order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .
                                                                           3 . ( a ) Are the definitions of manufactured tobacco
  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                 products in Directive 79/32/EEC properly
                                                                                implemented in a Member State if the Minister for
  The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case                         Fiscal Affairs is, by law, empowered to lay down
  C 311 /96 ( 3 ); the time-limit laid down in Article 2 of                           provisions concerning the definitions of tobacco
  Directive 93/21 /EEC expired on 1 July 1994 .                                       products in compliance with the provisions laid
                                                                                down by the European Communities, where no
  (') OJ No L 110 , 4 . 5 . 1993 , p . 20 .                                           legal provisions have been adopted pursuant to the
  ( 2 ) OJ, English Special Edition 1967, p. 234 .                                    Law .
  ( 3 ) See Case C-311 /96 above .
                                                                                If Question 3 ( a ) is answered in the negative , the Court
                                                                                of Justice is asked to reply to the following question :


title: Case T-255/11: Order of the General Court of 7 December 2011 — Fellah v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire — Withdrawal of the list of persons concerned — Action for annulment — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               11.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/14

         Order of the General Court of 7 December 2011 — Fellah v Council
   (Case T-255/11) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire - Withdrawal of the list of persons concerned - Action for annulment - No need to adjudicate)
   2012/C 39/27
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant(s): Zakaria Fellah (New York, USA) (represented by: G. Collard, lawyer)

      Defendant(s): Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and G. Étienne, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Council Decision 2011/221/CFSP of 6 April 2011 amending Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 93, p. 20) and of Council Regulation (EU) No 330/2011 of 6 April 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 93, p. 10).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The Council of the European Union is ordered to pay the costs.

               3.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the application to intervene made by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 16.7.2011.


title: Case F-118/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 28 June 2016 — Kotula v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Article 45 of the Staff Regulations — 2014 promotion exercise — General implementing provisions for Article 45 of the Staff Regulations — List of officials recommended for promotion by the Directors-General and Heads of Department — Omission of the applicant’s name — Inter-institutional transfer — Taking into account staff reports drawn up by the previous institution — Possibility of contesting the list of officials recommended for promotion before the Joint Promotions Committee — Consideration of the comparative merits of the officials eligible for promotion)

text:
               8.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/35

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 28 June 2016 — Kotula v Commission
   (Case F-118/15) (1)

   ((Civil service - Officials - Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - 2014 promotion exercise - General implementing provisions for Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - List of officials recommended for promotion by the Directors-General and Heads of Department - Omission of the applicant’s name - Inter-institutional transfer - Taking into account staff reports drawn up by the previous institution - Possibility of contesting the list of officials recommended for promotion before the Joint Promotions Committee - Consideration of the comparative merits of the officials eligible for promotion))
   (2016/C 287/43)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Marcin Kotula (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: N. de Montigny and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Berscheid, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision not to promote the applicant in the 2014 promotion exercise.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 320, 28. 9. 2015, p. 57.


title: Case T-369/09: Action brought on 22 September 2009 — Sociedade Quinta do Portal SA v OHIM — Vallegre–Vinhos do Porto (PORTO ALEGRE)

text:
               5.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/22

         Action brought on 22 September 2009 — Sociedade Quinta do Portal SA v OHIM — Vallegre–Vinhos do Porto (PORTO ALEGRE)
   (Case T-369/09)
   2009/C 297/32
   Language in which the application was lodged: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Sociedade Quinta do Portal SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: B. Belchior, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vallegre–Vinhos do Porto SA (Sabrosa, Portugal)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 June 2009 in Case R 1012/2008–1, dismissing the appeal brought by the applicant against the decision of the Cancellation Division which declared the Community word mark PORTO ALEGRE invalid; and

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: word mark PORTO ALEGRE, for goods in Class 33

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark right of applicant for the declaration: earlier Portuguese word mark VISTA ALEGRE, for goods in Class 33

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Community word mark PORTO ALEGRE declared invalid

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed

      Plea in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 in so far as the Board of Appeal misinterpreted that provision and, consequently, wrongly held that there was a likelihood of confusion between the marks in question.


title: Case T-99/01: Action brought on 27 April 2001 by Mystery Drinks GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
11.8.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 227/21
                               — the verbal element contained            Action brought on 27 April 2001 by Mystery Drinks
                                   in the trade mark applied for         GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the
                                   is not in itself subject to any                Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                   absolute ground for refusal
                               — there is no ground for refusal                                   (Case T-99/01)
                                   on the basis of a lack of dis-
                                   tinctiveness.
                                                                                (2001/C 227/42)
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
    Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).                           (Language of the case: to be determined in accordance with
                                                                         Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure. Language in which the
                                                                                application was drafted: German)
                                                                         An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                         Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                         Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                         27 April 2001 by Mystery Drinks GmbH, of Epperthausen
Action brought on 30 April 2001 by A. Seisenbacher                       (Germany), represented by Dr Thomas Jestaedt, Dr Verena von
Gesellschaft m.b.H. against the Commission of the Euro-                  Bomhard and Dr Andreas Renck, lawyers. A further party
                       pean Communities                                  before the Board of Appeal was Karlsberg Brauerei KG Weber,
                                                                         of Homburg (Germany).
                          (Case T-93/01)
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         (2001/C 227/41)                                 —     annul the decision of Third Board of Appeal of the Office
                                                                               for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
                                                                               and Designs) of 12 February 2001 (R 251/2000-3);
                   (Language of the case: German)                        —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               Pleas in law and main arguments
European Communities on 30 April 2001 by A. Seisenbacher
Gesellschaft m.b.H., represented by Dr Johannes Stieldorf,               Applicant for the Com-        the applicant
Lawyer.                                                                  munity trade mark:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Community trade mark          the figurative mark ‘MYSTERY’ for
                                                                         applied for:                  goods in Classes 29 and 30 and
—     order the European Community to pay the applicant the                                            ‘non-alcoholic drinks with the
      sum of ECU 59 694,44 together with interest at 13 %                                              exception of non-alcoholic beer’
      from 20 October 1998 and the costs of the case.                                                  in Class 32.
                                                                         Proprietor of the right       Karlsberg Brauerei KG Weber
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          to a trade mark or sign
                                                                         asserted in the oppo-
Following an invitation to tender concerning the renovation              sition proceedings:
of the European Community building in Kiev, a contract was
concluded between Ost-Invest und Bauprojektmanagement                    Right to a trade mark or      the word mark ‘MIXERY’ for ‘beer
GmbH. and the Commission. On account of the financial                    sign asserted:                and drinks containing beer’ in
situation of that company, the applicant as general contractor                                         Class 32
was to fulfil that contract vis-à-vis the Commission.
                                                                         Decision of the Oppo-         dismissal of the opposition
                                                                         sition Division:
After the restored building had been handed over, the applicant
requested settlement of its final account of ECU 59 694,44.              Decision of the Board of      cancellation of the decision of the
Following investigations the applicant discovered that payment           Appeal:                       Opposition Division, in so far
of ECU 55 000,00 had been made to another company, a fact                                              as the likelihood of confusion
which is, however, immaterial to the relationship between the                                          between the opposing mark and
applicant and the defendant. The applicant brings an action                                            goods in Class 32, namely ‘non-
pursuant to Article 238 EC and demands payment of the final                                            alcoholic drinks with the excep-
account.                                                                                tion of non-alcoholic beer’,
                                                                                referred to in the application was
                                                                                denied, and dismissal of the
                                                                                appeal as to the remainder.
 ---pagebreak--- C 227/22               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       11.8.2001
Grounds of claim:             — Misapplication of Article               the applicant was allocated a post which in her view is
                                   8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)           considerably less important and offers considerably fewer
                                   No 40/94 (1) (likelihood of          promotion prospects. According to the applicant, if the
                                   confusion)                           principles laid down in Article 141 EC had been implemented
                              — the opposing signs are sub-             in due time and in full, she ought to have obtained the post of
                                   stantially different typo-           principal departmental manager for ‘Personnel and Adminis-
                                   graphically, conceptually and        tration’. She submits that she has thereby suffered substantial
                                   in their sound, and the rel-         material and non-material harm and that, in her case, her
                                   evant goods are dissimilar.          employer has since 1994 committed all breaches of fundamen-
                                                                        tal and human rights, without legal consequences, on the basis
                                                                        of the employer’s ‘organisational freedom’.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
    Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
                                                                        She contends that, when requests are made before national
                                                                        courts for an order for reference under Article 234 EC, a
                                                                        hearing in accordance with the law is refused. All the judicial
                                                                        proceedings brought by the applicant in respect of European
                                                                        fundamental rights have terminated at first instance since leave
                                                                        to appeal has likewise been refused. Her constitutional appeals
                                                                        have not been accepted for determination, without any reasons
Action brought on 13 April 2001 by Karola Gluiber                       being given. In the applicant’s submission, there has been no
  against the Commission of the European Communities                    review of the breaches of fundamental rights arising from the
                                                                        Treaty on European Union and the Charter of Fundamental
                                                                        Rights of the European Union.
                         (Case T-100/01)
                         (2001/C 227/43)
                                                                        The applicant contends that the material legal provisions in
                  (Language of the Case: German)                        the Federal Republic of Germany require proof of individual
                                                                        fault on the part of the civil servant acting as a precondition for
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               claims for damages against public authorities. Compensation is
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              therefore not payable to civil servants without proof of special
European Communities on 13 April 2001 by Karola Gluiber,                damage in the case of breaches of fundamental rights arising
Osterhofen (Germany), represented by Christoph Blecken-                 from the Treaty on European Union.
wegner, Lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     declare that the Commission has failed to act pursuant to         She relies on Articles 5 and 6 of the Treaty on European
      the second and third paragraphs of the EC Treaty, in              Union, in conjunction with the Social Charter and the Charter
      conjunction with the third paragraph of Article 232 of            of Fundamental Rights, and on provisions of Council Directive
      the Treaty of Amsterdam, by supervising incorrectly the           75/117, and submits that the Commission has not complied
      implementation and application of European legal rules            with its obligation to monitor implementation of Union law
      into German national law;                                         and of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in
                                                                        national German law. The Commission did not act when called
—     declare that the Commission has failed to define its              on to do so by the applicant pursuant to Article 232 EC and
      position on the substance of her call on it to act pursuant       has not responded to the substance of her complaint.
      to the second paragraph of Article 175 of the Treaty, in
      conjunction with the third paragraph of Article 232 of
      the Treaty of Amsterdam;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                        She pleads various situations as examples of infringements of
                                                                        fundamental rights and discrimination at the workplace, as
                                                                        well as of discrimination against women.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant has worked since 1986 as a federal civil servant
in the Straßenneubauamt (New Highway Construction Office)
Bad Kreuznach in the service of the Land Rheinland-Pfalz. In
1994 that office was amalgamated with the Straßenneubauver-
waltung (New Highway Construction Administration) Bad
Kreuznach and, on the allocation of posts in the new office,


title: Case T-414/11: Order of the General Court of 8 July 2013 — Nutrichem Diät + Pharma v OHIM — Gervais Danone (Active) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/41

         Order of the General Court of 8 July 2013 — Nutrichem Diät + Pharma v OHIM — Gervais Danone (Active)
   (Case T-414/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)
   2013/C 260/73
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Nutrichem Diät + Pharma GmbH (Roth, Germany) (represented by: D. Jochim and R. Egerer, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by K. Klüpfel and subsequently by D. Walicka, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Compagnie Gervais Danone (Levallois Perret, France) (represented by: M. de Justo Bailey, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 May 2011 (Case R 683/2010-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Nutrichem Diät + Pharma GmbH and Compagnie Gervais Danone.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no further need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The applicant and the intervener are ordered to bear their own costs and each pay half the costs of the defendant.

      (1)  OJ C 298, 8.10.2011.


title: Case T-354/07 to T-356/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 26 June 2008 — Pfizer v OHIM — Isdin (FOTOPROTECTOR ISDIN) (Community trade mark — Action for annulment — Invalidity — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/43

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 26 June 2008 — Pfizer v OHIM — Isdin (FOTOPROTECTOR ISDIN)
   (Case T-354/07 to T-356/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Action for annulment - Invalidity - No need to adjudicate)
   (2008/C 223/75)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Pfizer Ltd (Sandwich, Kent, United Kingdom) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, A. Renck, T. Dolde, lawyers, and M. Hawkins, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Isdin, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: M. Esteve Sanz, lawyer)
   Re:
   Three actions brought against the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 June 2007 (Cases R 567/2006-1, R 566/2006-1 and R 565/2006-1) concerning invalidity proceedings between Pfizer Ltd and Isdin, SA.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               Isdin, SA is order to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM). Pfizer Ltd is ordered to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.


title: Case C-496/06: Action brought on 4 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/52

         Action brought on 4 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-496/06)
   (2006/C 326/105)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and W. Bogensberger, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers (1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposition of the directive expired on 6 February 2005.

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 31, p. 18.


title: Case T-92/00: Action brought on 19 April 2000 by the Territorio Histórico de Alava, Arabako Foru Aldundia — Diputación Foral de Alava against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
10.6.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 163/33
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Action brought on 19 April 2000 by Tamara Zaur-Gora
                                                                          against the Commission of the European Communities
The applicant contests the decision of the appointing authority
to reduce the amount of the daily allowance in respect of a                                       (Case T-95/00)
mission to Dublin.
                                                                                (2000/C 163/66)
In support of his claims, the applicant puts forward two pleas
in law:
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
— breach of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations on recovery
     of undue payment. The appointing authority has not                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
     proved that the applicant had been aware that there was            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
     no due reason for paying the expenses of his mission;              European Communities on 19 April 2000 by Tamara Zaur-
                                                                        Gora, residing at Lodelinsart (Belgium), represented by Jean-
— incorrect interpretation of Point VIII of the Guide on                Noël Louis and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar.
     Missions.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        — annul the decision of the selection board in competition
                                                                             COM/C/2/99 rejecting the application submitted by the
                                                                             applicant;
Action brought on 19 April 2000 by the Territorio                       — order the defendant to pay the costs.
Histórico de Alava, Arabako Foru Aldundia — Diputación
Foral de Alava against the Commission of the European                   Pleas in law and main arguments
                          Communities
                                                                        The applicant has worked for the Commission since 1 October
                         (Case T-92/00)                                 1997, initially as a member of the auxiliary staff, then as a
                                                                        member of the interim staff and then once again as a member
                        (2000/C 163/65)                                 of the auxiliary staff. During the period when she was working
                                                                        as a member of the interim staff, she submitted her application
                                                                        as a candidate in open competition COM/2/99. The annex to
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                       the notice of competition provided that the age limit laid down
                                                                        in it was not applicable to candidates who had possessed, for
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               an uninterrupted period of more than one year, the status of
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              an official or servant of the European Communities as at the
European Communities on 19 April 2000 by the Territorio                 date marking the deadline for submission of applications. On
Histórico de Alava, Arabako Foru Aldundia — Diputación                that basis, her application to take part in the competition was
Foral de Alava, established in Vitoria, Spain, represented by           rejected.
Antonio Creus Carreras and Begoña Uriarte Valiente, lawyers.
                                                                        In support of her claims, the applicant puts forward the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             following pleas:
— annul the Commission’s decision of 22 December 1999                   — infringement of the principles of sound administration and
     inasmuch as it declares the fiscal measures provided for in             proper staff management;
     Normas Forales de Alava Nos 22/1994 and 24/1996 to be
     incompatible with the common market and requires the               — the commission in the present case of a manifest error of
     Spanish State to effect recovery in respect thereof;                    assessment, as well as abuse of process.
— order the Commission to pay all the costs.                            In the applicant’s view, the duties performed by her may be
                                                                        regarded as permanent tasks to be carried out in the public
                                                                        service of the Community, since the formal nature of the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         contracts concluded by her with the Commission and the
                                                                        classification applied to them by the parties had no effect on
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put            those de facto circumstances. Consequently, the contracts
forward in Case T-127/99 Diputación Foral de Alava v                   concluded since 22 May 1997 must be regarded, according to
Commission (1).                                                         the applicant, as having been entered into with a member of
                                                                        the temporary staff, having regard to the nature of the tasks to
                                                                        be carried out and the circumstances in which she has
(1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999, p. 41.                                        performed her duties since that date.


title: Case C-461/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Stockholms tingsrätt (Sweden) lodged on 2 September 2011 — Ulf Kazimierz Radziejewski v Kronofogdemyndigheten i Stockholm

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Stockholms tingsrätt (Sweden) lodged on 2 September 2011 — Ulf Kazimierz Radziejewski v Kronofogdemyndigheten i Stockholm
   (Case C-461/11)
   2011/C 340/17
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Stockholms tingsrätt

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ulf Kazimierz Radziejewski

      Defendant: Kronofogdemyndigheten i Stockholm

      Question referred

   Can the requirement for Swedish residence in Paragraph 4 of the skuldsaneringslagen (2006:548) (Law on debt relief) be regarded as being liable to prevent or deter a worker from leaving Sweden to exercise his right to freedom of movement and thus be regarded as running counter to the provision on the freedom of movement for workers within the Union provided for in Article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?


title: Case T-295/08: Order of the General Court of 16 June 2010 — CPS Color Group v OHIM-Fema Farben and Putze (TEMACOLOR)

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/59

         Order of the General Court of 16 June 2010 — CPS Color Group v OHIM-Fema Farben and Putze (TEMACOLOR)
   (Case T-295/08) (1)

   ()
   2010/C 221/94
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 247, 27.9.2008.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 3 July 1997 in Case C-269/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München): Francesco Benincasa v. Dentalkit Srl (Brussels Convention - Concept of consumer - Agreement conferring jurisdiction)

text:
16 . 8 . 97           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 252/ 11
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       under the first paragraph of Article 17 of the
                                                                           Convention of 27 September 1968 also have exclusive
                        (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                          jurisdiction where the action seeks in particular a
                         of 3 July 1997                                    declaration that the contract containing that clause is
                                                                           void.
in Case C-269/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Oberlandesgericht Miinchen): Francesco Benincasa v.
                         Dentalkit Sri (')                            (') OJ No C 268 , 14 . 10 . 1995 .
(Brussels    Convention — Concept of consumer —
               Agreement conferring jurisdiction)
                          ( 97/C 252/20 )
                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Sixth Chamber)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will he
           published in the European Court Reports)                                              of 3 July 1997
                                                                      in Case C-330/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                      the Value Added Tax Tribunal, Manchester Tribunal
In Case C-269/95 : reference to the Court by the Oberlan
desgericht Miinchen ( Germany ) under the Protocol of                 Centre ): Goldsmiths (Jewellers ) Ltd v. Commissioners of
3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice                                 Customs and Excise ( 1 )
of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction
and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial              ( VAT — Sixth Directive — Right to derogate provided for
                                                                      in Article 11 C (1 ) — No refund for barter transactions in
matters, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
                                                                                the case of non-payment)
pending before that court between Francesco Benincasa
and Dentalkit Sri on the interpretation of the first
                                                                                ( 97/C 252/21 )
paragraph of Article 13 , the first paragraph of Article 14
and the first paragraph of Article 17 of the
aforementioned Convention of 27 September 1968 ( OJ No
 L 299, 31 . 12 . 1972 , p. 32 ), as amended by the
 Convention of 9 October 1978 on the accession of the                                 (Language of the case: English)
Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of
 Great Britain and Northern Ireland ( OJ No L 304 , 30 . 10 .
 1978 , p. 1 ; amended version of the Convention at p. 77 )
— the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: G. F.
                                                                      In Case C-330/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
 Mancini, President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray, C. N.
 Kakouris ( Rapporteur), P. J. G. Kapteyn, H. Ragnemalm,              of the EC Treaty by the Value Added Tax Tribunal ,
Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General ; L.                 Manchester Tribunal Centre (United Kingdom ), for a
 Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a               preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
 judgment on 3 July 1997, in which it has ruled :                     that court between Goldsmiths (Jewellers ) Ltd and
                                                                      Commissioners of Customs and Excise — the Court ( Sixth
                                                                      Chamber ), composed of: G. F. Mancini , President of the
                                                                      Chamber, C. N. Kakouris ( Rapporteur ), P. J. G. Kapteyn,
 1 . The first paragraph of Article 13 and the first                  G. Hirsch and R. Schintgen, Judges; M. A. La Pergola,
     paragraph of Article 14 of the Convention of                     Advocate-General ; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
     27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the                        Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 July 1997, in which
     enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial                 it has ruled :
     matters, as amended by the Corwention of 9 October
     1978 on the accession of the Kingdom of Denmark,
     Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
     Northern Ireland, must be interpreted as meaning that
     a plaintiff who has concluded a contract with a view              On a proper construction, the derogation provided for in
     to pursuing a trade or profession, not at the present             the second subparagraph of Article 11 C (1 ) of the Sixth
     time but in the future, may not be regarded as a                  Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the
     consumer.
                                                                      harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating
                                                                       to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:
                                                                       uniform basis of assessment — does not authorize a
                                                                       Member State which enacts provisions for the refund of
 2 . The courts of a Contracting State which have been                 VAT in the case of total or partial non-payment of the
     designated in a jurisdiction clause validly concluded             consideration to refuse that refund where the unpaid


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) 5 March 2002 in Case C-386/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Appel de Bruxelles): Axa Royale Belge SA v Georges Ochoa Stratégie Finance SPRL (Directive 92/96/EEC — Direct life assurance — Information for policy-holders)

text:
4.5.2002                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 109/13
—     a system imposing a minimum reference price on all                     Luxembourg (agent: J. Faltz): Application for a declaration
      cigarettes, and                                                        that, by failing to adopt or, in the alternative, to notify to
                                                                             the Commission, within the prescribed period, the laws,
—     a system imposing different tax rates on dark-tobacco                  regulations and administrative provisions necessary fully to
      and light-tobacco cigarettes, to the disadvantage of the               comply with Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997
      latter,                                                                amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the
the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under               effects of certain public and private projects on the environ-
Article 9(1), Article 8(2) and Article 16(5) of Council Directive            ment (OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
95/59/EC of 27 November 1995 on taxes other than turnover                    has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty, the
taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco                   Court (Third Chamber), composed of: F. Macken, President of
(OJ 1995 L 291, p. 40), as amended by Council Directive                      the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur) and J.N. Cunha
1999/81/EC of 29 July 1999 (OJ 1999 L 211, p. 47), and                       Rodrigues, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Article 2 of Council Directive 92/79/EEC of 19 October 1992                  Registrar has given a judgment on 19 February 2002, in which
on the approximation of taxes on cigarettes (OJ 1992 L 316,                  it:
p. 8), and under the first paragraph of Article 95 of the EC
Treaty (now, after amendment, the first paragraph of Article 90              1.    Declares that, by failing to bring into force, within the
EC), or alternatively under the second paragraph of Article 95                     prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative
of the EC Treaty, the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:                          provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
P. Jann, President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur)                        97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC
and A. La Pergola, Judges; S. Albert, Advocate General;                            on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private
H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on                         projects on the environment, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
27 February 2002, in which it:                                                     has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first subparagraph
                                                                                of Article 3(1) of that directive and under the EC Treaty;
1.    Declares that, by maintaining in force
      —     a system imposing a minimum reference price on all               2.    Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
            cigarettes sold under the same brand and
      —     a system imposing a different rate of tax for dark- and          (1) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.
            light-tobacco cigarettes, to the detriment of the latter,
      the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      Article 9(1), Article 8(2) and Article 16(5) of Council Directive
      95/59/EC of 27 November 1995 on taxes other than turnover
      taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco, as
      amended by Council Directive 1999/81/EC of 29 July 1999,                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      Article 2 of Council Directive 92/79/EEC of 19 October 1992
      on the approximation of taxes on cigarettes and the first
      paragraph of Article 95 of the EC Treaty;                                                         (Sixth Chamber)
2.    The French Republic is ordered to pay the costs.                                                    5 March 2002
(1) OJ C 285 of 7.10.2000.
                                                                             in Case C-386/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the Cour d’Appel de Bruxelles): Axa Royale Belge SA v
                                                                                Georges Ochoa Stratégie Finance SPRL (1)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      (Directive 92/96/EEC — Direct life assurance — Infor-
                                                                                mation for policy-holders)
                          (Third Chamber)
                          19 February 2002                                                              (2002/C 109/21)
in Case C-366/00: Commission of the European Communi-
             ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)                                                 (Language of the case: French)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
       Incomplete transposition of Directive 97/11/EC)                                           in the European Court Reports)
                           (2002/C 109/20)
                     (Language of the case: French)                          In Case C-386/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
                                                                             EC by the Cour d’Appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) for a preliminary
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                             ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             Axa Royale Belge SA and Georges Ochoa Stratégie Finance
                                                                             SPRL, on the interpretation of Council Directive 92/96/EEC of
In Case C-366/00, Commission of the European Communities                     10 November 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations
(agents: R. Tricot and P. Panayotopoulos) v Grand Duchy of                   and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance
 ---pagebreak--- C 109/14                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           4.5.2002
and amending Directives 79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (third                    in Articles 11 and 4(1) of Council Directive 96/59/EC of
life assurance Directive) (OJ 1992 L 360, p. 1) the Court (Sixth            16 September 1996 on the disposal of polychlorinated
Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric, President of the Second                 biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT) (OJ 1996
Chamber, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber,                     L 243, p. 31), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues               obligations under those provisions, the Court (Fourth Chamb-
(Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,             er), composed of: S. von Bahr, President of the Chamber,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment            D.A.O. Edward and C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), Judges;
on 5 March 2002, in which it has ruled:                                     P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
                                                                            judgment on 27 February 2002, in which it:
Article 31(3) of Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November
                                                                            1.    Declares that, by failing to draw up and communicate to the
1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities, by 16 September
provisions relating to direct life assurance and amending Directives
                                                                                1999 at the latest, the summaries of inventories provided for
79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (third life assurance Directive)
                                                                                in Article 4(1) of Council Directive 96/59/EC of 16 September
precludes national legislation which provides that a life-assurance
                                                                                1996 on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polych-
proposal, or in the absence of a proposal, a life-assurance policy must
                                                                                lorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT) and the plans and outlines
inform the policy-holder that cancellation, reduction or surrender of
                                                                                provided for in Article 11 of the same directive, the Italian
an existing life-assurance contract for the purpose of subscribing to
                                                                                Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those
another life-assurance policy is generally detrimental to the policy-
                                                                                provisions.
holder.
                                                                            2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 108 of 7.4.2001.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
                          (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                27 February 2002
                          27 February 2002
                                                                            in Case C-140/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Kingdom of Belgium (1)
in Case C-46/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                      ties v Italian Republic (1)
                                                                            (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                            Directive 98/18/EC — Transport by sea — Safety rules and
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                                        standards for passenger ships)
Waste management — Directive 96/59/EC — Disposal of
  polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls)
                                                                                (2002/C 109/23)
                           (2002/C 109/22)                                                       (Language of the case: French)
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            In Case C-140/01, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                            (Agent: B. Mongin) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: A. Snoecx):
                                                                            Application for a declaration that, by failing to notify the
In Case C-46/01, Commission of the European Communities                     Commission of the laws, regulations and administrative pro-
(agents: H. Støvlbaek and R. Amorosi) v Italian Republic                    visions necessary to comply with Council Directive 98/18/EC
(agent: U. Leanza, assisted by M. Fiorilli): Application for a              of 17 March 1998 on safety rules and standards for passenger
declaration that, by failing to draw up and communicate to                  ships (OJ 1998 L 144, p. 1), or to adopt the measures necessary
the Commission by 16 September 1999 the appropriate                         to comply therewith, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to
plans, outlines and summaries of inventories provided for                   fulfil its obligations under that directive and under the EC


title: Case C-583/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 June 2015 — Deutsche Bahn AG, DB Mobility Logistics AG, DB Energie GmbH, DB Netz AG, Deutsche Umschlaggesellschaft Schiene-Straße (DUSS) mbH, DB Schenker Rail GmbH, DB Schenker Rail Deutschland AG v European Commission, Kingdom of Spain, EFTA Surveillance Authority, Council of the European Union (Appeals — Competition — Rail transport and ancillary services sector — Abuse of dominant position — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Articles 20 and 28(1) — Administrative procedure — Decision ordering an inspection — Commission’s powers of inspection — Fundamental right to the inviolability of the home — No prior judicial authorisation — Effective judicial review — Fortuitous discovery)

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/6

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 June 2015 — Deutsche Bahn AG, DB Mobility Logistics AG, DB Energie GmbH, DB Netz AG, Deutsche Umschlaggesellschaft Schiene-Straße (DUSS) mbH, DB Schenker Rail GmbH, DB Schenker Rail Deutschland AG v European Commission, Kingdom of Spain, EFTA Surveillance Authority, Council of the European Union
   (Case C-583/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeals - Competition - Rail transport and ancillary services sector - Abuse of dominant position - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Articles 20 and 28(1) - Administrative procedure - Decision ordering an inspection - Commission’s powers of inspection - Fundamental right to the inviolability of the home - No prior judicial authorisation - Effective judicial review - Fortuitous discovery))
   (2015/C 279/07)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellants: Deutsche Bahn AG, DB Mobility Logistics AG, DB Energie GmbH, DB Netz AG, Deutsche Umschlaggesellschaft Schiene-Straße (DUSS) mbH, DB Schenker Rail GmbH, DB Schenker Rail Deutschland AG (represented by: W. Deselaers, E. Venot and J. Brückner, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Malferrari and R. Sauer, Agents), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González and L. Banciella Rodríguez-Miñón, Agents), EFTA Surveillance Authority (represented by: M. Schneider, X. Lewis and M. Moustakali, Agents), Council of the European Union

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Deutsche Bahn and Others v Commission (T-289/11, T-290/11 and T-521/11, EU:T:2013:404) in so far as it dismissed the actions brought against the second and third inspection decisions C(2011) 2365 of 30 March 2011 and C(2011) 5230 of 14 July 2011;

               2.

               Annuls the decisions of the European Commission C(2011) 2365 of 30 March 2011 and C(2011) 5230 of 14 July 2011;

               3.

               Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

               4.

               Orders Deutsche Bahn AG, DB Mobility Logistics AG, DB Energie GmbH, DB Netz AG, Deutsche Umschlaggesellschaft Schiene-Straße (DUSS) mbH, DB Schenker Rail GmbH and DB Schenker Rail Deutschland AG to bear half of their own costs relating to the present appeal and to pay half of those incurred by the European Commission in the present proceedings;

               5.

               Orders the European Commission to bear half of its costs relating to the present appeal and to pay half of those incurred by Deutsche Bahn AG, DB Mobility Logistics AG, DB Energie GmbH, DB Netz AG, Deutsche Umschlaggesellschaft Schiene-Straße (DUSS) mbH, DB Schenker Rail GmbH and DB Schenker Rail Deutschland AG in the present proceedings;

               6.

               Orders Deutsche Bahn AG, DB Mobility Logistics AG, DB Energie GmbH, DB Netz AG, Deutsche Umschlaggesellschaft Schiene-Straße (DUSS) mbH, DB Schenker Rail GmbH and DB Schenker Rail Deutschland AG to pay the costs relating to Case T-289/11;

               7.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs relating to Cases T-290/11 and T-521/11;

               8.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs;

               9.

               Orders the EFTA Surveillance Authority to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.


title: Case F-106/11: Action brought on 18 October 2011 — ZZ v ECB

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/68

      Action brought on 18 October 2011 — ZZ v ECB
      (Case F-106/11)
      (2012/C 25/131)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Central Bank

         Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

      The annulment of the decision of the Deputy Director General of the Directorate General Human Resources, Budget and Organisation imposing on the Appellant a written reprimand as disciplinary measure.

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

                  —

                  Annul the decision of the Deputy Director General of DG-H of 15 April 2011, imposing on the Appellant a written reprimand as disciplinary measure and, if necessary, of the decision of 4 August 2011 rejecting the special appeal;

                  —

                  order the compensation of the Appellant's moral prejudice evaluated at EUR 10 000;

                  —

                  order the ECB to pay the costs.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 29 September 1997 in Case T-83/97: Société Anonyme de Traverses en Béton Armé (Sateba) v. Commission of the European Communities (Public procurement - Complaint - Proceedings for a declaration of failure to fulfil obligations - Decision not to proceed - Application for annulment - Inadmissibility)

text:
22 . 11 . 97          EN 1               Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 357/27
thereof to the peoples of Georgia and Armenia and                   3 . The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.
for annulment of the Commission's refusal to grant
compensation — the Court of First Instance (Third                   (') OJ C 54, 22 . 2 . 1997.
Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, C. P.
Briet and A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
order on 18 July 1997, the operative part of which is as
follows :
1 . The application is dismissed as clearly inadmissibile.               ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 17 September 1997
2. The applicant shall bear the costs.                              in Case T-26/97: Antillean Rice Mills NV v. Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities (')
H OJ C 180, 22 . 6 . 1996 .                                         (Action for annulment — Retroactive repeal of the
                                                                            contested measure — No need to adjudicate)
                                                                                ( 97/C 357/52 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                    In Case T-26/97, Antillean Rice Mills NV, established
                      of 3 October 1997                             in Bonaire, Netherlands Antilles, represented by W.
                                                                    Knibbeler, of the Amsterdam Bar, and K. J. Defares, of the
in Case T-184/96 : Eric Banda v. Commission of the
                                                                    Rotterdam Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                   European Communities (')                         at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe, against
     (Case not proceeding to judgment — Inadmissibility)            Commission of the European Communities ( Agent: T. van
                                                                    Rijn ) — application for annulment of Commission
                         ( 97/C 357/51 )                            Regulation ( EC ) No 21 /97 of 8 January 1997 introducing
                                                                    safeguard measures in respect of imports of rice
                 (Language of the case: French)                     originating in the overseas countries and territories ( OJ
                                                                    L 5, 9 . 1 . 1997, p. 24 ) — the Court of First Instance
                                                                    ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of K. Lenaerts, President,P.
In Case T-184/96: Eric Banda, a member of the local staff           Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made
of the Commission of the European Communities,                      an order on 17 September 1997, the operative part of
represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liege Bar, with            which is as follows :
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Evelyne Korn, 21 Rue de Nassau, v. Commission of the                 1 . There is no need to adjudicate on the application.
European Communities (Agents: Florence Clotuche and
Christine Berardis-Kayser) — application, primarily, for
annulment of the Commission's decision by which it                  2 . The parties shall each bear their own costs, including
decided to invalidate the regional elections held amongst                those relating to the application for interim measures.
the local staff serving within Geographical Region No 11
 between 5 and 20 December 1994 and to reorganize the               (') OJ C 108 , 5 . 4 . 1997.
same and, in the alternative, for annulment of the
 Commission rules of 8 March 1990 entitled 'Transitional
Arrangements for the Representation of Staff Serving
 Outside the Community' and annulment of the regional
elections held amongst the local staff serving in
 Geographical Region No 11 between 4 and 15 November                     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 1996 — the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber),                                      of 29 September 1997
composed of A. Kalogeropoulos, President, and C. P. Briet
 and C. W. Bellamy, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an             in Case T-83/97: Société Anonyme de Traverses en Béton
 order on 3 October 1997, the operative part of which is                   Armé ( Sateba) v. Commission of the European
 as follows :                                                                                Communities (M
                                                                     (Public procurement — Complaint — Proceedings for a
 1 . There is no need to give a decision on the application          declaration of failure to fulfil obligations — Decision not
      made by the applicant, as a candidate therein, for             to proceed — Application for annulment —
      annulment of the Commission 's decision invalidating                                      Inadmissibility)
      the elections held between 5 and 20 December 1994                                           ( 97/C 357/53 )
      amongst the local staff serving in Geographical Region
      No 1 1 and ordering the same to be reorganized.                                 (Language of the case: French)
 2 . The remainder of the application is dismissed as                In Case T-83/97: Société Anonyme de Traverses en Béton
      inadmissible.                                                  Armé ( Sateba ), established in Paris, represented by Jacques
 ---pagebreak--- C 357/28                 EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                22 . 11 . 97
Manseau, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in              Ms Jouhki the opportunity to take part in open
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8—10                      competition COM/B/973 .
Rue Mathias Hardt, against Commission of the European
Communities ( Agent: Hendrik van Lier) — application for
annulment of the Commission decision, notified to the                  Since Ms Jouhki satisfied the requirements in the notice of
applicant by letter dated 20 January 1997, not to proceed              competition for taking part in the competition, and since
with the complaint lodged by the applicant against the                 her taking part was nevertheless refused with no
Belgian National Railway Company ( SNCB ) for failing to               substantial grounds, the selection board's refusal is
comply with Community law in awarding a contract for                   erroneous as being unfounded. The decision made in
the supply of concrete sleepers for use on high-speed train            response to Ms Jouhki's demand for her application to be
lines — the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ),                 reconsidered by the selection board is likewise erroneous,
                                                                       inasmuch as the earlier erroneous decision was not
composed of A. Saggio, President, V. Tiili and R. M.                   corrected .
Moura Ramos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an
order on 29 September 1997, the operative part of which
is as follows :                                                        The time-limit under Article 90 of the Staff Regulations
                                                                       for replying to Ms Jouhki's complaint expired on 17 April
1 . The application is dismissed as inadmissible.                      1997 .
2 . There is no need to rule on the application for leave to           Ms Jouhki 's complaint was not responded to within the
     intervene .
                                                                       time-limit. The EU administration informed her, however,
                                                                       that a reply to her complaint was still being prepared and
3 . The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.                         that the complaint would be dealt with on 17 July 1997,
                                                                       that is, the same day on which the time-limit for an
(') OJ C 166 , 31 . 5 . 1997.                                          application by Ms Jouhki to the Court of First Instance
                                                                       expired.
                                                                       On the above grounds, Ms Jouhki has an interest in
                                                                       bringing proceedings, in that her complaint was rejected
                                                                       or that it was not decided by 17 July 1997 at the latest.
Action brought on 14 July 1997 by Sari Kristiina Jouhki
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                          ( Case T-215/97)
                            ( 97/C 357/54 )
                 (Language of the case: Finnish)                       Action brought on 5 August 1997 by New Europe
                                                                       Consulting Ltd and M. P. Brown against the Commission
An action against the Commission of the European                                      of the European Communities
Communities was brought before the Court of First                                            ( Case T-231/97)
Instance of the European Communities on 14 July 1997
by Sari Kristiina Jouhki, of Pyhajarvi, Finland, represented                                   ( 97/C 357/55 )
by Harri Ojala, lawyer, of Oulu .
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European
— declare that she was qualified and hence entitled to                 Communities was brought before the Court of First
     take part in open competition COM/B/973 and to be                 Instance of the European Communities on 5 August 1997
     accepted for the post advertised as vacant,                       by New Europe Consulting Ltd and M. P. Brown, of
                                                                       Dublin, represented by A. and B. De Roeck, of the
— declare the competition referred to in point 1 above                 Antwerp Bar.
     null and void and set a new time-limit for taking part
     in the competition, and
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
— order the European Community to reimburse her costs
     in full together with interest for late payment in                — declare the claims of both applicants admissible and
     accordance with Paragraph 4 ( 3 ) of the Finnish                      well-founded,
     Korkolaki ( Law on interest) to run from one month
     from the date of judgment.
                                                                       — in that regard, order the defendant, the European
                                                                           Commission, to pay             compensation totalling
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                        ECU 1 400 000, together with compensatory interest
                                                                           thereon from the date of the event giving rise to the
The selection board appointed by Directorate-General IX                    damage, namely 12 April 1995 , and legal interest from
of the Commission ( Personnel and Administration) refused                  the date of the judgment to be delivered in the case,


title: Case C-342/03: Action brought on 4 August 2003 by the Kingdom of Spain against the Council of the European Union

text:
20.9.2003              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 226/13
Action brought on 1 August 2003 by the Commission of                      Action brought on 1 August 2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Republic of Austria                  the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                         (Case C-340/03)                                                            (Case C-341/03)
                         (2003/C 226/23)                                                           (2003/C 226/24)
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before              An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 August              Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 August
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-                2003 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by J.-C. Schieferer and G. Valero Jordana, members of              sented by H. Michard, of its Legal Service.
the legal service of the Commission of the European
Communities, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                   The Commission claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          a)   declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
1.   find that, by failing fully and correctly to implement the                administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     following provisions of Council Directive 86/278/EEC of                   Council Directive 98/49/EC of 29 June 1998 on safeguard-
     12 June 1986 on the protection of the environment, and                    ing the supplementary pension rights of employed and
     in particular of the soil, when sewage sludge is used in                  self-employed persons moving within the Community (1),
     agriculture (1), the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its         and in any event by failing to inform the Commission
     obligations under the Treaty:                                             thereof, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obliga-
                                                                               tions under that directive;
     a)   the definition contained in Article 2(a) of the
          Directive, in the Bundesland Steiermark (exceptions             b)   order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
          for small sewage treatment plants),
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
     b)    Article 6(b) concerning the information to be regu-
           larly provided to users under Annex II A, in Kärnten,          1.   Under the third paragraph of Article 249 (3) EC, directives
                                                                               are binding, on the Member States as to the result to be
     c)   Article 9 in conjunction with Annexes II A, II B and                 achieved, but leave to the national authorities the choice of
          II C in Vorarlberg and in conjunction with Annex II C                form and methods.
          in Kärnten and in Steiermark, and
                                                                          2.   In this case, Article 10(1) of Council Directive 98/49/EC of
     d)    the requirement to keep a record in accordance with                 29 June 1998 provides that Member States are to bring
           Article 10 in Kärnten (paragraph 1(a) as regards the                into force the laws, regulations and administrative provi-
           exemption of small installations, for which the                     sions necessary to comply with the directive not later than
           Directive does not provide), in Steiermark                          36 months following the date of its entry into force. The
           (paragraph 1(b) and (c) as regards the composition                  directive was brought into force on the day of its publica-
           and properties of the sludge and the type of treat-                 tion in the Official Journal of the European Communities
           ment) and Vorarlberg (paragraph 1(a), (b) and (c) as                (25 July 1998) and should therefore have been transposed
           regards quantities of sludge, the composition and                   into national law by 27 January 2001. Under Article 10(2)
           properties of the sludge and the type of treatment),                of the directive Member States were to inform the
                                                                               Commission of the measures of transposition adopted by
2.   order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the                     25 January 2002.
     proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           (1) OJ L 209, 25.7.1998, p. 46.
The Austrian Republic was to implement Directive 86/278/EEC
by the date of its accession to the European Union on 1 January
1995.
                                                                          Action brought on 4 August 2003 by the Kingdom of
Although that time-limit has passed, certain provisions of that                Spain against the Council of the European Union
directive have not been fully and correctly implemented in the
Bundesländer of Kärnten, Steiermark and Vorarlberg.                                                 (Case C-342/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 226/25)
(1) OJ 1986 L 181, p. 6.                                                  An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                          brought before the Court of Justice of the European
 ---pagebreak--- C 226/14                EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                            20.9.2003
Communities on 4 August 2003 by the Kingdom of Spain,                    —     Infringement of Article 253 EC (failure to state reasons),
represented by N. Díaz Abad, Abogado del Estado, with an                       on the ground that the contested regulation is not based
address for service in Luxembourg.                                             on a technical study showing why it is necessary;
                                                                         —     Misuse of powers, in that the tariff quota has been allo-
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    cated arbitrarily between the countries benefitting from it.
—     annul Council Regulation No 975/2003 (1) of 5 June
      2003 opening and providing for the administration of a
      tariff quota for imports of canned tuna covered by CN              (1) OJ L 141, 7.6.2003, p. 1.
      codes 16041411, 16041418 and 16042070;
—     order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.
                                                                         Action brought on 4 August 2003 by the Commission of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          the European Communities against the Republic of
                                                                                Finland
The Kingdom of Spain submits that Regulation No 975/2003                                           (Case C-344/03)
infringes Community law for the following reasons:
                                                                                (2003/C 226/26)
—     Breach of the principle of Community preference, given
      that measures such as those adopted by the contested               An action against the Republic of Finland was brought before
      regulation are appropriate only where Community pro-               the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 August
      duction is inadequate, which has not been established. The         2003 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
      Spanish tuna canning industry is particularly prejudiced           sented by G. Valero Jordana and P. Aalto, acting as Agents, with
      by this regulation;                                                an address for service in Luxembourg.
—     Distortion of competition in the market: owing to the fact         The Commission claims that the Court should:
      that a product has been put onto the market on more
      advantageous conditions than those laid down in the gen-           1.   Declare that the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its
      eral tariff arrangements may give rise to imbalances in the             obligations under Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the
      market concerned, with negative economic consequences;                  conservation of wild birds (1), as amended by the 1994
                                                                              Act of Accession, inasmuch as the Republic of Finland has
                                                                              not applied the derogation laid down in Article 9(1) of the
—     Procedural irregularities in that the contested regulation is           directive in accordance with the criteria laid down therein,
      not based on any technical study showing why it is nee-                 since it has not indicated that the conditions for a deroga-
      ded. Nor is Community production of canned tuna inade-                  tion under that provision are fulfilled in the case of spring
      quate and such as to provide grounds justifying the                     hunting of certain water birds in mainland Finland and the
      regulation;                                                             district of Åland, as regards in particular the application of
                                                                              the criteria ‘no other satisfactory solution’ and ‘small num-
                                                                              bers’ with respect especially to the species eider (Somateria
—     Infringement of Article 12 of the EC-ACP Partnership                    mollissima), golden-eye (Bucephala clangula), red-breasted
      Agreement, since the ACP States were not informed of                    merganser (Mergus serrator), goosander (Mergus mergan-
      the adoption of a measure affecting them;                               ser), velvet scoter (Melanitta fusca) and tufted duck (Aythya
                                                                              fuligula), and
—     Infringement of the preferential agreements with the ACP
      and GSP-Drugs (Generalised System of Preferences —                 2.   Order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.
      Drugs) States, since the tariff quota to be allocated pur-
      suant to the measures adopted in the contested regulation
      will render ineffective the preferential regimes referred to       Pleas in law and main arguments
      by allowing canned tuna from industrially developed
      countries to compete in the Community market with                  The Commission submits that the ‘no other satisfactory solu-
      that from ACP and GSP-Drugs States;                                tion’ criterion in the directive is not satisfied if autumn hunting
                                                                         of the same species is possible, albeit in smaller numbers and
                                                                         possibly in more difficult conditions from the hunter's point of
—     Breach of the principle of legitimate expectations, since          view or in different hunting locations. The Commission con-
      investments made by Community traders in the ACP and               siders that the ‘no other satisfactory solution’ requirement is to
      GSP-Drugs States will be affected, account being taken of          be assessed in a concrete and specific manner, not abstractly
      the conditions for market access for products originating          and at a general level. Local circumstances must be taken into
      in those countries;                                                account in the assessment.