title: Case C-104/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Brindisi, Sezione V by order of that court of 14 January 1999 in the case of Oleifici Italiani SpA against Direzione Regionale delle Entrate per la Puglia - Sezione distaccata di Brindisi

text:
3.7.1999                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 188/7
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Diikitiko                         Action brought on 29 March 1999 by the Italian Republic
Protodikio Thessalonikis (First Chamber, Three Judges)                        against the Commission of the European Communities
by judgment of that court of 30 November 1998 in the
case of P. Moskof A.E. against the Idrima Kinonikon
                              Asfalision                                                              (Case C-107/99)
                          (Case C-103/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 188/16)
                          (1999/C 188/14)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
European Communities by judgment of the Diikitiko Protodi-                  ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
kio Thessalonikis (Administrative Court of First Instance,                  Communities on 29 March 1999 by the Italian Republic,
Thessaloniki) (First Chamber, Three Judges) of 30 November                  represented by Umberto Leanza, acting as Agent, assisted by
1998, received at the Court Registry on 22 March 1999, for a                Ivo M. Braguglia, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
preliminary ruling in the case of P. Moskof A.E. against the                the Italian Embassy, 5 Rue Marie Adelaïde.
Idrima Kinonikon Asfalision (Social Security Institution) on
the following question:
Articles 6 and 7 of Legislative Decree 2348/1953 (FEK I,                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
p. 75), as supplemented by Article 2 of Legislative Decree
2519/1953 (FEK I, p. 220) and amended by Articles 9 and                     — annul the contested decision of 16 December 1998 and,
11(4) of Legislative Decree 4104/1960 (FEK I, p. 147), provide                   in so far as necessary, also annul the other contested acts,
for the imposition of a special contribution at the rate of 0.5%
                                                                                in particular the letter of the Commission dated 19 January
on the value of tobacco exported outside the borders of the
                                                                                1999, the table thereto attached and the opinion of the
country, paid by the exporters at the time of export and
                                                                                Management Committee of 22 September 1998;
collected by the customs office through which the export of
tobacco takes place. The proceeds of the special contribution
were stipulated to be revenue of the special account for                    — order the defendant to pay the costs.
tobacco workers, and now of the Pensions Branch of the
Idrima Kinonikon Asfalision (Social Security Institution); they
are made available for the continued payment of pensions
to pensioners of the former Tamio Asfaliseos Kapnergaton                    Pleas in law and main arguments
(Tobacco Workers’ Insurance Fund) which was abolished and
amalgamated with the Idrima Kinonikon Asfalision and for
the payment of pensions to the tobacco workers insured with
the abolished fund, as well as to persons entitled under them               1. The applicant Government has not been made aware of
on their death. Is it possible for that special contribution, with               any text for the contested decision and does not even
those features, to be regarded as a charge having equivalent                     know whether such a text exists other than in the letter of
effect to customs duty under Articles 9, 12 and 16 of the EEC                    the Secretary General of 9 January 1999 and the table
Treaty?                                                                          attached thereto. Accordingly the Italian Government must
                                                                                express its objection as if the contested decision were set
                                                                                out in the abovementioned letter.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione
Tributaria Provinciale di Brindisi, Sezione V by order of                        The applicant claims that the decision as subscribed by the
that court of 14 January 1999 in the case of Oleifici                            Secretary General, rather than by the President or a
Italiani SpA against Direzione Regionale delle Entrate per                       Member of the European Commission is non-existent or is
           la Puglia - Sezione distaccata di Brindisi                            absolutely null and void.
                          (Case C-104/99)
                          (1999/C 188/15)                                        Next, it claims that no statement of reasons was provided
                                                                                for the decision, contrary to the provisions of Article 190
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                           of the EC Treaty.
European Communities by order of the Commissione Tributar-
ia Provinciale di Brindisi, Sezione V (Provincial Tax Court (Fifth
Chamber), Brindisi) of 14 January, which was received at the                2. The Commission has infringed Article 24 of Regulation
Court Registry on 23 March 1999, for a preliminary ruling in                     No 4253/88, (1) as amended by Article 1 of Regulation
the case of Oleifici Italiani SpA against Direzione Regionale                    No 2082/93, (2) in that it failed to undertake a suitable
delle Entrate per la Puglia — Sezione distaccata di Brindisi of a                examination of the case, the Member State was not
question seeking to ascertain whether the tax on the net assets                  involved and no irregularities were revealed.
of companies under Decree Law No 394 of 30 September
1994 is a charge having equivalent effect to other taxes levied             3. The Commission had no power to decide unilaterally to
on capital contributions and thus contrary to Article 10 of                      reduce or amend the purpose of the funds for Community
Directive 69/335/EEC (1) on indirect taxes on the raising of                     initiative programmes which had been granted.
capital.
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412.                          4. The partnership principle laid down in Article 4 of
                                                                                Regulation No 2052/88 (3) wasmanifestly breached by the
                                                                                contested Commission decision.


title: Case F-121/06: Action brought on 29 September 2006 — Spee v Europol

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/84

         Action brought on 29 September 2006 — Spee v Europol
   (Case F-121/06)
   (2006/C 326/169)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: David Spee (Rijswijk, Netherlands) (represented by: D.C. Coppens, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Europol's decision of 5 July 2006;

               —

               Order Europol to grant two incremental points to the applicant with effect from 1 November 2005;

               —

               Order Europol to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant challenges the decision to grant him only an increase in salary corresponding to one of the incremental points referred to in Article 29 of the Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees, when, in his opinion, he was entitled to an increase corresponding to two increments.
   He submits that Europol took into consideration not only the assessment provided for in Article 29 of the Staff Regulations of Europol, but also the assessment provided for in Article 28 of those same Regulations. By acting in that way, the administration retroactively applied the document of 24 March 2006‘Policy on the Determination of Salary Scale and Incremental Points of Europol Staff’ in breach of the principle of legal certainty.
   Furthermore, the applicant claims that, even if the administration was entitled to take into consideration the two assessments, the method applied is arithmetically incorrect and disadvantageous for the worker.


title: Case C-667/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Varna — Bulgaria) — Paltrade EOOD v Nachalnik na Mitnicheski punkt — Pristanishte Varna pri Mitnitsa Varna (Commercial policy — Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Articles 13 and 14 — Imports of products originating in China — Anti-dumping duties — Circumvention — Re-consignment of goods via Malaysia — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 723/2011 — Registration of imports — Recovery of anti-dumping duties — Retroactivity)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/20

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Varna — Bulgaria) — Paltrade EOOD v Nachalnik na Mitnicheski punkt — Pristanishte Varna pri Mitnitsa Varna
   (Case C-667/11) (1)

   (Commercial policy - Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Articles 13 and 14 - Imports of products originating in China - Anti-dumping duties - Circumvention - Re-consignment of goods via Malaysia - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 723/2011 - Registration of imports - Recovery of anti-dumping duties - Retroactivity)
   2013/C 225/33
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad Varna

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Paltrade EOOD

      Defendant: Nachalnik na Mitnicheski punkt — Pristanishte Varna pri Mitnitsa Varna

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad — Varna — Interpretation of Article 1 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 723/2011 of 18 July 2011 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not (OJ 2011 L 194, p. 6) and Commission Regulation (EU) No 966/2010 of 27 October 2010 initiating an investigation concerning the possible circumvention of anti-dumping measures imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China by imports of certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not, and making such imports subject to registration (OJ 2010 L 282, p. 29) — Retroactive levy of an anti-dumping duty — Failure to introduce into the Bulgarian customs system a system of registration other than that of the Single Administrative Document — Determination of the appropriate amount of the anti-dumping duty levied retroactively

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 14(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community, referred to in Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 966/2010 of 27 October 2010 initiating an investigation concerning the possible circumvention of anti-dumping measures imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China by imports of certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not, and making such imports subject to registration, must be interpreted as meaning that means of registration such as those at issue in the main proceedings are in accordance with that provision, and suffice, therefore, for the retroactive levy of an anti-dumping duty pursuant to Article 1 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 723/2011 of 18 July 2011 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not, following an investigation finding circumvention of the definitive anti-dumping duties imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China.
   In accordance with Article 1(2) of Regulation No 91/2009, the rate of the extended anti-dumping duty levied retroactively on goods imported prior to the entry into force of Implementing Regulation No 723/2011 is 85 % for ‘all other companies’.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.


title: Case F-86/13: Action brought on 13 September 2013 — ZZ v Parliament

text:
               16.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 336/31

         Action brought on 13 September 2013 — ZZ v Parliament
   (Case F-86/13)
   2013/C 336/70
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: P. Bentley QC, Barrister, and R. Bäuerle, Rechtsanwalt)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the decision prohibiting the applicant from taking up an appointment as an adviser to the Prime Minister of Ukraine within two years as from the date of termination of his functions with the European Parliament.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul the Parliament's decision dated 3 January 2013 forbidding the Applicant from undertaking an appointment as Adviser to Prime Minister of Ukraine, for two years following the termination of his employment with the Parliament;

               —

               annul the Parliament's decision dated 24 June 2013 rejecting the Complaint filed by the Applicant against the Parliament's decision of 3 January 2013;

               —

               order the Parliament to bear the costs of the present proceedings.


title: Case T-305/04: Action brought on 26 July 2004 by Eden against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM)

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/41

         Action brought on 26 July 2004 by Eden against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM)
   (Case T-305/04)
   (2004/C 262/78)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 26 July 2004 by Eden, established in Paris, represented by M. Antoine-Lalance, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 May 2004 (Case R 591/2003-4);

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Community trade mark sought:

               Olfactory mark ‘ODEUR DE FRAISE MÛRE’ accompanied by a graphic representation of a strawberry — Registration No 001122118.

               Goods or services:

               Goods in Classes 3, 16, 18 and 25.

               Decision contested before the Board of Appeal:

               Refusal to register by the examiner.

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Dismissal of the appeal.

               Pleas in law:

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation No 40/94.


title: Case C-118/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Budai Központi Kerületi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 7 March 2017 — Zsuzsanna Dunai v ERSTE Bank Hungary Zrt

text:
               10.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/2

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Budai Központi Kerületi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 7 March 2017 — Zsuzsanna Dunai v ERSTE Bank Hungary Zrt
   (Case C-118/17)
   (2017/C 221/03)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Budai Központi Kerületi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Zsuzsanna Dunai

      Defendant: ERSTE Bank Hungary Zrt

      Questions referred

               1.

               Should point 3 [of the operative part] of the judgment delivered by the Court of Justice in Case C-26/13 be interpreted as meaning that a national court may remedy the fact that a term of a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer is invalid where the continuation of the contract is contrary to the economic interests of the consumer?

               2.

               Is it consistent with the powers conferred on the European Union in order to ensure a high level of consumer protection and with the fundamental EU principles of equality before the law, non-discrimination, the right to an effective judicial remedy and the right to fair legal process, for the parliament of a Member State to alter, by the adoption of an act, private law contracts in similar categories concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer?

                           2/a.

                           If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative, is it consistent with the powers conferred on the European Union in order to ensure a high level of consumer protection and with the fundamental EU principles of equality before the law, non-discrimination, the right to an effective judicial remedy and the right to fair legal process, for the parliament of a Member State to alter, by the adoption of an act, various parts of loan contracts denominated in a foreign currency, supposedly for consumer protection purposes but triggering an effect which is in fact contrary to the fair interests of consumer protection, in that the loan contract remains valid following those alterations and the consumer is required to continue to bear the costs resulting from the foreign exchange risk?

               3.

               With regard to the content of contracts concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer, is it consistent with the powers conferred on the European Union in order to ensure a high level of consumer protection and with the fundamental EU principles of the right to an effective judicial remedy and the right to fair legal process in respect of any civil law matter for the standardisation panel of the highest court of a Member State to direct the rulings of courts hearing such proceedings by means of ‘decisions adopted with a view to ensuring uniform interpretation of the law’?

                           3/a.

                           If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative, is it consistent with the powers conferred on the European Union in order to ensure a high level of consumer protection and with the fundamental EU principles of the right to an effective judicial remedy and the right to fair legal process in respect of any civil law matter for the standardisation panel of the highest court of a Member State to direct the rulings of courts hearing such proceedings by means of ‘decisions adopted with a view to ensuring uniform interpretation of the law’ where the appointment of judges as members of the standardisation panel is not carried out transparently, in accordance with predetermined rules, where the procedure before that panel is not public, and where it is not possible to know a posteriori the procedure followed, namely the expert evidence and academic works relied on and the way in which the various members have voted (for or against)?


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België by judgment of that court of 4 December 1997 in the case of Leathertex Divisione Sintetici SpA against BVBA Bodetex (Case C-420/97)

text:
7.2.98                   EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 41/15
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Netherlands                 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van
Raad van State by order of that court of 25 November                    Cassatie van BelgieÈ by judgment of that court of
1997 in the case of ARCO Chemie Nederland Ltd v.                        4 December 1997 in the case of Leathertex Divisione
Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en                               Sintetici SpA against BVBA Bodetex
                            Milieubeheer                                                        (Case C-420/97)
                          (Case C-418/97)                                                         (98/C 41/30)
                            (98/C 41/29)
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by judgment of the Hof van
                                                                        Cassatie van BelgieÈ (Belgian Court of Cassation) of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  4 December 1997, received at the Court Registry on
European Communities by order of the Netherlands Raad                   11 December 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
van State (Council of State) of 25 November 1997,                       Leathertex Divisione Sintetici SpA against BVBA Bodetex
received at the Court Registry on 11 December 1997, for                 on the following question:
a preliminary ruling in the case of ARCO Chemie
Nederland Ltd v. Minister van Volkshuisvesting,
Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer (Minister for                      Are Article 5(1) and Article 2 of the Brussels Convention,
Housing, Planning and the Environment) on the following                 in the version applicable to the present case, to be
questions:                                                              interpreted as meaning that a composite claim founded on
                                                                        different obligations arising from the same contract may
                                                                        be brought before the same court, even though, according
                                                                        to the jurisdictional rules of the State in which the
1. May it be inferred from the mere fact that LUWA                      proceedings are brought, one of the contractual
     bottoms (1) undergo an operation listed in Annex II(B)             obligations on which the claim is based is to be performed
     to Directive 75/442/EEC (2) that that substance has                in that State and the other is to be performed in another
     been discarded so as to enable it to be regarded as                EC Member State, having regard to the fact that the court
     waste for the purposes of Directive 75/442/EEC?                    before which the proceedings are brought decides, on the
                                                                        basis of the claim brought before it, that neither of the
                                                                        two obligations forming the subject matter of the claim is
                                                                        subordinate to the other and that they are of equal rank?
2. If question 1 is to be answered in the negative, does
     the reply to the question whether the use of LUWA-
     bottoms as a fuel is to be regarded as constituting
     discarding depend on whether:
     (a) LUWA-bottoms             constitute    waste      under        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
         contemporary thinking whereby it is of particular              Grande Instance de Meaux (First Chamber), by judgment
         relevance whether they may be recovered in an                  of 13 November 1997, in the case of Yves Tarantik and
         environmentally responsible manner for use as fuel                    Direction des Services Fiscaux, Seine-et-Marne
         without further processing,
                                                                                (Case C-421/97)
                                                                                (98/C 41/31)
     (b) the use of LUWA-bottoms as a fuel is comparable
         with an accepted method of waste recovery,
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by judgment of 13 November
     (c) the substance used is a main product or a by-                  1997 of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Meaux
         product (residue)?                                             (Regional Court, Meaux), (First Chamber), which was
                                                                        received at the Court Registry on 11 December 1997, for
                                                                        a preliminary ruling in the case of Yves Tarantik v.
(1) The material known as LUWA-bottoms is one of the by-                Direction des Services Fiscaux (Central Tax Office), Seine-
    products of the production process used by the appellant. In        et-Marne, on the following questions:
    addition to propylene oxide and tertiary butyl alcohol the
    production process generates a flow of hydrocarbons
    containing molybdenum. The molybdenum is from catalysts             Considering the date of road authorization of the
    used for the production of the propylene oxide. In a plant          plaintiff's Jaguar car, which has a fiscal horsepower value
    intended for that purpose molybdenum is recovered from the          of 24 hp, bears the registration number 197 AT 77, and
    flow of hydrocarbons whereby the material designated by the         was first put on the road on 11 April 1979, and having
    appellant as LUWA-bottoms is obtained. LUWA-bottoms have
                                                                        regard to the graphical representations and outline of the
    a calorific value of 25 to 28 MJ/kg.
(2) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 47.                                         developments in taxation submitted by the plaintiff, on
                                                                        the one hand, and by the French tax authorities, on the
                                                                        other, does the system of taxation applied correspond to
                                                                        objective criteria lacking in any discriminatory effect
                                                                        prohibited by Article 95 of the EEC Treaty? In particular:


title: Case T-542/11: Action brought on 6 October 2011 — Alouminion v Commission

text:
               17.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 370/26

         Action brought on 6 October 2011 — Alouminion v Commission
   (Case T-542/11)
   2011/C 370/44
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Alouminion A.E. (Marousi, Greece) (represented by: G. Dellis and N. Korogiannakis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Commission Decision C(2011) 4916 final of 13 July 2011 relating to State aid C 2/2010 (ex NN 62/2009) implemented by Greece in favour of Alouminion tis Ellados A.E.;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By this action, the applicant seeks, pursuant to the fourth paragraph of Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’), the annulment, with the consequences laid down by the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU, of Decision C(2011) 4916 final of the European Commission of 13 July 2011 under number C 2/2010 (ex NN 62/2009) concerning the grant of State aid to the company Alouminion tis Ellados.
   In support of its claims, the applicant puts forward the following grounds for annulment:

               —

               Infringement of Article 1 of Regulation No 659/1999, and infringement of the rules concerning the allocation of competence between the Commission and the national courts and the right to judicial protection. The Commission clearly erred in its assessment of the facts, took account of factors that were clearly erroneous and made clear errors of law in classifying the supposed aid as ‘new’. The measure at issue was adopted under precisely the same regime as the supposed existing aid and the reasoning given for the Commission’s view is defective;

               —

               Infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU inasmuch as the Commission erred in finding there to be an advantage, did not apply the private investor test and did not examine whether there are objective commercial grounds justifying the contractual tariff of 1960;

               —

               Infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU inasmuch as the Commission erred in finding that the aid is selective, notwithstanding the obligation of the DEI (Dimosia Epikhirisi Ilektrismou (Public Power Corporation)) to set in a similar manner the tariffs of similar categories of undertakings and in a different manner those of different categories to the extent that they are different;

               —

               Infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU inasmuch as the Commission erred in finding that trade between Member States is distorted and affected, although the applicant does not obtain any advantage compared with the other aluminium undertakings because of the uniformity of aluminium’s characteristics and because of the exchange-set price;

               —

               Incorrect methodology in calculating the amount of the supposed advantage;

               —

               Infringement of the duty to state reasons;

               —

               Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations on account of the Commission’s previous position that the DEI’s contractual tariff with the applicant did not constitute unlawful State aid, and of the applicant’s rights of defence.


title: Case T-228/07: Action brought on 29 June 2007 — Malheiro v Commission

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/38

         Action brought on 29 June 2007 — Malheiro v Commission
   (Case T-228/07)
   (2007/C 211/73)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Ana Malheiro (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C. Ebrecht, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision adopted by the European Commission, Director-General of Personnel and Administration on 30 April 2007, rejecting complaint No R/6/07, registered on 8 January 2007, seeking annulment of the decision by the European Commission's DG ADMIN not to grant her allowances other than the reduced daily subsistence allowance of EUR 28.78;

               —

               order that the defendant pay the applicant, for the period of 16 November 2006 until 31 October 2008, the full daily subsistence allowance of EUR 115.09 provided for by the Commission Decision laying down rules on the secondment of national experts to the Commission (C(2006) 2003) of 1 June 2006 less the amount of the daily subsistence allowances already received by the applicant, plus an additional monthly allowance of EUR 542.55;

               —

               order that the defendant reimburse the applicant her incurred removal expenses;

               —

               order the defendant to bear the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, who is working as a seconded national expert for the Commission, wishes to receive i) full daily subsistence allowance instead of the reduced daily subsistence allowance granted by the Commission, and ii) a further monthly allowance instead of removal expenses.
   In support of her application, the applicant firstly submits that the Commission committed an error of assessment since it deemed the applicant's residence to be in Brussels because her husband has his residence there. The applicant submits that her stay in Brussels is only of a temporary character and that she is to the same extent as any other seconded national expert exposed to the same inconveniences and disadvantages resulting in the temporary nature of the secondment.
   Furthermore, the applicant alleges that the Commission infringed the principle of equal treatment and Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union since Article 20(3)(b) of the Commission's decision laying down the rules on the secondment of national experts to the Commission discriminates against married seconded national experts compared to unmarried seconded national experts living together with someone in a relationship.
   Moreover, the applicant contends that this discrimination as well as the, in comparison with the applicant's allowance, higher allowance given to unmarried male seconded national experts (whether living in a relationship or not) leads to an infringement of Article 141 EC and the principle of equal pay for men and women as well as of Directive 2000/78/EC (1) and of the principle of proportionality.

      (1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).


title: Case T-16/03: Action brought on 13 January 2003 by Albano Ferrer de Moncada against Commission of the European Communities

text:
5.4.2003               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 83/21
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           —     award EUR 1 000 by way of damages as compensation
                                                                                for non-material damage, that amount being fixed ex
                                                                                aequo et bono;
The applicant is an official of the Commission. She was
assigned to Cadarache and then reassigned to Brussels. The
applicant challenged the decision to reassign her in Case                 —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
T-355/01, which resulted in a settlement being reached with
the Commission and in the applicant’s being seconded to
Cadarache. However, the Commission took the view that the
applicant had received the weighting for France and the                   Pleas in law and main arguments
expatriation allowance without being entitled to do so. The
applicant was also deprived of the ‘secretarial allowance’ and
of the fixed allowance for travelling expenses.                           By his action the applicant, an official of the Commission,
                                                                          challenges the validity of his staff report for the period 1995-
In support of her action, the applicant claims that there has             1997 and claims damages for the faults allegedly committed
been an infringement of Articles 59 and 64 of the Staff                   by the Commission in preparing that report.
Regulations and Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations
and an infringement of Article 71 of the Staff Regulations and
Articles 5 to 10 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations. The               He claims that the report infringes Article 43 of the Staff
applicant also claims that there has been a breach of the                 Regulations and the provisions of the Guide to Staff Reports.
obligation to state reasons and an infringement of the principle          Thus, notwithstanding the opinion of the Joint Committee
of non-discrimination.                                                    on Staff Reports pointing out significant procedural and
                                                                          substantive irregularities, the appeal assessor did not find it
In the alternative, as regards the weighting for France and the           necessary to correct them. In addition, that the report was
expatriation allowance, the applicant claims that there has               completed after an unreasonable period of time was the
been an infringement of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations.              Commission’s fault alone. Similarly, the assessors systemati-
The applicant also claims that there has been an infringement             cally refused to hold a prior interview with the applicant as
of Article 4a of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, an                   provided for by the Guide to Staff Reports. Furthermore, the
infringement of the general principle that an institution must            quite irregular drafting of the report reflected a more general
comply with the rules which it itself has made and a breach of            ‘mobbing’ attitude from which the applicant had suffered for
the obligation to state reasons as regards the secretarial                some years.
allowance.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the very negative assessments in his
Last, the applicant claims that there has been an infringement            report are clearly unfounded and that the Commission has
of the general principle of sound management and good                     failed in its duty to have regard for the interests of officials and
administration and a breach of the duty to have regard for the            has failed to observe the principle of sound administration.
welfare of officials.
Action brought on 13 January 2003 by Albano Ferrer de
Moncada against Commission of the European Communi-
                                ties                                      Action brought on 22 January 2003 by Spyridoula Kon-
                                                                          stantopoulou against Court of Justice of the European
                                                                                Communities
                         (Case T-16/03)
                         (2003/C 83/48)                                                             (Case T-19/03)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (2003/C 83/49)
An action against Commission of the European Communities                                      (Language of the case: French)
was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 13 January 2003 by Albano Ferrer de
Moncada, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Georges
Vandersanden, Laure Levi and Aurore Finchelstein, lawyers.                An action against the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                          Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               European Communities on 22 January 2003 by Spyridoula
                                                                          Konstantopoulou, residing in Ioannina (Greece), represented
—     annul his staff report for the reference period 1995-1997;          by Eric Boigelot, lawyer.


title: Case T-502/13: Order of the General Court of 16 July 2014  — ASPA v OHIM — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria (ARGENTARIA)

text:
               22.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 329/26

         Order of the General Court of 16 July 2014 — ASPA v OHIM — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria (ARGENTARIA)
   (Case T-502/13) (1)

   2014/C 329/41
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 352, 30.11.2013.


title: Case C-498/07 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 September 2009 — Aceites del Sur-Coosur SA, formerly Aceites del Sur v Koipe Corporación, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Figurative mark La Española — Overall assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Decisive element)

text:
               24.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/4

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 September 2009 — Aceites del Sur-Coosur SA, formerly Aceites del Sur v Koipe Corporación, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-498/07 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Figurative mark La Española - Overall assessment of the likelihood of confusion - Decisive element)
   2009/C 256/07
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Aceites del Sur-Coosur SA, formerly Aceites del Sur SA (represented by: J.-M. Otero Lastres and R. Jimenez Diaz, abogados)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Koipe Corporación SL (represented by: M. Fernández de Béthencourt, abogado), Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. García Murillo, Agent)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 12 September 2007 in Case T-363/04 Koipe v OHIM and Aceites del Sur (La Española), by which the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 11 May 2004 (Case R 1109/2000-4) was altered so as to hold that the appeal brought by the applicant before the Board of Appeal is well founded and, consequently, that the opposition is to be upheld.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Aceites del Sur-Coosur SA to pay, in addition to its own costs, those of Koipe Corporación SL;

               3.

               Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.


title: Case C-381/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 22 August 2008 — Car Trim GmbH v KeySafety Systems SRL

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 22 August 2008 — Car Trim GmbH v KeySafety Systems SRL
   (Case C-381/08)
   (2008/C 301/29)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesgerichtshof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Car Trim GmbH

      Defendant: KeySafety Systems SRL
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 5(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) to be interpreted as meaning that contracts for the delivery of goods to be produced or manufactured are, notwithstanding specific obligations on the part of the customer with regard to the provision, fabrication and delivery of the components to be produced, including a guarantee of the quality of production, reliability of delivery and smooth administrative handling of the order, to be classified as a sale of goods (first indent), and not as provision of services (second indent)? What criteria are decisive for the distinction?

               2.

               If a sale of goods is to be presumed: in the case of contracts involving carriage of goods, is the place where under the contract the goods sold were delivered or should have been delivered to be determined according to the place of physical transfer to the purchaser, or according to the place at which the goods were handed over to the first carrier for transmission to the purchaser?

      (1)  OJ L 12, 16.1.2001, p. 1.


title: Case C-682/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 June 2015 — Andechser Molkerei Scheitz GmbH v European Commission (Appeals — Public health — List of food additives approved for use in foods — Steviol glycosides — Conditions of admissibility — Interest in bringing proceedings)

text:
               20.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/12

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 June 2015 — Andechser Molkerei Scheitz GmbH v European Commission
   (Case C-682/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeals - Public health - List of food additives approved for use in foods - Steviol glycosides - Conditions of admissibility - Interest in bringing proceedings))
   (2015/C 236/16)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Andechser Molkerei Scheitz GmbH (represented by: H. Schmidt, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: S. Grünheid and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Andechser Molkerei Scheitz GmbH to pay the costs

      (1)  OJ C 45, 15.2.2014.


title: Case C-281/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München (Germany) lodged on 11 June 2015 — Soha Sahyouni v Raja Mamisch

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/29

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München (Germany) lodged on 11 June 2015 — Soha Sahyouni v Raja Mamisch
   (Case C-281/15)
   (2015/C 294/36)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht München

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Soha Sahyouni

      Defendant: Raja Mamisch

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the scope of Council Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 (1) of 20 December 2010 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation (OJ 2010 L 343, p. 10), as defined in Article 1 of that regulation, also include ‘private divorce’, in this instance one pronounced before a religious court in Syria on the basis of sharia?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:

                           (a)

                           In the case of an examination as to whether a divorce is eligible for recognition in national territory, must Article 10 of Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 also be applied?

                           (b)

                           If the answer to Question 2(a) is in the affirmative:

                                       (1)

                                       Is account to be taken in the abstract of a comparison showing that, while the law of the forum grants access to divorce to the other spouse too, that divorce is, on account of the other spouse’s sex, subject to different procedural and substantive conditions than access for the first spouse,
                                       or

                                       (2)

                                       Does the validity of that rule depend on whether the application of the foreign law, which is discriminatory in the abstract, also discriminates in the particular case in question?

                           (c)

                           If the answer to Question (b)(2) is in the affirmative:

                     Does the fact that the spouse discriminated against consents to the divorce — including by duly accepting compensation — itself constitute a ground for not applying that rule?

      (1)  OJ 2010 L 343, p. 10.


title: Case C-480/08: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 February 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, United Kingdom) — Maria Teixeira v London Borough of Lambeth, Secretary of State for the Home Department (Freedom of movement for persons — Right of residence — National of a Member State who worked in another Member State and remained there after ceasing to work — Child in vocational training in the host Member State — No means of subsistence — Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 — Article 12 — Directive 2004/38/EC)

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/6

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 February 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, United Kingdom) — Maria Teixeira v London Borough of Lambeth, Secretary of State for the Home Department
   (Case C-480/08) (1)

   (Freedom of movement for persons - Right of residence - National of a Member State who worked in another Member State and remained there after ceasing to work - Child in vocational training in the host Member State - No means of subsistence - Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 - Article 12 - Directive 2004/38/EC)
   2010/C 100/08
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Appeal of England and Wales

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Maria Teixeira

      Defendants: London Borough of Lambeth, Secretary of State for the Home Department

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Appeal of England and Wales — Interpretation of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77) and of Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition, 1968 (II), p. 475) — Right of residence in the United Kingdom of a Union citizen no longer having the status of a worker and no longer able to establish a right of residence in accordance with the provisions on the freedom of movement of workers — Right for the child of such a citizen to remain in the United Kingdom in order to complete a vocational training course — Right of the mother to remain there as carer with the child

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               A national of a Member State who was employed in another Member State in which his or her child is in education can, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, claim, in the capacity of primary carer for that child, a right of residence in the host Member State on the sole basis of Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2434/92 of 27 July 1992, without being required to satisfy the conditions laid down in Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC.

               2.

               The right of residence in the host Member State of the parent who is the primary carer of a child exercising the right to pursue his or her education in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68 is not conditional on that parent having sufficient resources not to become a burden on the social assistance system of that Member State during the period of residence and having comprehensive sickness insurance cover there.

               3.

               The right of residence in the host Member State of the parent who is the primary carer for a child of a migrant worker, where that child is in education in that State, is not conditional on one of the child’s parents having worked as a migrant worker in that Member State on the date on which the child started in education.

               4.

               The right of residence in the host Member State of the parent who is the primary carer for a child of a migrant worker, where that child is in education in that State, ends when the child reaches the age of majority, unless the child continues to need the presence and care of that parent in order to be able to pursue and complete his or her education.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 7.2.2009.


title: Case T-597/11 P: Appeal brought on 22 November 2011 by Christos Michail against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 September 2011 in Case F-100/09 Michail v Commission

text:
               11.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/15

         Appeal brought on 22 November 2011 by Christos Michail against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 September 2011 in Case F-100/09 Michail v Commission
   (Case T-597/11 P)
   2012/C 39/32
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: Christos Michails (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by C. Meidani, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               hold the appeal to be admissible and well founded;

               —

               set aside the decision of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 September 2011 in Case F-100/09 Michail v Commission;

               —

               order payment to the applicant of damages for the non-material damage suffered by him, amounting to EUR 30 000;

               —

               make an order as to costs as laid down by law.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant claims that the judgment under appeal erred in its ruling on his application, by which he sought the annulment of the Commission’s refusal of the request made by him for assistance under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations and of the Commission’s rejection dated 14.9.2009 of his complaint made under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations.
   In particular, the appellant claims an infringement of his procedural rights and an infringement of Community law since, first, the Civil Service Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’), erring in its assessment of the evidence, erred by entirely failing to examine whether evidence had been unlawfully taken into account when the Commission proceeded to change his employment status without adopting the administrative act necessary for that change. Second, the appellant claims that the Tribunal did not observe the principles which govern the taking of evidence and the burden of proof since notwithstanding the fact that the appellant produced the document which proved his unlawful transfer, the Tribunal did not request, as required under Article 55 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, from the Commission at any stage of the proceedings the production of evidence which would refute the above position. Third, the appellant claims that the Tribunal did not examine the reality of his employment status as that is revealed in the Sysper and Sysper 2 systems and on what legal basis the representation of him to be found there was supported in order to rule on whether that constitutes psychological harassment of him and falsification of evidence


title: Case T-468/12: Order of the General Court of 22 January 2014 — Faktor, B. i W. Gęsina v Commission (Action for annulment — Time-limit for bringing proceedings — Lateness — No force majeure or unforeseeable circumstances — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               15.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/11

         Order of the General Court of 22 January 2014 — Faktor, B. i W. Gęsina v Commission
   (Case T-468/12) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Time-limit for bringing proceedings - Lateness - No force majeure or unforeseeable circumstances - Manifest inadmissibility)
   2014/C 78/23
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Firma Handlowa Faktor B. i W. Gęsina, Gęsina Wojciech (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: H. Mackiewicz, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Keppenne and M. Owsiany-Hornung, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 554/2012 of 19 June 2012 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2012 L 166, p. 20).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Firma Handlowa Faktor B. i W. Gęsina, Gęsina Wojciech is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 71, 9.3.2013.


title: Action brought on 15 September 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain (Case C-318/97)

text:
C 318/ 12            I EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                          18 . 10 . 97
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in                        cannot have been annulled by the Wood pulp
Case T-227/95 ('), between AssiDoman Kraft Products AB                        judgment, but that ( points 64 to 95 ) those fines have,
and Others and the Commission of the European                                 as a result of this judgment, no legal basis and thus
Communities, was brought before the Court of Justice of                       must be repaid .
the European Communities on 4 September 1997 by the
Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                       (') OJ C 252 , 16 . 8 . 1997, p . 28 .
by Wouter Wils, a member of its Legal Service, acting as               ( 2 ) Case 97/86 , [ 1988 ] ECR, p . 2181 .
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                ( 3 ) Joined Cases 42/59 and 49/59 , [ 1961 ] ECR, p. 53 .
office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, also a member of its
Legal Service , Centre Wagner, Kirchberg.
The appellant claims that the Court should quash the
contested judgment of the Court of First Instance and, the
state of the proceedings so permitting, give final judgment
in the matter by dismissing the application for annulment              Action brought on 15 September 1997 by the Commission
as inadmissible, or in the alternative, as unfounded, and              of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
ordering the applicants at first instance to pay the costs                                                   Spain
for the procedure at both levels of jurisdiction.                                                    Case C-3 18/97
                                                                                ( 97/C 318/23 )
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought
The Commission submits that the judgment is based on an                 before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
 erroneous interpretation of Article 176 of the Treaty,                 on 15 September 1997 by the Commission of the
which furthermore disregards Article 173 and 189 of                     European Communities, represented by Jose Luis Iglesias
 the Treaty. Finally, the contested judgment contains                   Buhigues, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
 contradictory reasoning:                                               Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of
                                                                        its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
 — The Court of First Instance 's interpretation of Article
     176 is not supported by the judgments of the Court of              The applicant claims that the Court should :
     Justice in the Asteris ( 2 ) and Snupat ( 3 ) cases, to which
     points 69 and 70 of the contested judgment refer.
     Neither of these judgments provides an answer to
     the question whether an undertaking on which the                   — declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
     Commission has imposed a fine for a competition                           within the prescribed period the laws, regulations or
     law infringement and which has not brought an                             administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     application for annulment of the decision but has paid                    Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on
     the fine can later claim reimbursement of the fine, on                    unfair terms in consumer contracts ('), the Kingdom of
     the basis that the Court annulled the fines imposed on                    Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations pursuant to
     other undertakings which did appeal the Commission's                      Articles 5 and 189 of the EC Treaty, and
     decision .
                                                                        — order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs .
 — In its final result, the contended judgment makes a
     mockery of the two-month time limit in Article 173 of
     the EC Treaty. It furthermore disregards Article 189 of             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     that Treaty in that it contradicts the individual nature
     of decisions . It follows from the general nature of a
     Regulation that its annulment by the Court affects the              The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
     legal position not only of the parties before the Court             paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of
      but of all those to whom the Regulation may apply.                 Article 5 of the EC Treaty requires Member States to
      On     the   other   hand,     decisions     are   individual
                                                                         adopt the measures necessary to transpose Directives
      administrative acts, affecting the legal position of               addressed to them into their domestic law before the
      individual addressees . If an addressee challenges a               expiry of the period prescribed for doing so . That period
      decision addressed to him and obtains its annulment,
                                                                         expired on 31 December 1994 without the Kindom of
      this only affects the legal position of the successful             Spain having brought into force the necessary provisions .
      applicant.
                                                                          (') OJ L 95 , 21 . 4 . 1993 , p . 29 .
  — It is plainly contradictory to hold at the same time
      that ( points 58 and 60 ) the decisions imposing fines on
      the Swedish addressees continue to be valid and


title: Case C-54/05: Action brought on 9 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Finland

text:
               16.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/11

         Action brought on 9 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Finland
   (Case C-54/05)
   (2005/C 93/21)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   An action against the Republic of Finland was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by M. van Beek and M. Huttunen, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by requiring a transfer licence for vehicles lawfully used and registered in another Member State, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 EC and 30 EC;

               2.

               order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   It follows from the provisions of Regulation 1598/1995 on the registration of vehicles, in force in Finland, that a person permanently resident in Finland is obliged to apply for a temporary transfer licence for a vehicle previously lawfully registered and insured in another Member State when the vehicle is imported or transferred through Finland to another Member State or a non-member country. A person permanently resident in Finland may not thus use a vehicle previously registered and insured in another Member State in Finland without a transfer licence. Obtaining a transfer licence requires for its part that a person living in Finland importing a vehicle registered in another Member State stops at the frontier crossing point, where he can apply for the transfer licence and pay the fees for the licence. He cannot use the vehicle in Finland until the transfer licence is granted. A transfer licence is usually granted for seven days, after which the importer of the vehicle must register the vehicle in the Finnish vehicle traffic register if he wishes to use the vehicle in Finland other than temporarily under the transfer licence.
   Under Article 28 EC, quantitative restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect are prohibited between Member States.
   Since a person living in Finland, when importing a vehicle registered in another Member State or transferring it through Finland to another Member State or a non-member country, has to stop at the Finnish frontier in order to apply for a transfer licence for the vehicle, the vehicle becomes the object of systematic frontier checks which clearly satisfy the characteristics of the quantitative restrictions on imports or measures having equivalent effect referred to in Article 28 EC.
   Finland has not adduced any grounds to show that the only method of ensuring the effectiveness of monitoring is the application of a transfer licence system which in practice means, for a person permanently resident in Finland, a systematic obligation to comply with special frontier formalities, that is, an obligation to stop at the nearest frontier crossing point and apply for a transfer licence without any statutory guarantee that it will be possible for a vehicle lawfully registered, insured and tested in another Member State to be used in Finland. Such systematic frontier formalities are a fundamental restriction on the free movement of goods.
   Should the Court of Justice consider that the transfer licence system could in general be based on Article 30 EC (quod non), the Commission submits that the seven-day period of validity of the transfer licence in accordance with the main provision of the regulation is in any event unreasonably short.
   Having regard to the above points of view, the Commission submits that the transfer licence system in force in Finland under Regulation 1598/1995 is contrary to Articles 28 EC and 30 EC. Should the Court of Justice consider that the transfer licence system could in general be based on Article 30 EC, the Commission submits that the seven-day period of validity of the transfer licence in accordance with the main provision of the regulation is in any event contrary to Articles 28 EC and 30 EC.


title: Case T-549/10: Action brought on 29 November 2010 — Natura Selection v OHIM — Afoi Anezoulaki (natur)

text:
               12.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/13

         Action brought on 29 November 2010 — Natura Selection v OHIM — Afoi Anezoulaki (natur)
   (Case T-549/10)
   2011/C 46/27
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Natura Selection, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: E. Sugrañes Coca, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Afoi Anezoulaki AE trading as FIERATEX S.A. (Kilkis, Greece)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 September 2010 in case R 217/2010-2;

               —

               Annul the decision of the Opposition Division of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 December 2009;

               —

               Reject the Community trade mark application No 6908214 granted by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) for ‘table covers’; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the 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: The word mark ‘natur’, for goods in class 24 — Community trade mark application No 6908214

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 2016384 of the figurative mark ‘natura selection’, for goods and services in classes 3, 14, 16, 20, 25, 35, 38, 39 and 42; Community trade mark registration No 2704948 of the figurative mark ‘natura’ for goods and services in classes 14, 25 and 35; Community trade mark registration No 3694627 of the figurative mark ‘natura casa’ for goods and services in classes 20, 35 and 39; Community trade mark registration No 4713368 of the figurative mark ‘natura’ for goods and services in classes 14, 20, 25 and 35; International trade mark registration No 642074 of the figurative mark ‘natura selection’ for services in class 39; Spanish trade mark registration No 1811494 of the figurative mark ‘natura selection’ for services in class 39; Spanish national establishment sign No 251725 of the figurative mark ‘natura selection’ for the following activity ‘establishment dedicated to the marketing of gift articles’; Spanish national establishment sign No 252321 of the figurative mark ‘natura selection’ for the following activity ‘establishment dedicated to the marketing of gift articles’; Spanish national establishment sign No 208780 of the word mark ‘NATURA SELECTION, S.L.’ for the following activity ‘establishment dedicated to the marketing of gift products. Located in Barcelona’.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for part of the contested goods

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assumed that there was no likelihood of confusion between the trade marks due to a lacking similarity between the trade marks and between the goods.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 18 March 1997 in Joined Cases T-178/95 and T-179/95: Santo Picciolo and Giuseppe Caló v. Committee of the Regions of the European Union (Officials - New post with the Committee of the Regions - Vacancy Notice - Rejection of candidatures - Application for annulment - Delay in communicating the rejection decisions - Failure to state reasons - Equality of treatment - Manifest error of assessment)

text:
No C 131 / 14          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                26 . 4 . 97
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 18 March 1997
                         (First Chamber)
                                                                      in Joined Cases T-l 78/95 and T-l 79/95 : Santo Picciolo
                        of 6 March 1997
                                                                      and Giuseppe Caló v. Committee of the Regions of the
in Joined Cases T-40/96 and T-55/96: Armel de Kerros                                          European Union (')
and Veronique Kohn-Bergé v. Commission of the                         (Officials — New post with the Committee of the Regions
                   European Communities ( ] )                         — Vacancy Notice — Rejection of candidatures —
                                                                      Application for annulment — Delay in communicating the
(Officials — Recruitment — Admission to internal                      rejection decisions — Failure to state reasons — Equality
competitions — Notice of competition — Conditions for                         of treatment — Manifest error of assessment)
     taking part — Condition relating to length of service)
                                                                                { 97/C 131 /35 )
                          ( 97/C 131 /34
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                 (Language of the case: French)                       In Joined Cases T-178/95 and T-179/95 : Santo Picciolo, an
                                                                      official of the European Parliament, residing at Itzig
                                                                      ( Luxembourg) and Giuseppe Caló, residing in
                                                                      Luxembourg, represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry De
In Joined Cases T-40/96 and T-55/96 Armel de Kerros,                  maseure and Ariane Tornel, all of the Brussels Bar, with
temporary agent of the Commission of the European                     an address for. service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Communities, residing at Grez-Doiceau ( Belgium ), and                Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 30 Rue de Cessange, against
Veronique Kohn-Bergé, temporary agent of the                          Committee of the Regions of the European Union ( Agent:
Commission of the European Communities, residing at                   Dominique Lagasse ) — application for, first, the
Florange ( France ), represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry          annulment of the decisions of the Committee of the
Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an             Regions of 5 December 1994 rejecting the applicants'
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of                    candidatures for the post of Director at the Directorate of
Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 30 Rue de Cessange, v. the                    Administration and Registry of the Committee of the
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Case                  Regions following the publication of vacancy notice CdR/
T-40/96 : Julian Currall; Case T-55/96 : Ana Maria Alves              1 /94 and, secondly, annulment of the decision the same
Vieira ) — application, in Case T-40/96, for annulment of             day appointing Mr M. to that post — the Court of First
the decision of the selection board in internal competition           Instance ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of R. García-
COM/T/B/96 and, in Case T-55/96, for annulment of the                 Valdecasas, President of the Chamber, J. Azizi and M.
decision of the selection board in internal competition               Jaeger, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator for the
COM/T/C/96, both refusing to admit the applicants to the              Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 March 1997, in
tests in the abovementioned competitions on the ground                which it :
that they did not fulfil the condition that they should have
completed three years uninterrupted service with the                   1 . dismisses the applications;
European Communities in the capacity of agent, as
referred to in the rules applicable to other servants of the          2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.
European Communities — the Court of First Instance
 ( First Chamber), composed of A. Saggio, President, and V.            (') OJ No C 315 , 25 . 11 . 1995 .
Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; M. A. Mair,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
 6 March 1997, in which it:
 1 . annuls the decision of the selection board in internal              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
       competition COM/T/B/96 refusing to admit Armel de                                       of 18 March 1997
       Kerros to the tests in that competition;                        in Case T-35/96 : Lars Bo Rasmussen v. Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities ( ] )
                                                                       (Officials — Vacancy notice — Annulment of the
 2 . annuls the decision of the selection board in internal           procedure in progress — Notice of competition — Post
       competition COM/T/C/96 refusing to admit Veronique              reserved for nationals of new Member States — Action for
       Kohn-Bergé to the tests in that competition;                    annulment — Admissibility — Articles 4 and 29 of the
                                                                       Staff Regulations — Principle of the protection of
                                                                       legitimate expectations — Principle of legal certainty —
 3 . orders the Commission to pay the costs.                                     Misuse of powers — Action for damages)
                                                                                ( 97/C 131 /36 )
 O OJ No C 145 , 18 . 5 . 1996 , and OJ No C 158 , 1 . 6 . 1996 .                      (Language of the case: French)
                                                                       In Case T-35/96 : Lars Bo Rasmussen, an official of the
                                                                       Commission of the European Communities, residing at


title: Case C-309/15 P: Appeal brought on 18 June 2015 by Real Express Srl against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 21 April 2015 in Case T-580/13: Real Express Srl v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/12

         Appeal brought on 18 June 2015 by Real Express Srl against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 21 April 2015 in Case T-580/13: Real Express Srl v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-309/15 P)
   (2015/C 398/15)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Real Express Srl (represented by: C. Anitoae, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the appealed order of the General Court issued on 21 April 2015 in Case T-580/13.

               —

               Exercise its full jurisdiction and, based on the elements available to it, uphold Real Express Srl’s action against the Fourth Board of Appeal decision dated 16 September 2013 in Case R 1519/2012-4 or, alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration.

               —

               Order OHIM and the Intervener to pay the costs of the Applicant, both at first instance and on appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The General Court, when making its order, considered all of the appellant’s arguments admissible except at paragraphs 23 and 25 of the Application where it was argued that the Intervener acted with bad intention in registering an identical REAL Community Trademark for identical classes to the one which the appellants applied to prohibit due to their earlier rights in Romania. The Fourth Board of Appeal was provided with the relevant Court certificates. The General Court overlooked the obligations of the Board of Appeal in conformity with Article 63(2) and 64(1) Regulation No. 207/2009 (1).

               2.

               At paragraphs 38 and 39 of the Appealed order the General Court misapplied Rules 15(2)(h)(iii), 17(1)(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2868/1995 (2) and Articles 75 and 78(1)(a)(b) of Regulation 207/2009. At paragraph 41 and 42 of the Appealed order the General Court misapplied 80(1)(2)(3) of Regulation 207/2009, Rule 53 and 53a of Regulation 2868/1995 and overlooked page 4, paragraph 5, of the Communication No. 11/98 of the President of the Office from the Manual Concerning Proceedings Before The Office For Harmonization In The Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) Part A General Rules Section 6 Revocation Of Decision And Cancellation Of Entries In The Register And Correction Of Errors. At paragraphs 43, 44 and 45 of the Appealed order the General Court misapplied Articles 63(2) and 64 of Regulation No. 207/2009 and thus failed to recognized that the Board of Appeal infringed the principles of legal certainty and procedural economy and the aim of the opposition proceedings by failing in their obligation to enable conflicts between trademarks before registration and, contrary to the rules, failing to take into consideration facts, circumstance and evidence provided by Real Express Srl which were relevant to the outcome of the opposition proceedings.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark

      OJ L 78, p. 1.

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark

      OJ L 303, p. 1.


title: Joined Cases C-216/12 and C-217/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 September 2013 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg (Luxembourg)) — Caisse nationale des prestations familiales v Fjola Hliddal (C-216/12), Pierre-Louis Bornand (C-217/12) (Social security — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation — Swiss nationals residing in Switzerland and working in Luxembourg — Grant of a parental leave allowance — Concept of a ‘family benefit’ )

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/29

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 September 2013 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg (Luxembourg)) — Caisse nationale des prestations familiales v Fjola Hliddal (C-216/12), Pierre-Louis Bornand (C-217/12)
   (Joined Cases C-216/12 and C-217/12) (1)

   (Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation - Swiss nationals residing in Switzerland and working in Luxembourg - Grant of a parental leave allowance - Concept of a ‘family benefit’)
   2013/C 344/49
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Caisse nationale des prestations familiales

      Respondents: Fjola Hliddal (C-216/12), Pierre-Louis Bornand (C-217/12)

      Re:

   Requests for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation (Luxembourg) — Interpretation of Articles 1(u)(i) and 4(1)(h) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2) and of point 1 of Section A of Annex II to the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons, concluded on 21 June 1999 (OJ 2002 L 114, p. 6) — Concept of a ‘family benefit’ — Permissibility of national legislation providing for the grant of a parental leave allowance — Swiss national residing in Switzerland and working in Luxembourg.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 1(u)(i) and 4(1)(h) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 and as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1606/98 of 29 June 1998, must be interpreted as meaning that a parental leave allowance, such as the allowance provided for under Luxembourg legislation, constitutes a ‘family benefit’ within the meaning of that regulation.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 4.8.2012.


title: Case T-64/11: Action brought on 28 January 2011 — Run2Day Franchise v OHIM — Runners Point (Run2)

text:
               19.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/25

         Action brought on 28 January 2011 — Run2Day Franchise v OHIM — Runners Point (Run2)
   (Case T-64/11)
   2011/C 89/49
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Run2Day Franchise BV (Utrecht, Netherlands) (represented by: H.J. Koenraad, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Runners Point Warenhandels GmbH (Recklinghausen, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 November 2010 in case R 349/2010-1;

               —

               Order the defendant, and if applicable the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, to bear the costs of the 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: The figurative mark ‘Run2’, for goods and services in classes 18, 25 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 6517502

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 3800448 of the word mark ‘RUN2DAY’, for goods and services in classes 25, 28 and 35; Community trade mark registration No 3832458 of the figurative mark in colours ‘RUN2DAY’, for goods and services in classes 25, 28 and 35; Benelux trade mark registration No 811897 of the figurative mark in colours ‘RUN2DAY’, for goods and services in class 25

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the Opposition Division and rejected the opposition

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed that there was no likelihood of confusion.


title: Case C-240/07: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 January 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — Sony Music Entertainment (Germany) GmbH v Falcon Neue Medien Vertrieb GmbH (Rights related to copyright — Rights of phonogram producers — Reproduction right — Distribution right — Term of protection — Directive 2006/116/EC — Rights of nationals of non-Member States)

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/6

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 January 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — Sony Music Entertainment (Germany) GmbH v Falcon Neue Medien Vertrieb GmbH
   (Case C-240/07) (1)

   (Rights related to copyright - Rights of phonogram producers - Reproduction right - Distribution right - Term of protection - Directive 2006/116/EC - Rights of nationals of non-Member States)
   (2009/C 69/08)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesgerichtshof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sony Music Entertainment (Germany) GmbH

      Defendant: Falcon Neue Medien Vertrieb GmbH
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 10(2) of Directive 2006/116/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights (OJ 2006 L 372, p. 12) — Application of the term of protection to subject-matter that has not at any time been protected in the Member State in which protection is sought and whose rightholder is not a Community national.
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The term of protection laid down by Directive 2006/116/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights is also applicable, pursuant to Article 10(2) thereof, where the subject-matter at issue has at no time been protected in the Member State in which the protection is sought.

               2.

               Article 10(2) of Directive 2006/116 is to be interpreted as meaning that the terms of protection provided for by that directive apply in a situation where the work or subject-matter at issue was, on 1 July 1995, protected as such in at least one Member State under that Member State's national legislation on copyright and related rights and where the holder of such rights in respect of that work or subject-matter, who is a national of a non-Member State, benefited, at that date, from the protection provided for by those national provisions.

      (1)  OJ C 170, 21.7.2007.


title: Case T-336/14: Judgment of the General Court of 8 October 2015 — Société des produits Nestlé v OHIM (NOURISHING PERSONAL HEALTH) (Community trade mark — International registration designating the European Community — Word mark NOURISHING PERSONAL HEALTH — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Obligation on OHIM to examine the facts of its own motion — Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/52

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 October 2015 — Société des produits Nestlé v OHIM (NOURISHING PERSONAL HEALTH)
   (Case T-336/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - International registration designating the European Community - Word mark NOURISHING PERSONAL HEALTH - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Obligation on OHIM to examine the facts of its own motion - Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 398/66)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Jaeger-Lenz, A. Lambrecht and S. Cobet-Nüse, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 March 2014 (Case R 149/2013-4) concerning the international registration designating the European Community of the word mark NOURISHING PERSONAL HEALTH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Société des produits Nestlé SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.


title: Case T-259/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2006 — Koistinen v Commission (Officials — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance — Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Definition of habitually resident)

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/45

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2006 — Koistinen v Commission
   (Case T-259/04) (1)

   (Officials - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Definition of habitually resident)
   (2006/C 294/94)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Anne Koistinen (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, X. Martin Membiela, A, Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and L. Lozano Palacios, Agents)
   Re:
   Claim for annulment of the Commission's decision of 18 July 2003 refusing to grant to the applicant the expatriation allowance provided for by Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the Commission's decision refusing to grant the applicant the expatriation allowance provided for in Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to pay all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.