title: Action brought on 6 January 1997 by Roberto D'Orazio and Pierre Hublau against Commission of the European Communities (Case T-4/97)

text:
8 . 3 . 97          1 EN 1                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 74/23
for the post of Head of Unit responsible for relations with          Action brought on 6 January 1997 by Roberto D'Orazio
the member countries of the 'Andean Pact'. According                 and Pierre Hublau against Commission of the European
to the competition notice, the post fell in career bracket                                     Communities
A 5/A 4 .
                                                                                ( Case T-4/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 74/48 )
In support of her claims, the applicant alleges, first of all,
breach of Article 5 (4 ) and Annex I to the Staff                                   (Language of the case: French)
Regulations inasmuch as, by applying to the circumstances
of this case its decision of 19 July 1988 concerning the             An action against the Commission of the European
procedure for filling middle-management posts, the                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
defendant has defined identically the duties corresponding           Instance of the European Communities on 6 January 1997
to posts in different career brackets. In this respect, she          by Roberto D'Orazio, residing in Clabecq ( Belgium ), and
considers that in its judgment in Case T- 10/94 Kratz v.             Pierre Hublau, residing in Tubize ( Belgium ), represented
Commission (') the Court of First Instance did not hold              by Patrice Bonbled, Caroline Sokolovitch and Olivier
that the Commission could define the duties attaching to             Gemberling, of the Brussels Bar.
two basic posts corresponding to separate career brackets
without placing them in rank. On the other hand, it seems
to have ruled that they could be filled at different levels          The applicants claim that the Court should:
where they were not of equal importance.
                                                                     — annul the Commission decision .
Second, the applicant alleges misuse of powers, in so far
as the contested decision forms part of a policy whose               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
objective is the appointment of younger administrators, as
distinct from pursuing the interests of the service . In             The applicants, who are the presidents of the trade-union
addition, in her opinion, the procedure for filling middle          and employee delegations of the public limited company
management posts is such as to prejudice the necessarily             Forges de Clabecq, an integrated steel undertaking that
objective character of the decision as to the level of the           produces liquid steel and finished flat products, take issue
post to be filled.                                                   with the Commission decision of 18 December 19 96
                                                                     opposing intervention by the Region of Wallonia in favour
                                                                     of the said undertaking.
Last, the applicant alleges breach of the principle that
officials are entitled to reasonable career prospects and of         That intervention was, in particular, to take the form of a
Article 5 ( 3 ) of the Staff Regulations, in that the staff          capital investment of Bfrs 1 500 000 000 by the Societe
policy guidelines and career-bracket profiles drawn up by            Wallonne de Siderurgie to recapitalize the beneficiary
the Commission work to the advantage of some officials               company.
and to the disadvantage of others who do not correspond
to them. Grade A 4 officials, including a majority of
officials with considerable seniority, like the applicant,           In support of their claims, the applicants first submit that
who wish to further their career, have no choice under               there has been a breach of the fundamental principles of
that policy but to apply for Head of Unit posts at grade             Community legality. They point out in this regard that the
A 5/A 4 level, in order to acquire the management                    right to work is a constitutional tradition accepted in all
experience required . By contrast, grade A 5 officials, a            of the Member States . This tradition was encapsulated by
majority of whom are young, enjoy greater career                     the European Parliament, on 12 April 1989, in the
opportunities as a result of the new rules for filling posts.        declaration of fundamental rights and freedoms . The
                                                                     applicants stress that this declaration encompasses
                                                                     collective social rights and social protection . The contested
                                                                     decision, in their view, applies a number of legal principles
In the alternative, the applicant claims that the decision           without taking account of human and sociological factors .
setting the level of the post in question is illegal . In that
regard, she considers that, having regard to the political
importance of the 'Andean Pact' unit, its work load, the             Second, the applicants submit that the Commission has
staff available to it and its budget, the post in issue should       adduced insufficient reasons for its decision to classify the
have been filled at grade A 3 . In the further alternative,          restructuring in question as public aid. In their view, the
the applicant also claims that the vacancy notice is illegal,        Commission did not carry out any economic analysis of
since it is imprecise and contains a manifest error of               the undertaking, and instead merely reproduced a number
 appreciation.                                                       of opinions issued by experts in the Region of Wallonia .
                                                                     Specifically, no economic argument can justify the
                                                                     conclusion that, once the restructuring has been
 (M Case T-10/94 Kratz v. Commission [ 1995 ] ECR 11-1455 .          completed, the Forges de Clabecq company cannot
                                                                     become viable .


title: Case F-121/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 14 June 2016 — Fernández González v Commission (Civil service — Temporary member of staff — Staff member posted in the cabinet of a European commissioner — Recruitment of a temporary member of staff under Article 2(b) of the CEOS — Condition requiring a six-month break from any form of employment with the Commission — Point 3.2 of Commission Note D(2005)18064 of 28 July 2005 on the hiring of temporary members of staff under Article 2(b) and (d) of the CEOS to fill permanent posts in the event that no candidates are shortlisted following a competition)

text:
               25.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/68

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 14 June 2016 — Fernández González v Commission
   (Case F-121/15) (1)

   ((Civil service - Temporary member of staff - Staff member posted in the cabinet of a European commissioner - Recruitment of a temporary member of staff under Article 2(b) of the CEOS - Condition requiring a six-month break from any form of employment with the Commission - Point 3.2 of Commission Note D(2005)18064 of 28 July 2005 on the hiring of temporary members of staff under Article 2(b) and (d) of the CEOS to fill permanent posts in the event that no candidates are shortlisted following a competition))
   (2016/C 270/75)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Elia Fernández González (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld and É. Boigelot, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s candidature for the post advertised in the vacancy notice COM/2014/2036, on the basis of the failure to comply with the condition requiring a six-month break between contracts prior to the recruitment of a member of staff who has previously been employed under a contract at grade AT2c, as provided for in note D(2005)18064 of 28 July 2005 of DG HR, and for compensation in respect of the material and non-material damage which the applicant claims to have suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Ms Elia Fernández González.

      (1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015, p. 57.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 October 2004 in Case T-3/03: Everlast World's Boxing Headquarters Corporation v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)(OHIM) (Community trade mark — Partial refusal of registration — Withdrawal of the application — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/36

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 14 October 2004
   in Case T-3/03: Everlast World's Boxing Headquarters Corporation v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)(OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Partial refusal of registration - Withdrawal of the application - No need to adjudicate)
   (2005/C 6/70)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case T-3/03: Everlast World's Boxing Headquarters Corporation, established in New York (United States), represented by A Renck, V. Bomhard, A. Pohlmann and C. Albrecht, lawyers, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: D. Schennen and G. Schneider) – action against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 30 October 2002 (Case R 391/2001-1) relating to the application for registration of the word mark ‘Choice of Champions’ – the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij and S. Papasavvas, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 14 October 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1)

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

               2)

               Each party is to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55 of 8.3.2003.


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European CommunitiesOJ C 156, 29.6.2002

text:
C 169/44        EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                         13.7.2002
                                                           III
                                                         (Notices)
                                                   (2002/C 169/79)
            Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Communities
         OJ C 156, 29.6.2002
         Past publications
         OJ C 144, 15.6.2002
         OJ C 131, 1.6.2002
         OJ C 118, 18.5.2002
         OJ C 109, 4.5.2002
         OJ C 97, 20.4.2002
         OJ C 84, 6.4.2002
                                              These texts are available on:
                                         EUR-Lex: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex
                                           CELEX: http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case T-56/01: Action brought on 13 March 2001 by Carmine Salvatore Tralli against European Central Bank

text:
19.5.2001              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 150/31
The applicant requests compensation in respect of the loss                The Commission responded to that request with two consecu-
allegedly suffered as a result of the Commission having                   tive refusals grounded on the requirements of ‘commercial
committed a fault for the purposes of Article 288 of the EC               secrecy’ and the ‘authorship rule’.
Treaty in awarding the contract to Frezza Belgium SA which
caused loss to the applicant, who was the only person to
have submitted a tender which complied with the product                   In the circumstances, the applicant takes the view that the
specification.                                                            Commission’s refusal on two separate occasions and for two
                                                                          contradictory reasons is unjustified and prevents an operator,
                                                                          whose economic activity is closely dependent on the market
                                                                          in bananas being regulated and in which the Commission has
                                                                          above all powers of oversight, from checking whether such
                                                                          regulation is being properly managed.
                                                                          In support of its arguments, the applicant claims infringement
                                                                          of the Code of Conduct adopted by the Commission by
Action brought on 1 March 2001 by CO-FRUTTA soc.                          94/90/ECSC, EC, EURATOM and Declaration No 17 appended
coop. a.r.l. against Commission of the European Com-                      to the Final Act of the Maastricht Treaty, as well as abuse of
                            munities                                      powers.
                         (Case T-47/01)
                        (2001/C 150/61)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                          Action brought on 13 March 2001 by Carmine Salvatore
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                               Tralli against European Central Bank
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 1 March 2001 by CO-FRUTTA                                                    (Case T-56/01)
soc. coop. a.r.l., represented by Wilma Viscardini, Mariano
Paolin and Simonetta Donà, avvocati.
                                                                                (2001/C 150/62)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
—     annul the decision of the Commission — contained in
      the letter of 31 July 2000 of the Director General for
      Agriculture and letter of 5 December 2000 of the                    An action against the European Central Bank was brought
      Secretary General — whereby access was refused to the               before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
      documents referred to in the request submitted by Co-               on 13 March 2001 by Carmine Salvatore Tralli, of Nidderau,
      Frutta on 27 June 2000 and again on 1 September 2000;               Germany, represented by Norbert Pflüger, Regina Steiner and
                                                                          Silvia Mittländer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          1.    find that, in failing to respond in writing to the applicant
                                                                                in respect of his complaint, in accordance with a letter of
The applicant requested access to documents in the Com-                         5 February 2001, the defendant’s President infringed the
mission’s possession relating to the common organisation of                     last paragraph of Article 8.1.5 of the European Central
the market in bananas. That request was prompted by the fact                    Bank Staff Rules;
that it had come to the notice of the applicant that enormous
quantities of bananas had been imported into the Community                2.    in the event that some of the forms of order sought in
market under forged import licences or licences which had                       Case T-373/00 are refused:
been issued on the basis of false or erroneous reference
quantities. It therefore asked the Commission a copy of or, at
least, permission to consult on the premises, the lists of the                  —     annul the notice of dismissal issued by the defendant
operators registered in the Community or of the quantities                            of 29 November 2000;
they had respectively imported during the reference period
and therefore of the provisional reference quantity allocated to                —     find that the employment relationship between the
each of them, as well as the licences used and related                                parties continues to subsist unchanged beyond
documents.                                                                            31 December 2000;
 ---pagebreak--- C 150/32               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      19.5.2001
      —     order the defendant to continue employing the               According to the applicant, there has been a clear breach of:
            applicant on the contractual terms as a security man;
3.    order the defendant to pay the costs.                             —     Council Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 of 18 December
                                                                              1986 on Community measures to improve and adapt
                                                                              structures in the fisheries and aquaculture sector (1) and
                                                                              of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1956/91 of 21 June
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               1991 laying down detailed rules for the application of
                                                                              Council Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 as regards
                                                                              measures to encourage the creation of joint enterprises (2);
The origin of the case is the same as in Cases T-373/00 (Tralli
v ECB, OJ C 61 of 24 February 2001, p. 61) and T-27/01
(Tralli v ECB, not yet published). The pleas in law and
arguments are the same as those advanced in these cases.                —     Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1116/88 of 20 April
                                                                              1988 laying down detailed rules for the application of
                                                                              decisions granting aid for projects concerning Com-
                                                                              munity measures to improve and adapt structures in the
                                                                              fisheries and aquaculture sector and in structural works
                                                                              in coastal waters (3).
                                                                        The applicant submits that the European Commission failed
Action brought on 15 March 2001 by Vendedurı́as de                      to observe the procedure laid down in those regulations for
Armadores Reunidos S.A. against the Commission of the                   cases in which, on account of the need for supplementary
                    European Communities                                analysis of the conditions for payment, the payment of aid
                                                                        granted to a joint enterprise has to be suspended. The
                                                                        Commission’s breach arises from three facts: (1) it did not
                           (Case T-61/01)                               consult the Standing Committee for the Fishing Industry; (2) it
                                                                        did not consult the Spanish authorities. Nor did it give them
                                                                        an opportunity to be involved in the suspension procedure;
                         (2001/C 150/63)                                (3) it did not adopt the suspension by means of a formal
                                                                        decision but merely by letter. According to Community case-
                                                                        law, a failure to observe an established procedure entails the
                                                                        nullity ab initio of the measures.
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              The applicant draws attention to the fact that, as regards the
European Communities on 15 March 2001 by Vendedurı́as de                Community’s liability, the three requirements laid down by
Armadores Reunidos S.A., established in Huelva (Spain),                 case-law are met in the present case: there is a wrongful act,
represented by Ramón Garcı́a-Gallardo (lawyer) and Mª Dolor-           actual harm and a causal link between the wrongful conduct
es Domı́nguez Pérez.                                                    and the damage caused. The compensation claimed is the
                                                                        accrued interest for late payment, in application of the
                                                                        principle established by case-law that the recipient of aid has a
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             right, at the very least, to payment of interest in the case of an
                                                                        infringement of the applicable legislation.
—     order the European Commission to pay Vendedurı́as de
      Armadores Reunidos S.A. compensation for damage and
      loss caused by the delayed payment of a part of its aid;
                                                                        (1) OJ 1986 L 376 p. 7, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC)
—     order the Commission of the European Communities to                   No 3944/90 of 20 December 1990 (OJ 1990 L 380, p. 1) and
      pay the costs in their entirety.                                      Council Regulation (EEC) No 3946/92 of 19 December 1992 (OJ
                                                                            1992 L 401, p. 1).
                                                                        (2) OJ 1992 L 401, p. 1.
                                                                        (3) OJ 1988 L 112, p. 1.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The action involves a claim alleging non-contractual liability
on the part of the Commission for the unlawful suspension of
payment of 20 % of the aid granted to the applicant, causing
it serious financial loss.


title: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 March 2002 in Case C-24/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Commerce, Marseille) Marseille Fret SA v Seatrano Shipping Company Ltd (Brussels Convention — Protocol concerning the interpretation by the Court of Justice of the Convention — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — National courts which may request the Court of Justice to give preliminary rulings — Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
14.9.2002               EN                           Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 219/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                       No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and
                                                                             the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and
                          (First Chamber)                                    commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — the Court (First
                                                                             Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber,
                         of 22 March 2002                                    M. Wathelet and A. Rosas, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate
                                                                             General; R. Grass, Administrator, for the Registrar, has made
                                                                             an order the operative part of which is as follows:
in Case C-24/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal de Commerce, Marseille) Marseille Fret SA v
              Seatrano Shipping Company Ltd ( 1)                             The Court of Justice of the European Communities manifestly has no
                                                                             jurisdiction to reply to the question referred to it by the Tribunal de
(Brussels Convention — Protocol concerning the interpret-                    Commerce, Marseille, by judgment of 22 January 2002.
ation by the Court of Justice of the Convention — Regulation
(EC) No 44/2001 — National courts which may request the
Court of Justice to give preliminary rulings — Manifest lack
                   of jurisdiction of the Court)                             (1 ) OJ C 97, 2002.
                          (2002/C 219/01)
                    (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Østre Landsret
In Case C-24/02: reference to the Court from the Tribunal de                 by order of that Court of 4 June 2002 in the case of
Commerce, Marseille (France), for a preliminary ruling in the                      REMEDAN af 1985 ApS against Skatteministeriet
proceedings pending before that court between Marseille
Fret SA and Seatrano Shipping Company Ltd — on the
interpretation of the Brussels Convention of 27 September                                               (Case C-226/02)
1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in
civil and commercial matters (OJ 1972 L 299, p. 32), as
amended by the Convention of Accession of 9 October 1978                                                (2002/C 219/02)
of the Kingdom of Denmark, of Ireland and of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978
L 304, p. 1 — amended text — p. 77), the Convention of
25 October 1982 on the accession of the Hellenic Republic
(OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1), the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese                         European Communities by order of the Østre Landsret (Eastern
Republic (OJ 1989 L 285, p. 1) and the Convention of                         Regional Court) (Denmark) of 4 June 2002, received at the
29 November 1996 on the accession of the Republic of                         Court Registry on 17 June 2002, for a preliminary ruling in
Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden                   the case of REMEDAN af 1985 ApS against Skatteministeriet
(OJ 1997 C 15, p. 1) and of Council Regulation (EC)                          (Danish Ministry of Fiscal Affairs) on the following question:


title: Case C-369/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 October 2013 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Transport — Directive 2001/14/EC — Articles 4(1) and 30(3) — Allocation of railway infrastructure capacity — Levying of charges — Infrastructure fees — Independence of infrastructure managers)

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/9

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 October 2013 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-369/11) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Transport - Directive 2001/14/EC - Articles 4(1) and 30(3) - Allocation of railway infrastructure capacity - Levying of charges - Infrastructure fees - Independence of infrastructure managers)
   2013/C 344/12
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Montaguti and H. Støvlbæk, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent, assisted by S. Fiorentino, avvocato dello Stato)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to take, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to comply with Article 6(3) of and Annex II to Council Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991 on the development of the Community’s railways (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 25), as amended, and with Articles 4(1) and (2), 14(2) and 30(1) and 30(3) of Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (OJ 2001 L 75, p. 29)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to ensure the independence of the infrastructure manager with regard to the setting of charges for access to the infrastructure and the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(1) and 30(3) of Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure, as amended by Directive 2007/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission, the Italian Republic and the Czech Republic to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.


title: Case C-615/12 P: Appeal brought on 24 December 2012 by Arbos, Gesellschaft für Musik und Theater against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 25 October 2012 in Case T-161/06 Arbos, Gesellschaft für Musik und Theater v European Commission

text:
               2.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/13

         Appeal brought on 24 December 2012 by Arbos, Gesellschaft für Musik und Theater against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 25 October 2012 in Case T-161/06 Arbos, Gesellschaft für Musik und Theater v European Commission

   (Case C-615/12 P)
   2013/C 63/21
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Arbos, Gesellschaft für Musik und Theater (represented by: H. Karl, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2012 in Case T-161/06, the case to be determined by the Court of Justice of the European Union;

               —

               in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant’s appeal is founded on breach of procedural requirements, their unlawful application having led to the action being dismissed as inadmissible, as a result of which the appellant’s interests have been adversely affected, and also infringement of European Union law by the General Court.
   In its decision the General Court dismissed the application as inadmissible as it was said not to have been sufficiently reasoned having regard to the legal basis, and thus did not comply with Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure. That is not reflected in the case-file. The requirements of Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure were applied arbitrarily and contrary to the purpose of the provision.
   The General Court also failed to take any account at all, in relation to the question of merit in accordance with Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure, of the further submissions in the appellant’s reply and of the arguments in its observations on the plea of inadmissibility, or took account of them solely in order to argue their inadequacy, and thereby contrary to the rules of procedure and disregarding all arguments refused to allow the application to be admitted.
   By its decision to dismiss the application on the ground of inadmissibility the General Court took a decision that could have been taken in that form and challenged as such as long ago as 2007, and thereby infringed any procedural foreseeability, transparency and efficiency. Accordingly there has been no fair and balanced procedure.


title: Order of the Court of Justice (First Chamber) of 25 February 2000 in Case C-418/98 P: Elsa De Persio v Commission of the European Communities and Council of the European Union (Officials — Redeployment — Request to be transferred from the Language Service to Category A — "Decompartmentalisation" — Appeal manifestly inadmissible and manifestly unfounded)

text:
13.5.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 135/3
           ORDER OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE                                  Action brought on 6 January 2000 by the Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities against the Federal Republic
                                                                                of Germany
                         (First Chamber)
                                                                                (Case C-5/00)
                      of 25 February 2000
                                                                                (2000/C 135/04)
in Case C-418/98 P: Elsa De Persio v Commission of the
European Communities and Council of the European
                             Union (1)                                    An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                          brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties on 6 January 2000 by the Commission of the European
(Officials — Redeployment — Request to be transferred                     Communities, represented by Wolfgang Bogensberger, of its
from the Language Service to Category A — ‘Decompart-                     Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
mentalisation’ — Appeal manifestly inadmissible and mani-                 office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, also a Member of its Legal
                        festly unfounded)                                 Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                         (2000/C 135/03)                                  The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                          (a) Declare the Federal Republic of Germany in breach of its
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                             obligations under Articles 10 and 249 EC and under
                                                                               Articles 9(1)(a) and 10(3)(a) of Council Directive
                                                                               89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of
In Case C-418/98 P: Elsa De Persio, an official of the                         measures to encourage improvements in the safety and
Commission of the European Communities, residing in Brus-                      health of workers at work (OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1) inasmuch
sels (Belgium), represented by F. Giampietro, of the Rome Bar,                 as, by Article 6 of the Gesetz zur Umsetzung der EG
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                   Rahmenrichtlinie Arbeitsschutz und weiterer Arbeits-
G. Bounéou, 4 Rue de l’Avenir — appeal against the judgment                    schutzrichtlinien (Law for the implementation of the EC
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                     framework directive on occupational health and safety and
(Second Chamber) of 15 September 1998 in Case T-23/96 De                       other directives on occupational health and safety) of
Persio v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I-A-483 and II-1413,                         7 August 1996 (BGB 1.1., p. 1246; ‘the Law on occu-
seeking annulment of that judgment, the other parties to the                   pational health and safety’), it absolved employers
proceedings being Commission of the European Communities                       employing ten persons or less from the requirement to
(Agent: G. Valsesia, assisted by A. Dal Ferro) and Council of                  keep documents containing the results of risk assessements;
the European Union (Agents: T. Gallas and D. Canga Fano) —
the Court of Justice (First Chamber), composed of: L. Sevón,
President of the Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and M. Wathe-              (b) Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
let, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
has made an order on 25 February 2000, the operative part of
which is as follows:
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
1. The appeal is dismissed;
                                                                          The Commission submits that the wording of Article 9(2) of
2. Elsa Del Persio shall bear her own costs and those incurred by         Directive 89/391/EEC is clear and ambiguous, leaving no
     the Commission for the purposes of the appeal;                       doubt as to the existence of a duty to keep documents, and
                                                                          that an interpretation based on the sense and purpose of the
                                                                          directive leads to the same result. The Commission cannot
3. The Council shall bear its own costs.                                  share the view of the German Government that, in the case of
                                                                          small undertakings with a low level of risk, the wording ‘...in
                                                                          the light of the nature of the activities and size of the
                                                                          undertakings...’ permits undertakings to refrain altogether
(1) OJ C 48 of 20.2.1999.                                                 from keeping risk assessment documents.


title: Case T-363/08: Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2010 — 2nine v OHIM — Pacific Sunwear of California (nollie) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark nollie — Earlier national and international word marks NOLI — Relative ground for refusal — No similarity between the goods — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Article 74(1) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009))

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2010 — 2nine v OHIM — Pacific Sunwear of California (nollie)
   (Case T-363/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark nollie - Earlier national and international word marks NOLI - Relative ground for refusal - No similarity between the goods - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Article 74(1) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   2010/C 134/52
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: 2nine Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Palmer, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. (Anaheim, California, United States)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 June 2008 (Case R 1590/2007-2), relating to opposition proceedings between 2nine Ltd and Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders 2nine Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

      (1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.


title: Case C-214/01: Action brought on 22 May 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
C 212/16               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      28.7.2001
requirement of unanimity of the Council would radically                  Action brought on 22 May 2001 by the Commission of
change the procedure for concluding such transport agree-                the European Communities against the Federal Republic
ments, which are normally subject to qualified majority voting.                                     of Germany
(1) Council Decision 2001/265/EC concerning the conclusion of the
    Agreement between the European Community and the Republic                                     (Case C-214/01)
    of Bulgaria establishing certain conditions for the carriage of
    goods by road and the promotion of combined transport (OJ
    2001 L 108, p. 4).
    Council Decision 2001/266/EC concerning the conclusion of the
    Agreement between the European Community and the Republic                                     (2001/C 212/28)
    of Hungary establishing certain conditions for the carriage of
    goods by road and the promotion of combined transport (OJ
    2001 L 108, p. 4).
                                                                         An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                         brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties on 22 May 2001 by the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen, legal adviser,
                                                                         with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of G.
                                                                         Berscheid, legal adviser, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht
Innsbruck (Austria) by order of that court of 9 May 2001                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
in the case of Margarete Unterpertinger v Pensionsver-
                sicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter                           1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary
                                                                               to fulfil its obligations under Articles 6, 7 and 9 of
                         (Case C-212/01)                                       Council Directive 89/618/Euratom (1) of 27 November
                                                                               1989 on informing the general public about health
                                                                               protection measures to be applied and steps to be taken
                         (2001/C 212/27)                                       in the event of a radiological emergency, the Federal
                                                                               Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         under that directive.
European Communities by order of the Landesgericht Inns-
bruck (District Court) of 9 May 2001 which was received at               2.    Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
the Court Registry on 23 May 2001, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Margarete Unterpertinger against Pensionsver-
sicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter on the following questions:
1.    Is Article 13A(1)(c) of the Sixth Council Directive
      (77/388/EEC) (1) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation               Pleas in law and main arguments
      of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover
      taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
      basis of assessment, to be interpreted as meaning that the
      exemption from value added tax provided for therein
                                                                         —     Incorrect transposition of Article 6 of the directive: The
      does not apply to turnover from the activity of a doctor
                                                                               requirement under Article 6 to inform the population
      which consists in determining the disability or ability of
                                                                               affected has not been ensured by means of binding legal
      a person applying for a pension?
                                                                               provisions in Germany. Article 6 is, however, of central
2.    Is the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European                  importance in order to achieve the objective set out in
      Communities in Case C-384/98 D v W to be interpreted                     Article 1 of improving the health protection of the
      as meaning that medical examinations and expert                          population; for the effectiveness of those provisions of
      opinions based on them for the purpose of establishing                   the directive it is therefore important that the content
      or excluding disability, incapacity to work or invalidity                and scope of the authorities’ obligations to inform the
      do not fall within the scope of application of the provision             public are sufficiently clear and are not a matter of choice
      referred to in Question 1 above, whether or not the                      by the administrative authorities, as is the case with an
      doctor who acts as an expert is instructed by a court or a               administrative instruction.
      pension insurance institution?
                                                                         —     Failure to implement Article 7 of the directive: In the
                                                                               Commission’s view legally binding provisions are also
(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.                                                 necessary in order to implement Article 7 of the directive.
                                                                               The provision made there for persons involved in emerg-
                                                                               ency assistance to be informed is not, however, ensured
                                                                               in Germany by means of binding legal provisions.
 ---pagebreak--- 28.7.2001             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 212/17
—      Failure to implement Article 9 of the directive: Until          professionnelle (CEDEFOP) was brought before the Court of
       Germany has adopted provisions for the implementation           Justice of the European Communities on 25 May 2001 by
       of Article 6 and Article 7, there are inevitably no             Michel Hendrickx, represented by J.N. Louis and V. Peere, with
       provisions regarding the procedures for circulating the         an address for service in Luxembourg.
       information and those to whom the information is to be
       addressed.
                                                                       The appellant claims that the Court should:
(1) OJ L 357, 7.12.1989, p. 31.                                        set aside the order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                       of 12 March 2001 in Case T-298/00 (Michel Hendrickx v
                                                                       CEDEFOP) (1);
                                                                       then, itself giving judgment on the basis of new provisions:
                                                                       —     grant the appellant leave to amend his pleas in law and
                                                                             submissions;
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Amtsgericht
Augsburg by order of that court of 26 February 2001 in                 in the alternative,
      the matter of a fine imposed on Bruno Schnitzer
                                                                       —     hold that the decision of the Director of CEDEFOP of
                                                                             14 November 2000 was taken by an incompetent
                        (Case C-215/01)                                      authority;
                        (2001/C 212/29)                                —     consequently, annul that decision and also CEDEFOP’s
                                                                             implied decision rejecting the appellant’s claim for pay-
                                                                             ment of a (re-)installation allowance corresponding to
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       two months’ basic salary;
European Communities by order of the Amtsgericht Augsburg
of 26 February 2001, received at the Court Registry on 23 May          —     order the defendant to pay the appellant the sum of
2001, for a preliminary ruling in the matter of a fine on Bruno              FEB 316 292, plus default interest at 7 % per annum
Schnitzer on the following question:                                         from 22 July 1999, and to pay the costs of both sets of
                                                                             proceedings.
Is it compatible with EC law on the free movement of services
for a Portuguese undertaking, which in its country of origin
fulfils the conditions for carrying on a commercial activity, to
have to satisfy further — albeit purely formal — conditions (in        Pleas in law and main arguments
this case registration on the Skilled Trades Register), in order
to carry on that activity in Germany not just on a short-term
                                                                       —     The Court of First Instance erred in law in deciding that
basis but for a longer period?
                                                                             CEDEFOP had granted the appellant’s claim, whereas the
                                                                             decision of 14 November 2000 is a non-existent decision
                                                                             adopted by an incompetent authority: the Director of
                                                                             CEDEFOP could not lawfully determine the appellant’s
                                                                             claim, since the matter had been referred to the Appeals
                                                                             Board;
                                                                       —     (In the alternative) The Court of First Instance erred in
Appeal brought on 25 May 2001 by Michel Hendrickx                            law since, by not granting the appellant leave to amend
against the order made on 12 March 2001 by the Fifth                         his submissions and pleas in law, it did not allow him to
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                       bring before the Community judicature the dispute
Communities in Case T-298/00 between Michel Hend-                            between himself and CEDEFOP over, first, the fixing of
rickx and the Centre européen pour le développement de                       the (re-)installation allowance to which he was entitled as
           la formation professionnelle (CEDEFOP)                            a result of being reassigned to the Council in Brussels
                                                                             and, second, the reimbursement of a sum allegedly paid
                                                                             in error in connection with the installation allowance
                       (Case C-217/01 P)                                     paid to him when he took up his post in Thessalonika.
                        (2001/C 212/30)
                                                                       (1) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001, p. 18.
An appeal against the order made on 12 March 2001 by the
Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-298/00 between Michel Hendrickx and
the Centre européen pour le développement de la formation


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 September 2004 in Case C-70/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Rules of interpretation — Rules concerning conflict of laws)

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/9

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 9 September 2004
   in Case C-70/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Rules of interpretation - Rules concerning conflict of laws)
   (2004/C 262/17)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   In Case C-70/03: action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations brought on 17 February 2003, Commission of the European Communities (Agents: I. Martínez del Peral and M. França) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent: L. Fraguas Gadea) — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, A. Rosas and R. Silva de Lapuerta, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 September 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing correctly to transpose into national law Articles 5 and 6(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003.


title: Case T-450/13: Action brought on 23 August 2013 — CEDC International v OHIM — Fabryka Wódek Polmos Łańcut (WISENT VODKA)

text:
               19.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 304/23

         Action brought on 23 August 2013 — CEDC International v OHIM — Fabryka Wódek Polmos Łańcut (WISENT VODKA)
   (Case T-450/13)
   2013/C 304/40
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: CEDC International sp. z o.o. (Oborniki Wielkopolskie, Poland) (represented by: M. Siciarek, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fabryka Wódek Polmos Łańcut S.A. (Łańcut, Poland)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 June 2013 given in Case R 1734/2011-4;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark in colours red, green, gold and black representing the image of a bovine animal and containing the verbal elements ‘WISENT VODKA’ for goods in Class 33 — Community trade mark application No 7 044 472

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Polish trademarks Nos 86 410, 80 990, 80 991, 46 050, 208 988, 125 911, 189 866, 208 090, 62 081 registered for ‘alcoholic beverages’ in Class 33, Community trade mark No 5 585 138 for the figurative mark in colours black and white containing the verbal element ‘ŻUBRÓWKA’ and Community trade mark No 6 215 719 for the 3D mark in colours black and white containing the verbal element ‘ŻUBRÓWKA’, registered for ‘alcoholic beverages (except beers)’ in Class 33

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition and rejected the application for Community trade mark registration

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the opposition

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (CTMR) (1).

      (1)  OJ L 78, p. 1


title: Case T-156/15: Action brought on 27 March 2015 — France v Commission

text:
               8.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/23

         Action brought on 27 March 2015 — France v Commission
   (Case T-156/15)
   (2015/C 190/28)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: The French Republic (represented by: F. Alabrune, G. de Bergues, D. Colas and C. Candat, acting as agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               Partially annul Commission Decision C(2015) 53 Final, of 16 January 2015, excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as, as regards direct aid, it is based on findings that have not been referred to in the Commission’s communications; and, in so far as the procedure for review does not allow the correct application of EU legislation on correct agricultural and environmental conditions in respect of the claim years 2011 and 2012 to be ensured;

               —

               Partially annul Decision C(2015) 53 Final in so far as it excludes from European Union financing the entirety of expenditure made in the sector of aids to the area in Upper Corsica for the claim years 2010 and following;

               —

               Partially annul Decision C(2015)53 Final in so far as it excludes from European Union financing the expenditure made by the French Republic in respect of the aid, Compensatory allowance for natural handicaps (CANH) concerning Axis 2 of the rural development plan for the financial years 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013. In the alternative, partially annul that decision in so far as it excludes from European Union financing the expenditure made by the French Republic in respect of CANH aid for sheep which were the subject of on-the-spot checks made for verification of animal identification;

               —

               Partially annul Decision C(2015) 53 Final in so far as it excludes from European Union financing the expenditure made by the French Republic in the sector of the restructuring of the sugar industry at a level of 25 % of expenditure for aid paid to sugar producers who benefited from aid for complete dismantlement and maintained storage silos; in the alternative, partially annul that decision in so far as the financial correction imposed at a level of 25 % of the expenditure on aid paid to sugar producers who benefitted from aid for complete dismantlement and maintained storage silos is disproportionate;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on eight pleas in law that concern three aspects of the contested decision.

               —

               The part of the contested decision that concerns the sector of 1st pillar direct aids for the financial years 2011, 2012 and 2013

                           1.

                           First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 (1) and the applicant’s rights of the defence, in so far as the flat rate correction imposed on all the payments of aid in the abovementioned sector, with the exception of Upper Corsica, is based on deficiencies that were not notified to the applicant.

                           2.

                           Second plea in law, alleging in the alternative, an infringement of Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (2) and of Annex III to that regulation.

                           3.

                           Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 11(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 and the applicant’s rights of the defence in so far as the financial correction applied in this sector of all the aid expenditure in Upper Corsica is based on deficiencies that were not notified to the applicant.

                           4.

                           Fourth plea in law, raised partially in the alternative, alleging an infringement of the principle of proportionality and breach of document No VI/5330/97 of the Commission, of 23 December 1997, entitled ‘Guidelines for the calculation of financial consequences when preparing the Decision regarding the clearance of the accounts’

               —

               The part of the contested decision concerning compensatory allowances for natural handicaps concerning Axis 2 of the rural development plan — EAFRD

                           5.

                           Fifth plea in law, alleging an infringement of Articles 10(2) and (4) and Article 14(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 (3), the Commission having wrongly found that the applicant had failed to comply with its obligations in respect of checks on the basis that the applicant had not carried out a livestock count during the on-the-spot checks.

                           6.

                           Sixth plea in law, raised in the alternative, alleging the unlawful extension of the application of the flat-rate correction to sheep not eligible for the ewe premium.

               —

               The part of the contested decision in respect of the financial correction applied in the restructuring of the sugar industry sector

                           7.

                           Seventh plea in law, alleging an infringement of Articles 3 and 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 (4) and Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 968/2006 (5), the Commission having excluded from European Union financing certain expenditure made by the applicant in the abovementioned sector on the basis that the stockage silos maintained on four French sites were production facilities.

                           8.

                           Eighth ground, raised in the alternative, alleging infringement of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 of 21 June 2006 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the accreditation of paying agencies and other entities and the clearance of accounts for the EAGF and the EAFRD (OJ 2006 L 171, p. 90).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16).

      (3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 of 7 December 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, as regards the implementation of control procedures as well as cross-compliance in respect of rural development support measures (OJ 2006 L 368, p. 74).

      (4)  Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 of 20 February 2006 establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the Community and amending Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy.

      (5)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 968/2006 of 27 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the Community.


title: Case T-187/17: Action brought on 21 March 2017 — Bernard Krone Holding v EUIPO (Mega Liner)

text:
               22.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/35

         Action brought on 21 March 2017 — Bernard Krone Holding v EUIPO (Mega Liner)
   (Case T-187/17)
   (2017/C 161/50)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Bernard Krone Holding SE & Co. KG (Spelle, Germany) (represented by: T. Weeg and K. Lüken, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Mega Liner’ — Application No 14 473 094

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 January 2017 in Case R 442/2016-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision, in so far as that decision dismisses the appeal;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

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

               —

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

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-39/07: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 May 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 89/48/EEC — Recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration — National legislation not providing for the recognition of diplomas allowing access to the profession of hospital pharmacist — Failure to transpose the directive)

text:
               21.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 158/6

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 May 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-39/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 89/48/EEC - Recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration - National legislation not providing for the recognition of diplomas allowing access to the profession of hospital pharmacist - Failure to transpose the directive)
   (2008/C 158/08)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and R. Vidal Puig, Agents, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to transpose Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16), as far as the profession of hospital pharmacist is concerned
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to transpose Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration, as far as the profession of hospital pharmacist is concerned, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.


title: Case C-401/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative (Luxembourg) lodged on 24 July 2015 — Noémie Depesme, Saïd Kerrou v Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la recherche

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/27

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative (Luxembourg) lodged on 24 July 2015 — Noémie Depesme, Saïd Kerrou v Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la recherche
   (Case C-401/15)
   (2015/C 302/35)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour administrative

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Noémie Depesme, Saïd Kerrou

      Respondent: Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la recherche

      Questions referred

   In order properly to meet the requirements of non-discrimination under Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 (1) on freedom of movement for workers within the Union, together with Article 45(2) TFEU, when taking into account the actual degree of attachment of a non-resident student, who has applied for financial aid for higher-education studies, with the society and with the labour market of Luxembourg, the Member State in which a frontier worker has been employed or has carried out his activity in the conditions referred to in Article 2 bis of the Law of 22 June 2000 on State financial aid for higher-education studies, as added by the Law of 19 July 2013 in direct consequence of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 20 June 2013 (Case C-20/12) (2),

               —

               should the requirement that the student be the ‘child’ of that frontier worker be taken to mean that the student must be the frontier worker’s ‘direct descendant in the first degree whose relationship with his parent is legally established’, with the emphasis being placed on the child-parent relationship established between the student and the frontier worker, which is supposed to underlie the abovementioned attachment, or

               —

               should the emphasis be placed on the fact that the frontier worker ‘continues to provide for the student’s maintenance’ without necessarily being connected to the student through a legal child-parent relationship, in particular where a sufficient link of communal life can be identified, of such a kind as to establish a connection between the frontier worker and one of the parents of the student with whom the child-parent relationship is legally established?

               —

               From the latter perspective, where the contribution — presumably, non-compulsory — of the frontier worker is not exclusive but made in parallel with that of the parent or parents connected with the student through a legal child-parent relationship, and therefore in principle under a legal duty to maintain the student, must that contribution satisfy certain criteria as regards its substance?

      (1)  OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1.

      (2)  EU:C:2013:411.


title: Case T-205/13 P: Appeal brought on 8 April 2013 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 January 2013 in Case F-100/12, Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/52

         Appeal brought on 8 April 2013 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 January 2013 in Case F-100/12, Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-205/13 P)
   2013/C 156/97
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul in its entirety and without exception the order under appeal;

               —

               Refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those set out in Case T-203/13 P Marcuccio v Commission.


title: Case T-323/08: Action brought on 12 August 2008 — Pescatori San Francesco di Paola e Sorrentino v Commission

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/36

         Action brought on 12 August 2008 — Pescatori San Francesco di Paola e Sorrentino v Commission
   (Case T-323/08)
   (2008/C 272/71)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicants: Società Cooperativa Pescatori San Francesco di Paola and Filippo Sorrentino (Vibo Valentia, Italy) (represented by: A. Maiorana, A. De Matteis and A. De Francesco, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008, published in OJ L 155 of 13 June 2008.

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those relied on in Case T-313/08 Veromar di Tudisco Alfio & Salvatore S.n.c v Commission.


title: Case T-135/09: Action brought on 7 April 2009 — Nexans France and Nexans v Commission

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/48

         Action brought on 7 April 2009 — Nexans France and Nexans v Commission
   (Case T-135/09)
   2009/C 141/101
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Nexans France SAS and Nexans SA (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Powell, Solicitor and J.-P. Tran Thiet, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the Commission’s decision of 9 January 2009 — Case COMP/39610 — Surge;

               —

               declare unlawful the Commission’s decision to remove four DVD-ROMs and a copy of the whole hard drive of the laptop of an employee of Nexans France, for review at its premises in Brussels at a later date;

               —

               annul the Commission’s decision to interview a Nexans France employee on 30 January 2009;

               —

               order the Commission to return to Nexans France any documents or evidence which it might have obtained pursuant to the annulled decisions, including without limitation: (a) documents outside the proper product scope of the dawn raid; (b) documents relating to electrical cable projects located outside the European Economic Area; (c) documents seized improperly from the hard drive and DVD-ROMs; and (d) statements created during or based on interviews of the Nexans France employee;

               —

               order the Commission to refrain from using, for the purposes of proceedings in respect of an infringement of the Community competition rules, any documents or evidence which it might have obtained pursuant to the annulled decisions;

               —

               order the Commission to refrain from transmitting such documents or evidence (or derivatives or information based thereon) to competition authorities in other jurisdictions;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings;

               —

               take such other or further steps as justice may require.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the present case, the applicants seek the annulment of Commission decision C(2009) 92/1 of 9 January 2009 ordering Nexans SA and all companies directly or indirectly controlled by it, including Nexans France SAS to submit to an inspection in accordance with Article 20, paragraph 4 of Council Regulation 1/2003 (1) (Case COMP/39610-Surge) as well as the way in which it was executed.
   In support of its claims, the applicants argue that the contested decision is in breach of the applicants’ fundamental rights, including the rights of defence, the right to a fair legal process, the privilege against self-incrimination and the presumption of innocence and right to privacy. Furthermore, they submit that in the execution of the contested decision the Commission went beyond the scope of the investigation.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty; OJ L 1, p. 1


title: Case T-295/02: Action brought on 27 September 2002 by Koninklĳke BAM NBM N.V. v Commission of the European Communities

text:
23.11.2002             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 289/35
Action brought on 25 September 2002 by Miguel Vicente-                           has or will have received since 1 April 2000 as pay and
Núñez against Commission of the European Communities                             subsequently as retirement pension, in view of his
                                                                                classification as Grade A5/3+1 on 1 April 2000, and the
                                                                                total of the amounts which he should have received, on
                        (Case T-294/02)                                          the same grounds and during the same period had he
                                                                                been reclassified in Grade A5/2+6 on 1 April 1998,
                                                                                minus, if appropriate, the compensation already paid to
                        (2002/C 289/64)                                          the applicant for the same reason;
                                                                          In any event:
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          —      order the Commission to pay to the applicant
                                                                                EUR 5 000 as compensation for the non-material damage
                                                                                caused to him by the unlawful nature of the contested
                                                                                decisions;
An action against the Commission of the European Com-                     —      order the Commission to pay the costs.
mission was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 25 September 2002 by Miguel
Vicente-Núñez, residing in Krainem (Brussels), represented by
Marc-Albert Lucas, lawyer.                                                Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The applicant in the present case, like the applicant in Case
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               T-10/99 (1), challenges the manner in which, in compliance
                                                                          with the judgment delivered in that case, the appointing
                                                                          authority finally decided to appoint him to Grade A 5, Step 3,
—    annul the decision of 17 October 2001 of the appointing              while fixing his period of service in that grade by reference to
     authority to promote the applicant to Grade A5/3+1 with              1 March 2000 rather than to 1 April 1998.
     effect from 1 April 2000 rather than to Grade A5/2+6
     on 1 April 1998;
                                                                          In support of his arguments, the applicant puts forward a
                                                                          single plea in law in which he alleges breach of the obligation
—    order the Commission to pay to the applicant by way of               to comply with the aforementioned judgment and of the
     compensation for the harm done to his career arising                 principles of equal treatment and that officials should have
     from the contested decisions an amount corresponding                 reasonable career prospects, inasmuch as the contested
     to the difference between the total remuneration received            decision leaves in place, for the period between 1 April 1998
     since 1 April 2000 until the judgment in the present case            and 1 March 2000, certain unlawful aspects criticised by the
     is delivered and the total remuneration which he should              Court of First Instance, by placing him in a less favourable
     have received during the same period if he had been                  position than his colleagues who were promoted to Grade A 5
     reclassified to Grade A5/2+6 on 1 April 1998, minus, if              during the 1998 promotion procedure for promotion from
     appropriate, the compensation already paid to the appli-             one career bracket to the next and by reducing his chances of
     cant for the same reason;                                            being promoted earlier to a higher grade.
—    order the Commission to pay to the applicant default                 (1 ) T-10/99 Vicente Núñez v Commission [2000] ECR-SC I-A-47; II-
     interest at the rate of 8 % per annum on that amount,                     203.
     with effect from the date on which that remuneration
     should have been paid to him until full payment.
In the alternative:
                                                                          Action brought on 27 September 2002 by Koninklijke
—    annul the decision of 11 June 2002 of the appointing                 BAM NBM N.V. v Commission of the European Communi-
     authority following the administrative complaint of                                                   ties
     30 January 2002 inasmuch as it grants the applicant
     compensation of EUR 1 000 for non-material damage
     and harm to his career which leaves in place its decision                                      (Case T-295/02)
     of 17 October 2001 to promote him to Grade A5/3+1
     on 1 April 2000 rather than to Grade A5/2+6 on 1 April                                         (2002/C 289/65)
     1998;
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
—    order the Commission to pay to the applicant, by way of
     making good the non-material damage caused to him as
     a result of the contested decisions, an amount correspond-           An action against Commission of the European Communities
     ing to the difference between the total of the amounts he            was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
 ---pagebreak--- C 289/36              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    23.11.2002
Communities on 27 September 2002 by Koninklijke BAM                     The applicant also claims infringement of Article 9(3) of
NBM N.V., whose registered office is in the Hague (Nether-              Regulation No 4064/89 concerning the market for the pro-
lands), represented by E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk and G.W.H. Cor-           duction of asphalt. The Commission omitted to indicate the
stens.                                                                  specific regional markets on which there would be negative
                                                                        consequences for competition.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        Furthermore, the applicant claims infringement of the principle
                                                                        of the right to a fair hearing and the obligation to state
1.    Annul the Commission Decision of 3 September 2002                 reasons. The Commission bases its finding concerning the
      pursuant to Article 9(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89           consequences of the concentration for the civil and utility
      in Case COMP/M.2881-BAM NMB/HBG;                                  construction sectors, on the one hand, and the earth-moving,
                                                                        hydraulic engineering and road construction sectors, on the
                                                                        other, on the results of a survey. The applicant states that it
2.    Order the Commission to pay the costs.                            was never able to inspect that information and was unable to
                                                                        comment on it.
                                                                        Finally, the applicant claims infringement of the obligation to
Plea in law and main arguments                                          state reasons with regard to the markets for the production of
                                                                        asphalt.
The applicant notified the Commission of its planned acqui-             (1 ) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on
sition of the Hollandsche Beton Group N.V. Both undertakings                 the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 1989
are active in the construction sector and in related markets.                L 395, p. 1) (corrected version published in OJ 1990 L 257,
                                                                             p. 13).
By the contested decision, the Commission, at the request of
the Netherlands Minister for economic affairs, referred the case
to the Netherlands competition authority as regards the
construction sector and the regional asphalt markets. As
regards the other activities of the applicant and of Hollandsche
Beton Group, the planned concentration was approved by a
Commission decision of the same date pursuant to
Article 6(1)(b) of Regulation No 4064/89 (1).                           Action brought on 27 September 2002 by Lidl Stiftung &
                                                                        Co. KG against the Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                                Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
In support of its application the applicant submits, first, that
in its referral decision the Commission made a manifestly                                         (Case T-296/02)
incorrect appraisal of the facts. According to the applicant, the
Commission errs in finding that the applicant and Hollandsche
Beton Group N.V. have a joint market share of more than                                           (2002/C 289/66)
25 % on the relevant market for major works.
                                                                        (Language of the case: to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
                                                                        of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the application has
The applicant also submits that the contested decision infringes
                                                                                been drafted: German)
Article 9(3) of Regulation No 4064/89. The Commission
misappraises the effects of the concentration on the civil and
utility construction sectors, on the one hand, and the earth-
moving, hydraulic engineering and road construction sectors
on the other hand. In particular the market shares of the
                                                                        An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
applicant and of Hollandsche Beton Group for major projects
                                                                        Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
in those sectors are much smaller than the Commission
                                                                        Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
concludes. Projects of that kind are implemented by various
                                                                        27 September 2002 by Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG, of Neckarsulm
undertakings which work together on one project. According
                                                                        (Germany), represented by Peter Gross, Rechtsanwalt.
to the applicant, the Commission erred in completely attribu-
ting to the applicant and Hollandsche Beton Group the market
shares of those groups of undertakings in which they took
part, without taking into account the other undertakings                A further party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
cooperating with them.                                                  was REWE-Zentral AG, of Cologne (Germany).


title: Case C-367/10 P: Order of the Court of 31 March 2011 — EMC Development AB v European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European cement market — Action for annulment of a decision rejecting a complaint against the adoption of a harmonised standard for cement — Procedure for the adoption of the standard — Binding nature of the standard — Appeal clearly inadmissible in part and clearly unfounded in part)

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/9

         Order of the Court of 31 March 2011 — EMC Development AB v European Commission
   (Case C-367/10 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European cement market - Action for annulment of a decision rejecting a complaint against the adoption of a harmonised standard for cement - Procedure for the adoption of the standard - Binding nature of the standard - Appeal clearly inadmissible in part and clearly unfounded in part)
   2011/C 252/17
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: EMC Development AB (represented by: W.-N. Schelp, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Bourke, Agent)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 May 2010 in Case T-432/05 EMC Development v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed an action seeking the annulment of the Commission's decision of 28 November 2005 rejecting the applicant's complaint based on Article 2(2) of Regulation No 17 and concerning alleged concerted practices on the part of European Portland cement producers consisting of the adoption of a European standard for cement (EN 197-1) aimed at excluding from the market products and technologies of competitors

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               EMC Development AB shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.


title: Case C-263/12: Action brought on 25 May 2012 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

text:
               21.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/13

         Action brought on 25 May 2012 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-263/12)
   2012/C 217/30
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Patakia and B. Stromsky)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by not taking within the prescribed period all the measures necessary for recovery of the aid implemented by Greece in favour of Ellinikos Khrisos A.E. (C 48/2008 (ex NN 61/2008)) and found to be unlawful and incompatible with the common market pursuant to Article 1 of the Commission decision of 23 February 2011 (C(2011) 1006 final) or, in any event, by not informing the Commission sufficiently of the measures which it has taken in accordance with that article, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 3 and 4 of that decision and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               On 23 February 2011 the Commission decided that the State aid amounting to EUR 15.34 million unlawfully granted by Greece in breach of Article 108(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in favour of Ellinikos Khrisos A.E., by way of a sale of assets and land below its value and a waiver of the associated taxes, with the aim of protecting employment and the environment and also of creating an incentive for potential buyers of the Cassandra Mines, was incompatible with the internal market. (1) By that decision, the Commission asked the Hellenic Republic to recover the aid, together with interest, from the beneficiary. The Hellenic Republic was also obliged to inform the Commission of the measures to implement the decision.

               2.

               The Hellenic Republic requested an extension of the two-month period for the provision of information, which it was not granted by the Commission because no justification was advanced therefor.

               3.

               Despite the Commission’s letters of reminder to the Hellenic Republic of 19 May 2011 and 14 July 2011, no information was given to the Commission, within the time-limit laid down, concerning the adoption of measures to implement the Commission decision.

               4.

               On 8 May 2012, the Greek authorities notified the Commission of their letter of 25 April 2012 by which they demanded repayment of the State aid in question from Ellinikos Khrisos A.E. within 30 days. The Commission observes, however, that the amount that must be recovered is not mentioned in that letter. It is to be noted that, even if the principal sum of the State aid was calculated by the Commission in its aforementioned decision, the Greek authorities did not calculate the amount of interest, as they were obliged to do, and they do not mention it in their demand addressed to the company. In any event, that first reaction on the part of the Greek authorities occurred 14 months after the Commission decision and since then the Commission has no other information relating to the recovery of the State aid at issue.

      (1)  Article 1 of the Commission Decision of 23 February 2011 on the State aid C 48/2008 (ex NN 61/2008) implemented by Greece in favour of Ellinikos Khrisos A.E.