title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hof van Beroep, Antwerp, by judgment of that court of 27 January 1997 in the case of the Belgian State v. Foodic BV and Others (Case C-41/97)

text:
22 . 3 . 97              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 94/ 11
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes                               by that person, thus simply being paid in lieu of a
gerichtshof by order of that court of 12 December 1996                            benefit in kind which could in principle have been
in     the   case    of  Canon     Kabushiki     Kaisha     v. Pathe              provided by the Fund; or
                   Communications Corporation
                           (Case C-39/97)                                  ( ac ) only such benefits in the form of money as are not
                                                                                earmarked for a specific purpose ?
                             ( 97/C 94/20 )
                                                                           Are the benefits listed below benefits in kind within the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of                         meaning of Article 28 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 :
the European Communities by an order of the
Bundesgerichtshof ( Federal Court of Justice ) of                          ( ba ) only benefits in kind provided by the fund without
12 December 1996, which was received at the Court                                 expenditure by the insured person, or albeit with his
Registry on 28 January 1997, for a preliminary ruling in                          participation in the costs but otherwise financed by
the      case   of     Canon      Kabushiki     Kaisha     v.  Pathe
                                                                                the Fund; or
Communications Corporation on the following question :
                                                                           ( bb) in addition to the direct benefits in kind mentioned at
May account be taken, when assessing the similarity of                            ( ba ), and in lieu of a benefit in kind which could in
the goods or services covered by the two marks, of the                            principle have been provided by the fund, but in the
distinctive character, in particular the reputation of the                        individual case was obtained by the insured person
mark with earlier priority ( on the date which determines                         initially at his own expense, also benefits provided in
the seniority of the later mark ), in particular in such a                        the form of money by way of a complete or partial
way that likelihood of confusion within the meaning of                            refund of those costs; or also
Article 4 ( 1 ) ( b ) of Directive 89/104/EEC ( 1 ) must be taken
to exist even if participants in trade attribute the goods
and/or services to different origins ?                                     ( be ) such cash benefits as are not linked to any specific
                                                                                expenditure incurred by the insured person and are
                                                                                refundable in whole or in part by the fund, but are
(') First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to
                                                                                granted to him instead of a benefit in kind which
     approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade
     marks ( OJ No L 40, 12 . 2 . 1992, p. 1 ).                                   could also have been possible, as a cash benefit, if the
                                                                                insured person so chooses, completely irrespective of
                                                                                whether and, if so, in what amount the insured
                                                                                person has incurred or is incurring expenditure ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht,
Hamburg, by order of that court of 28 November 1996
in the case of Peter Michael Jordy against 1 . Techniker
Krankenkasse and 2. Techniker Krankenkasse Pflege                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hof van Beroep,
                             versicherung                                  Antwerp, by judgment of that court of 27 January 1997 in
                                                                               the case of the Belgian State v. Foodie BV and Others
                           (Case C-40/97)
                                                                                ( Case C-41/97)
                               97/C 94/21
                                                                                ( 97/C 94/22 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Sozialgericht                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
( Social Court), Hamburg, of 28 November 1996 , which                      European Communities by judgment of the Hof van Be
was received at the Court Registry on 28 January 1997,                     roep ( Court of Appeal ), Antwerp, of 27 January 1997,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Peter Michael Jordy                which was received at the Court Registry on 30 January
against 1 . Techniker Krankenkasse and 2 . Techniker Kran                 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of the Belgian
kenkasse Pflegeversicherung on the following questions:                    State v. Foodie BV and Others on the following questions:
Are the benefits listed below cash benefits within the                     1 . Does 'Kashkaval ' in Regulation ( EEC ) No 1767/82 (')
meaning of Article 28 of Regulation (EEC ) No 1408/71 :                          refer solely to cheese made from sheep's milk ?
 ( aa ) any benefits provided to the insured person by the                 2 . Does an IMA 1 certificate issued pursuant to
        sickness assurance fund or care assurance fund in the                    Regulation ( EEC ) No 1767/82 but filled out in a
        form of money ( cash, remittance of a money demand,                      manner contrary to the instructions set out in the
        cheque, money transfer, etc .), irrespective of the                      Annexes to that Regulation satisfy the requirements of
        reason for or purpose of that benefit; or                                Article 2 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1767/82, and, if
                                                                                not, does this result in forfeiture of entitlement to a
 ( ab ) benefits so provided in money form, even if they are                     reduced import tariff?
        to serve a specific purpose, provided that they do not
        constitute complete or partial (contributory or lump              (') OJ No L 196 , 5 . 7. 1982 , p . 1 .
        sum ) refunds of certain expenditure specifically
        incurred by the insured person for services obtained


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) of 23 January 1997 in Case C-246/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat of the Kingdom of Belgium): Myrianne Coen v. Belgian State (Temporary staff - Recruitment procedure - Member States invited to propose candidates - Actions before the national courts)

text:
8 . 3 . 97           I EN 1                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 74/7
     accordance with Article 8 (1 ) (b) of Regulation (EEC)                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      No 1768/92, an application for a certificate must not                                       ( Sixth Chamber)
      be refused on that ground alone.
                                                                                of 23 January 1997
H OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .                                                 in Case C-3 14/95 Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities v. Italian Republic ( 1 )
                                                                        (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                        Failure to transpose directives concerning public health
                                                                                and animal health into national law)
                                                                                97/C 74/ 13 )
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        ( Second Chamber)                                                 (Language of the case: Italian)
                       of 23 January 1997
in Case C-246/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
the Conseil d'Etat of the Kingdom of Belgium): Myrianne                             published in the European Court Reports)
                    Coen v. Belgian State ( ! )
(Temporary staff — Recruitment procedure — Member                       In Case C-314/95 : Commission of the European
States invited to propose candidates — Actions before the               Communities (Agent: Eugenio de March) v. Italian
                           national courts)                             Republic ( Agent: Umberto Leanza assisted by Pier Giorgio
                                                                        Ferri ) — application for a declaration that, by not
                             ( 97/C 74/ 12 )                            adopting within the prescribed periods the laws,
                                                                        regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
                                                                        comply with Council Directives 92/45/EEC ( OJ No L 268 ,
                 (Language of the case: French)                         14 . 9 . 1992, p. 35 ), 92/46/EEC ( OJ No L 268 , 14 . 9 .
                                                                        1992, p. 1 ), 92/65/EEC ( OJ No L 268 , 14 . 9. 1992, p. 54 ),
                                                                        92/88/EEC ( OJ No L 321 , 6 . 11 . 1992, p . 24 ), 92/ 116/
                                                                        EEC ( OJ No L 62, 15 . 3 . 1993 , p . 1 ), 92/117/EEC ( OJ No
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be         L 62, 15 . 3 . 1993 , p. 38 ) and 92/118/EEC ( OJ No L 62,
           published in the European Court Reports)                     15 . 3 . 1993 , p. 49 ), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil
                                                                        its obligations under those Directives and under the EC
                                                                        Treaty — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: G. F.
                                                                        Mancini, President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray, C. N.
In Case C-246/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177             Kakouris ( Rapporteur ), G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm,
of the EC Treaty from the Conseil d'Etat of the Kingdom                 Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General; H.
of Belgium for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                  von Holstein, Administrator for the Registrar, has given a
pending before that court between Myrianne Coen and                     judgment on 23 January 1997 in which it:
Belgian State — on the interpretation of Article 179 of the
EC Treaty and of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the
European Communities — the Court ( Second Chamber),                     1 . declares that, by not adopting within the prescribed
composed of: G. F. Mancini, President of the Chamber, G.                     periods the laws, regulations and administrative
Hirsch and R. Schintgen ( Rapporteur), Judges; N.                            provisions necessary to comply with :
Fennelly, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                             — Council Directive 92/45/EEC of 16 June 1992 on
23 January 1997, in which it has ruled:
                                                                                public health and animal health problems relating
                                                                                to the killing of wild game and the placing on the
                                                                                market of wild-game meat,
Article 1 79 of the EC Treaty and Articles 90 and 91 of
the Staff Regulations are to be interpreted as meaning that
                                                                             — Council Directive 92/46/EEC of 16 June 1992
the periods which those provisions prescribe for
                                                                                laying down the health rules for the production
 challenging a decision of the Commission cannot be
                                                                                and placing on the market of raw milk, heat
caused to run afresh by a judgment given by a court of a
                                                                                treated milk and milk-based products,
Member State finding an act of that State unlawful, where
 the act in question may have influenced the Commission
 decision which is to be challenged.                                         — Council Directive 92/65/EEC of 13 July 1992
                                                                                laying down animal health requirements governing
                                                                                trade in and imports into the Community of
 (') OJ No C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 .
                                                                                animals, sperm, ova and embryos not subject to
                                                                                animal health requirements laid down in specific
                                                                                Community rules referred to in Annex A (I) to
                                                                                Directive 90/425/EEC,


title: Action brought on 23 July 1998 by Compañía Trasmediterránea SA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-116/98)

text:
C 340/24             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    7.11.98
Igartua, Gonzalo GimeÂnez AndreÂs, Pedro Tarno                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
FernaÂndez, Manuel Rodríquez Alonso, Ana María Cobos
Aguirre, Fernando Truyols Zaforteza, Isabel de Eguía
Antolín, Victor Pou Serradell, Lucía Ramón Amat,
Joaquín FerraÂn PeÂrez-Portabella, JesuÂs SuaÂrez Avila, Pablo       The applicant company, which was awarded a contract
JimeÂnez FernaÂndez, Rosa Quevedo Díez, Angeles Santos               pursuant to the invitation to tender for the provision of a
Asenjo, Francisco de Vicente, Carlos Arroyos, Antonio                maritime public service between Spanish mainland ports
Lopez PenÄa, Valeriano Díaz García, Alfonso GonzaÂlez                and the ports of the Balearic and Canary Islands, Ceuta
Finat, Antonio FernaÂndez AvileÂs, Miguel AbellaÂn López,            and Melilla, takes issue with the Commission's decision to
Angel GonzaÂlez Leiro, Fernando Aragón Morales, Rafael               initiate the procedure provided for by Article 93(2) of the
Valls i Pursals, JesuÂs Garijo, Alexandre Checchi Lang,              EC Treaty, in so far as it claims that the compensation
Rafael Cepas Palanca, Eduardo de la PenÄa Vega, Antonio              received from the State for provision of the services put
Alonso Madero, Jaime Díez-Canseco, Enrique Juaristi                  out to tender might constitute State aid within the
Martínez and Pablo Benavides, residing in Brussels and               meaning of Article 92 of that Treaty.
Luxembourg, represented by Antonio Creus and BegonÄa
Uriarte Valiente, of the Barcelona and Madrid Bar, with
an address for service in Brussels at 78 Avenue
d'Auderghem.                                                         The applicant claims, first, that the defendant has
                                                                     misinterpreted the Community definition of State aid. In
The applicants claim that the Court should:                          its opinion, in the present case, the required effect on
Ð annul the Commission Decisions of 13 and                           trade between Member States is absent, given that, under
    19 November 1997, withdrawing from the applicants                Article 6 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of
    its financial and technical assistance in their action           7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to
    concerning the transfer of pension rights acquired               provide services to maritime transport within Member
    under the Spanish pension scheme, and the Decision of            States (1), island cabotage is a sector which, in Spain's
    the appointing authority of 19 June 1998 rejecting the           case, will not be opened up to competition until 1 January
    complaint made by the applicants;                                1999. The applicant therefore questions how a State can
                                                                     be in breach of a regulation which does not apply to it.
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs of these
    proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  Second, the applicant claims that the Commission has
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as                  misinterpreted the Community guidelines on State aid to
those relied on in Case T-114/95 Rodríguez PeÂrez and                maritime transport (2), in classifying the contract in
Others v. Commission.                                                question as State aid on the basis of its allegedly excessive
                                                                     duration and the failure to publicise adequately the
                                                                     invitation to tender. The applicant takes the view that the
                                                                     guidelines do not even envisage a strict obligation to put
                                                                     out an invitation to tender for a public service contract in
Action brought on 23 July 1998 by CompanÄía                          the field of maritime transport and that it therefore falls
TrasmediterraÂnea SA against the Commission of the                   exclusively to the State to choose the method of awarding
                   European Communities                              the contract to a company. In its view the publicity given
                       (Case T-116/98)                               to the contract in question must be considered adequate,
                                                                     in that it was arranged according to generally applicable
                        (98/C 340/47)                                rules under Spanish legislation conforming to Community
               (Language of the case: Spanish)                       principles established by the Community directives on
                                                                     public procurement. For the rest, the applicant considers
An action against the Commission of the European                     that the Spanish authorities have limited the duration of
Communities was brought before the Court of First                    the contract to five years Ð a period given purely as
Instance of the European Communities on 23 July 1998                 normal target in the guidelines Ð since it will not be
by CompanÄía TrasmediterraÂnea SA, a company having its              subject to Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 in its first year,
registered office in Madrid, represented by Antonio Creus            so that its six year term is made up in practice of one year
and BegonÄa Uriarte Valiente, of the Barcelona and Madrid            followed by five.
Bar, with an address for service in Brussels at 78 Avenue
d'Auderghem.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                          A further ground for annulment cited is breach of
Ð annul the Commission Decision of 18 February 1998                  Article 90(2) of the Treaty in that the alleged State aid
    to initiate the procedure for review of State aid under          must be considered to be compensation for provision of a
    Article 93(2), published in Official Journal of the              public service by the applicant in its capacity as the
    European Communities C 147 of 13 May 1998 in the                 company responsible for running a service in the general
    form of a Communication to the Member States and                 economic interest, namely maritime passenger transport to
    interested parties;                                              the Spanish mainland from other Spanish ports in
                                                                     compliance with standards of regularity, continuity,
Ð order the Commission to pay all the costs incurred by              capacity and quality established by the Spanish
    CompanÄía TrasmediterraÂnea SA in these proceedings.             administration.
 ---pagebreak--- 7.11.98               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 340/25
Finally the applicant claims that its right to a fair hearing       On 19 December 1997 the Commission sent a letter
has been disregarded, given that, at no time during the             pursuant to Article 6 of Commission Regulation No 99/
pre-litigation procedure did the Commission respect its             63/EEC in which it stated that it had concluded that there
fundamental right to be heard.                                      were no grounds for granting the application in so far as
                                                                    Article 86 of the EC Treaty was concerned. In its letter of
                                                                    2 February 1998 the applicant submitted its observations
(1) OJ L 364 of 12.12.1992, p. 7.
(2) OJ C 205 of 5.7.1997, p. 5.                                     to this Article 6 letter' by reiterating its objections to the
                                                                    intention of the Commission to reject its complaint. It
                                                                    asked the Commission to reject the complaint by formal
                                                                    decision within a reasonable time and in any event before
                                                                    15 March 1998.
                                                                    On 2 June 1998 the applicant formally invited the
Action brought on 7 August 1998 by UPS Europe NV/SA                 Commission to make a final decision with regard to its
   against the Commission of the European Communities               complaint under Article 86 of the EC Treaty and
                       (Case T-127/98)                              announced that it would initiate an action for failure to
                                                                    act under Article 175 of the EC Treaty if the Commission
                        (98/C 340/48)                               did not inform the applicant of its decision within two
                                                                    months from the date of that letter. As the Commission
                                                                    has not delivered the requested final decision, the present
               (Language of the case: English)                      application has been submitted to the Court.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 7 August 1998
by UPS Europe SA/NV, represented by Tom R.
Ottervanger and Dirk Arts, with an address for service in           Action brought on 31 August 1998 by Armement
Luxembourg at the offices of Loeff Claeys Verbeke, 5 rue            CoopeÂratif Artisanal VendeÂen (ACAV) and Others against
Charles Martel.                                                                    Council of the European Union
                                                                                (Case T-138/98)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                  (98/C 340/49)
Ð declare in accordance with Article 175           of the EC                       (Language of the case: French)
     Treaty that the Commission has failed to      act by not
     having delivered a decision on the            applicant's      An action against the Council of the European Union was
     complaint lodged with the Commission          on 7 July        brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
     1994;                                                          Communities on 31 August 1998 by Armement
                                                                    CoopeÂratif Artisanal VendeÂen (ACAV) and Others,
                                                                    established in Ile d'Yeu (France), represented by Lise
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the             Funck-Bretano and SteÂphanie Ponsot, of the Paris Bar,
     applicant in the present proceedings; and                      with an Address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                    Chambers of Jacques Neuer, 9 Avenue Guillaume.
Ð take such further action as the Court may deem
     appropriate.                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 Ð annul Council Regulation (EC) No 1239/98;
                                                                    Ð order the Council to pay all the costs.
On 7 July 1994, the applicant, part of the United Parcel
Service' (UPS) group of companies, which is active
worldwide in the business of parcel delivery, lodged a              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
complaint with the Commission asking it to initiate
proceedings against Deutsche Bundespostdienst (now                  On 8 June 1998 the Council adopted the contested
Deutsche Post AG). In its complaint, the applicant, apart           regulation prohibiting, with effect from 1 January 2002,
from alleging unlawful State aid by the Member State                the use of drift-nets for the capture of certain species of
Germany, identified conduct of Deutsche Post AG which,              fish, including white tuna, by vessels flying the flag of a
in its opinion, infringes Article 86 of the EC Treaty. The          Member State, in particular in the North-East Atlantic.
applicant is of the opinion that the Deutsche Post AG is
engaged both in predatory pricing practices and in using
cross-subsidies to extend a dominant position from the              The applicants, all fishermen from the Ile d'Yeu, who fish
letter market to the related parcel market.                         for those species, in particular using that type of net,


title: Case T-713/14: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2016 — IPSO v ECB (ECB — ECB staff — Interim employees — Restriction on the maximum length of service of an interim employee — Action for annulment — Act open to challenge — Directly and individually affected — Locus standi — Time limit for bringing proceedings — Admissibility — Failure to inform and consult the applicant union — Non-contractual liability)

text:
               13.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2016 — IPSO v ECB
   (Case T-713/14) (1)

   ((ECB - ECB staff - Interim employees - Restriction on the maximum length of service of an interim employee - Action for annulment - Act open to challenge - Directly and individually affected - Locus standi - Time limit for bringing proceedings - Admissibility - Failure to inform and consult the applicant union - Non-contractual liability))
   (2017/C 046/21)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: International and European Public Services Organisation (IPSO) (Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Central Bank (represented initially by: B. Ehlers, I. Köpfer and M. López Torres, and subsequently by: B. Ehlers, P. Pfeifhofer and F. Malfrère, acting as Agents, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of an act of the Executive Board of the ECB of 20 May 2014 restricting to two years the maximum period for which the ECB may avail itself of the services of any interim employee for administrative and secretarial tasks and, in addition, an action on the basis of Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the non-pecuniary loss suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Executive Board of the ECB of 20 May 2014 restricting to two years the maximum period for which the ECB may avail itself of the services of any interim employee for administrative and secretarial tasks;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the ECB to bear its own costs and to pay three-quarters of the costs incurred by the International and European Public Services Organisation (IPSO). Orders IPSO to bear a quarter of its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 431, 1.12.2014.


title: Case C-372/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands), lodged on 3 August 2012 — Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel, other parties: M. and S.

text:
               6.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands), lodged on 3 August 2012 — Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel, other parties: M. and S.
   (Case C-372/12)
   2012/C 303/32
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel

      Respondents: M. and S.

      Questions referred

               1.

               Should the second indent of Article 12(a) of Directive 95/46/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data be interpreted to mean that there is a right to a copy of documents in which personal data have been processed, or is it sufficient if a full summary, in an intelligible form, of the personal data that have undergone processing in the documents concerned is provided?

               2.

               Should the words ‘right of access’ in Article 8(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2) be interpreted to mean that there is a right to a copy of documents in which personal data have been processed, or is it sufficient if there is provision of a full summary, in an intelligible form, of the personal data that have undergone processing in the documents concerned within the meaning of the second indent of Article 12(a) of Directive 95/46/EC …?

               3.

               Is Article 41(2)(b) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union also addressed to the Member States of the European Union in so far as they are implementing European Union law within the meaning of Article 51(1) of that Charter?

               4.

               Does the consequence that, as a result of the granting of access to ‘minutes’, the reasons why a particular decision is proposed are no longer recorded therein, which is not in the interests of the internal undisturbed exchange of views within the public authority concerned and of orderly decision-making, constitute a legitimate interest of confidentiality within the meaning of Article 41(2)(b) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

               5.

               Can a legal analysis, as set out in a ‘minute’, be regarded as personal data within the meaning of Article 2(a) of Directive 95/46/EC …?

               6.

               Does the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, within the meaning of Article 13(1)(g) of Directive 95/46/EC …, also cover the interest in an internal undisturbed exchange of views within the public authority concerned? If the answer to that is in the negative, can that interest then be covered by Article 13(1)(d) or (f) of that directive?

      (1)  OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31.

      (2)  OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1.


title: Case T-256/05: Action brought on 1 July 2005 by Fernanda Ehrhardt-Avancini against the European Parliament

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/27

         Action brought on 1 July 2005 by Fernanda Ehrhardt-Avancini against the European Parliament
   (Case T-256/05)
   (2005/C 229/58)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the European Parliament was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 1 July 2005 by Fernanda Ehrhardt-Avancini, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Georges Vandersanden, Laure Levi and Chiara Ronzi, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul the Parliament's decision rejecting the claim for restitution of the financial and/or other value of 207 hours 30 minutes which were deducted from her annual leave and then from her salary/pension;

               2.

               award default interest;

               3.

               order the Parliament to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   At the time the relevant facts arose, the applicant was an official at the European Parliament. The European Parliament sent a letter on 21 July 2004 informing her that 207 hours and 30 minutes would be deducted from her annual leave on account of her absence on medical grounds from 28 May to 11 July 2004. The Parliament's decision was made as a result of the findings of an examination of the applicant by an independent doctor, in accordance with Article 59 of the Staff Regulations, which indicated that the applicant was fit to return to her duties. A subsequent claim by the applicant seeking the restitution of the financial and/or other value of the hours deducted was also rejected by the Parliament.
   In support of her application, the applicant claims the infringement of Article 59 of the Staff Regulations and the internal rules of the Parliament on the ground that she was subjected to an examination by an independent doctor without a prior medical examination by the institution's medical officer. She also claims the infringement of the duty to give a statement of reasons, the rights of the defence and the principle ‘patere quam ipse legem fecisti’.


title: Case T-450/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 2009 — Peugeot and Peugeot Nederland v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Distribution of Motor vehicles — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Limitation of parallel exports from the Netherlands — System of remuneration of dealers and pressure — Agreement with an anti-competitive aim — Fines — Seriousness and length of the infringement)

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/32

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 2009 — Peugeot and Peugeot Nederland v Commission
   (Case T-450/05) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Distribution of Motor vehicles - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Limitation of parallel exports from the Netherlands - System of remuneration of dealers and pressure - Agreement with an anti-competitive aim - Fines - Seriousness and length of the infringement)
   2009/C 205/56
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Automobiles Peugeot SA (Paris, France) and Peugeot Nederland NV (Utrecht, Netherlands) (represented by: O. d'Ormesson and N. Zacharie, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Bouquet, F. Arbault and A. Whelan, initially, and A. Bouquet and M. Kellerbauer, subsequently, Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of Commission Decision C (2005)3683 final of 5 October 2005 relating to proceedings under Article 81 [EC] (Cases COMP/F2-36.623, COMP/F2-36.820 and COMP/F2-37.275 — SEP and Others/Automobiles Peugeot SA) and, in the alternative, an application for the reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants by the decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Orders that the fine imposed on Automobiles Peugeot SA and Peugeot Nederland NV by Article 3 of Commission Decision C (2005) 3683 final of 5 October 2005 relating to proceedings under Article 81 [EC] (Cases COMP/F2-36.623, COMP/F2-36.820 and COMP/F2-37.275 — SEP and Others/Automobiles Peugeot SA) be fixed at EUR 44.55 million;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders Automobiles Peugeot and Peugeot Nederland to bear nine-tenths of their own costs and to pay nine-tenths of the costs incurred by the Commission of the European Communities;

               4.

               Orders the Commission to bear one tenth of its own costs and to pay one tenth of the costs incurred by Automobiles Peugeot and Peugeot Nederland.

      (1)  OJ C 74, 25.03.2006.


title: Case T-524/12: Judgment of the General Court of 21 November 2013 — Recaro v OHIM — Certino Mode (RECARO) (Community trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Community word mark RECARO — Genuine use of the mark — Article 15(15)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Nature of the use of the mark — Admissibility of new evidence — Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               11.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 November 2013 — Recaro v OHIM — Certino Mode (RECARO)
   (Case T-524/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Community word mark RECARO - Genuine use of the mark - Article 15(15)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Nature of the use of the mark - Admissibility of new evidence - Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2014/C 9/38
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Recaro Holding GmbH, formerly Recaro Beteiligungs-GmbH (Stuttgart (Germany)) (represented by: J. Weiser, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Certino Mode SL (Elche (Spain))

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 September 2012 (Case R 1761/2011-1) relating to revocation proceedings between Recaro Beteiligungs-GmbH and Certino Mode SL

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Recaro Holding GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 2.2.2013.


               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/3

         Lists for the purposes of determining the composition of the formations of the Court
   2009/C 267/07
   At its meeting on 8 October 2009, the Court drew up the list referred to in Article 11b(2) of the Rules of Procedure for the purposes of determining the composition of the Grand Chamber as follows:

               —

               Mr Timmermans

               —

               Ms Berger

               —

               Mr Rosas

               —

               Mr Šváby

               —

               Ms Silva de Lapuerta

               —

               Mr Safjan

               —

               Sir Konrad Schiemann

               —

               Mr Kasel

               —

               Mr Kūris

               —

               Ms Toader

               —

               Mr Juhász

               —

               Mr Arabadjiev

               —

               Mr Arestis

               —

               Mr von Danwitz

               —

               Mr Borg Barthet

               —

               Ms Lindh

               —

               Mr Ilešič

               —

               Mr Bay Larsen

               —

               Mr Malenovský

               —

               Mr Ó Caoimh

               —

               Mr Lõhmus

               —

               Mr Levits

         At its meeting on 8 October 2009, the Court drew up the lists referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 11c(2) of the Rules of Procedure for the purposes of determining the composition of the Chambers of five Judges as follows:

                  First Chamber

               Mr Borg Barthet
               Ms Berger
               Mr Ilešič
               Mr Safjan
               Mr Levits
               Mr Kasel

                  Second Chamber

               Mr Rosas
               Mr Arabadjiev
               Mr Lõhmus
               Ms Lindh
               Mr Ó Caoimh

                  Third Chamber

               Ms Silva de Lapuerta
               Mr Šváby
               Mr Juhász
               Mr von Danwitz
               Mr Arestis
               Mr Malenovský

                  Fourth Chamber

               Mr Timmermans
               Ms Toader
               Sir Konrad Schiemann
               Mr Bay Larsen
               Mr Kūris

         At its meeting on 9 October 2009, the Court drew up the lists referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 11c(2) of the Rules of Procedure for the purposes of determining the composition of the Chambers of three Judges as follows:

                  Fifth Chamber

               Mr Borg Barthet
               Mr Ilešič
               Mr Kasel
               Mr Safjan
               Ms Berger

                  Sixth Chamber

               Mr Rosas
               Mr Lõhmus
               Mr Ó Caoimh
               Mr Arabadjiev

                  Seventh Chamber

               Mr Juhász
               Mr Arestis
               Mr Malenovský
               Mr von Danwitz
               Mr Šváby

                  Eighth Chamber

               Mr Timmermans
               Sir Konrad Schiemann
               Mr Kūris
               Mr Bay Larsen


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 29 February 1996 in Case T-280/94: Orlando Lopes v. Court of Justice of the European Communities (Officials - Rejection of candidatures for promotion - Flexible working hours - Applications for annulment and compensation)

text:
No C 108/8             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       13 . 4 . 96
paragraph of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials          3 , dismisses the application as inadmissible in so far as it
of the European Communities and his complaint, and                         seeks, first, annulment of the memorandum of 30 May
secondly, an order that the Court of Auditors should make                   1991 of the Head of the Portuguese Translation
good the damage which the applicant considers he has                       Division and the memorandum of 31 May 1991 from
suffered as a result first of the disputed decisions and                   the Director of Translation and, secondly,
secondly of the insulting language allegedly used towards                  compensation for the damage allegedly caused by those
him by his immediate superior, the Court of First Instance                 documents;
 ( Third Chamber ), composed of C. P. Briët, President, and
B. Vesterdorf and A. Potocki , Judges ; J. Palacio Gonzalez,          4 . annuls the defendant's decision of 1 6 July 1 993, in so far
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                  as it states that there is no need to give a decision on the
28 February 1 996 in which it :                                            part of complaint Cont. 1 1 /93 -R regarding the
                                                                           applicant's staff report for the period 1991 to 1992 ;
 1 , dismisses the application as inadmissible, in so far as it
     relates to the claim for compensation under the second           5 , dismisses the remainder of the application;
     paragraph of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations;
                                                                      6 . orders the parties to bear their own costs .
2 , dismisses the       remainder     of the application as
     unfounded;                                                       (') OJ No 319 , 26 . 11 . 1993 .
3 , orders the applicant to pay all the costs.
(') OJ No C 316 , 12 . 11 . 1994 .
                                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 29 February 1996
                                                                                in Case T-280/94 : Orlando Lopes v.
                                                                           Court of Justice of the European Communities ( ] )
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                      (Officials — Rejection of candidatures for promotion —
                     of 29 February 1996                             Flexible working hours — Applications for annulment and
in Case T-547/93 : Orlando Lopes v. Court of Justice of                                         compensation)
                the European Communities ( 1 )                                                  ( 96/C 108 / 17 )
(Officials — Staff reports — Rejection of candidatures
for promotion — Applications for annulment and                                         (Language of tbe case: French)
                         compensation)
                          ( 96/C 108/ 16 )                           In Case T-280/94 , Orlando Lopes, an official of the Court
                                                                     of Justice of the European Communities, residing in
                (Language of the case: French)                        Luxembourg, represented by Marc Kleyr, of the
                                                                     Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                     Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers, 17 Rue Louvigny , v .
In Case T-547/93 , Orlando Lopes, an official of the Court
                                                                      Court of Justice of the European Communities ( Agent:
of Justice of the European Communities, residing in
                                                                     Timothy Millett ) — application for annulment of two
Luxembourg, represented initially by Marco Fritsch, and
                                                                     decisions rejecting the applicant's candidatures for
then by Marc Kleyr, both of the Luxembourg Bar, with an
                                                                     promotion and a decision refusing him permission to work
address for service in Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers,
                                                                      flexible hours, and also for compensation for the material
17 Rue Louvigny, v. Court of Justice of the European                 and non-material damage which he considers he has
Communities ( Agent: Timothy Millett ) — application for
                                                                      suffered as a result of the actions of his immediate superiors
annulment of two memoranda concerning the quality of the
                                                                     and the disputed decisions, the Court of First Instance
applicant's work , his staff report for the period 1991 to            ( Third Chamber ), composed of C. P. Briët, acting as
1992 and two decisions rejecting his candidature for
                                                                     President, and C. W. Bellamy and J. Azizi , Judges; H. Jung:
promotion , and for compensation for the material and
                                                                      Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 February 1996 in
non-material damage which he considers he has suffered as a          which it :
result of the actions of his immediate superiors and of the
disputed decisions, the Court of First Instance (Third
Chamber ), composed of C. P. Briët, acting as President,              1 , excludes the document annexed to the defendant's reply
and C. W. Bellamy and J. Azizi , Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,               to the questions asked by the Court from the documents
has given a judgment on 29 February 1996 , in which it:                    before the Court;
                                                                      2 , rejects the defendant's request of 19 January 199S to
1 , excludes Annex I to the reply from the documents                       have a document annexed to the reply in Case T-280/94
     before the Court;                                                     and certain passages relating thereto removed from the
                                                                           documents before the Court;
2 , rejects the application made to the Court on 13 October
     1 994, and excludes the document annexed thereto from            3 , annuls the defendant's decision, communicated to
     the file;                                                             the applicant on 11 February 1994, rejecting his
 ---pagebreak--- 13 . 4 . 96           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 108/9
     candidatures for the posts declared vacant by Notice               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     No C] 68/92, and the defendant's decision of 27 June                                     of 7 March 1996
     1994, in so far as it rejects the part of complaint               in Case T-146/94 : Calvin Williams v. Court of Auditors of
     Cont. 12/94-R lodged against that decision;
                                                                                the European Communities ( 1 )
4 . dismisses the remainder of the application;                        (Officials — Obligations — Acts incompatible with the
                                                                       dignity of the public service — Duty to act in good faith —
5 , orders the defendant to bear its own costs, and one                      Disciplinary proceedings — Removal from post)
     quarter of the applicant's costs, and the applicant to                                      ( 96/C 108/ 19 )
     bear three-quarters of his own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(') OJ No C 304, 29 . 10 . 1994 .
                                                                       In Case T-146/94 : Calvin Williams, a former official of the
                                                                       Court of Auditors of the European Communities, residing at
                                                                       Luxembourg, represented by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels
                                                                       Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                       Chambers of Jean-Paul Noesen, 18 Rue des Glacis, v. Court
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               of Auditors of the European Communities ( Agents :
                        of 6 March 1996                                Jean-Marie Stenier, Jan Inghelram and Paolo Giusta ) —
in Case T-93 /94 : Michael Becker v . Court of Auditors of the         application for the annulment, first, of the decision of the
                  European Communities ( 1 )                           Court of Auditors of 24 June 1993 removing the applicant
                                                                       from his post without reduction or withdrawal of his
(Officials — Classification in step — Seniority — Equal                entitlement to a retirement pension, second, of the decision
treatment — Duty to have regard to the interests of                    of 24 January 1994 expressly rejecting his complaint and,
                               officials)                              third, in so far as may be necessary, of the decision of
                           ( 96/C 108/ 18 )                            23 January 1994 impliedly rejecting that complaint — the
                                                                       Court of First Instance ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of
                                                                       R. Schintgen, President, and R. Garci'a-Valdecasas and
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                       J. Azizi , Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for
                                                                       the Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 March 1996 , in
In Case T-93/94 : Michael Becker, an official at the Court             which it :
of Auditors of the European Communities, residing
in Luxembourg, represented by Roy Nathan, of the                       1 , dismisses the action;
Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers, 18 Rue des Glacis, v-.
Court of Auditors of the European Communities ( Agents :               2 , orders the parties to bear their own costs.
Jean-Marie Stenier and Jan Inghelram ) — application for
the annulment of the decision of the Court of Auditors of
                                                                       (') OJ No C 146 , 28 . 5 . 1994 .
2 December 1993 rejecting the applicant's complaint
concerning his classification in step — the Court of First
Instance ( First Chamber ), composed of: A. Saggio,
President, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura-Ramos, Judges;
B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 6 March 1996 , in which it:
                                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 1 , annuls the refusal of the Court of Auditors to reclassify                                of 7 March 1996
     the applicant in step, pursuant to Council Regulation
     (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 3947/92 of 21 December                    in Case T-362/94: Jan Robert De Rijk v. Commission of the
     1 992 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials and                               European Communities ( ] )
     the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the              (Officials — Supplementary sickness insurance scheme for
     European Communities, with effect from 1 January                   officials posted outside the Communities — Procedure for
     1993 , as he had requested by letter of 5 February 1993,                       reimbursement of medical expenses)
     together with the Court of Auditors ' decision of                                            ( 96/C 108/20 )
     2 December 1993 rejecting the applicant's complaint
     against that refusal;
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
 2 , orders the Court ofAuditors to bear its own costs and to
     pay the costs incurred by the applicant.                           In Case T-362/94 : Jan Robert De Rijk, an official of the
                                                                        European Communities, residing at Helsinki , represented
                                                                        by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
 0 ) OJ No C 120 , 30 . 4 . 1994 .
                                                                        service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
                                                                        SARL, 1 Rue Glesener, v . Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities ( Agents : Gianluigi Valsesia and Julian


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 March 2003 in Case C-485/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal civile e penale di Trento): Francesca Caprini v Conservatore Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura (CCIAA) (Directive 86/653/EEC — Self-employed commercial agents — National legislation requiring enrolment of a commercial agent in a register provided for that purpose as a prior condition of registration in the register of undertakings)

text:
26.4.2003                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 101/9
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      2.     Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
                         (Fourth Chamber)                                    (1 ) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.
                          of 6 March 2003
in Case C-478/01: Commission of the European Communi-
             ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg ( 1)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Freedom to supply services — Patent agents — Choice of                                                  (Fifth Chamber)
domicile with an approved agent — Article 10 EC —
               Member States’ duty of cooperation)
                                                                                of 6 March 2003
                           (2003/C 101/15)                                   in Case C-485/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the Tribunal civile e penale di Trento): Francesca Caprini
                                                                             v Conservatore Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigi-
                     (Language of the case: French)                                           anato e Agricoltura (CCIAA) (1)
                                                                             (Directive 86/653/EEC — Self-employed commercial agents
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       — National legislation requiring enrolment of a commercial
                    in the European Court Reports)                           agent in a register provided for that purpose as a prior
                                                                                condition of registration in the register of undertakings)
                                                                                (2003/C 101/16)
In Case C-478/01, Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: M. Patakia) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent:                                           (Language of the case: Italian)
J. Faltz): Application for a declaration that, by maintaining the
obligation for patent agents, when supplying services, either
to be domiciled in Luxembourg or, failing such domicile, to                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
opt for domicile with an approved agent, and by failing to                                       in the European Court Reports)
supply information concerning the precise conditions for the
application of Article 85(2) of the Law of 20 July 1992
amending the rules on patents (Mémorial A 1992, p. 1530),
and Articles 19 and 20 of the Law of 28 December 1998
                                                                             In Case C-485/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
governing access to occupations in craft trades, business and                by the Tribunale civile e penale di Trento (Italy) for a
industry, and to certain liberal professions (Mémorial A 1998,
                                                                             preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
p. 1494), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil
                                                                             court between Francesca Caprini and Conservatore Camera di
its obligations under Article 49 EC et seq. and Article 10
                                                                             Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura (CCIAA),
EC respectively, the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of:
                                                                             on the interpretation of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of
C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber,                                 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the
D.A.O. Edward and A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), Judges;
                                                                             Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents
F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
                                                                             (OJ 1986 L 382, p. 17), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed
judgment on 6 March 2003, in which it:
                                                                             of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward,
                                                                             A. La Pergola, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges;
                                                                             F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
1.     Declares that, having regard to the requirement that patent           judgment on 6 March 2003, in which it has ruled:
       agents, when supplying services, should elect domicile with an
       approved agent, and having regard to the fact that the
       Luxembourg Government has not provided information con-               On a proper reading, Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December
       cerning the precise conditions for the application of                 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating
       Article 85(2) of the Law of 20 July 1992 amending the rules           to self-employed commercial agents does not preclude national
       on patents and Articles 19 and 20 of the Law of 28 December           legislation from making registration of a commercial agent in the
       1998 governing access to occupations in craft trades, business        register of undertakings subject to that agent’s enrolment in a register
       and industry, and to certain liberal professions, the Grand           provided for that purpose, on condition that non-registration in the
       Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under        register of undertakings does not affect the validity of an agency
       Article 49 EC and Article 10 EC.                                      contract which that agent has concluded with his principal or that
 ---pagebreak--- C 101/10                 EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                                26.4.2003
the consequences of such non-registration do not adversely affect in                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
any other way the protection which that directive confers on
commercial agents in their relations with their principals.
                                                                                (Fourth Chamber)
( 1) OJ C 44 of 16.2.2002.
                                                                                of 6 March 2003
                                                                               in Case C-211/02: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg ( 1)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                               (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to
                           (Third Chamber)                                     transpose Directive 97/66/EC within the prescribed periods)
                            of 6 March 2003
                                                                                (2003/C 101/18)
in Case C-6/02: Commission of the European Communi-
                      ties v French Republic ( 1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Free
movement of goods — Measures having equivalent effect —
          Indication of provenance — Regional labels)                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                            (2003/C 101/17)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                               In Case C-211/02, Commission of the European Communities
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published         (Agent: C. Schmidt) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent:
                    in the European Court Reports)                             N. Mackel): Application for a declaration that, by failing to
                                                                               adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
                                                                               necessary to comply with Directive 97/66/EC of the European
                                                                               Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 concern-
In Case C-6/02, Commission of the European Communities                         ing the processing of personal data and the protection of
(Agents: H. van Lier and J. Adda) v French Republic (Agents:                   privacy in the telecommunications sector (OJ 1998 L 24, p. 1),
G. de Bergues and A. Colomb): Application for a declaration                    the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
that, by maintaining the national legal protection afforded to                 obligations under that directive, the Court (Fourth Chamber),
the name ‘Salaisons d’Auvergne’ and to the regional labels                     composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber,
‘Savoie’, ‘Franche-Comté’, ‘Corse’, ‘Midi-Pyrénées’, ‘Normandie’,              D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and A. La Pergola, Judges;
‘Nord-Pas-de-Calais’, ‘Ardennes de France’, ‘Limousin’, ‘Langue-               S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
doc-Roussillon’ and ‘Lorraine’, the French Republic has failed                 judgment on 6 March 2003, in which it:
to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC, the Court (Third
Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the
Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur) and F. Macken, Judges;
J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a                  1.    Declares that, by failing, within the prescribed periods, to adopt
judgment on 6 March 2003, in which it:                                               the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
                                                                                comply with Directive 97/66/EC of the European Parliament
                                                                                and of the Council of 15 December 1997 concerning the
1.    Declares that, by maintaining the national legal protection                    processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the
      afforded to the name ‘Salaisons d’Auvergne’ and to the regional                telecommunications sector, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
      labels ‘Savoie’, ‘Franche-Comté’, ‘Corse’, ‘Midi-Pyrénées’, ‘Nor-              has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
      mandie’, ‘Nord-Pas-de-Calais’, ‘Ardennes de France’, ‘Limou-
      sin’, ‘Languedoc-Roussillon’ and ‘Lorraine’, the French Republic
      has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC;                2.    Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                               (1 ) OJ C 180 of 27.7.2002.
( 1) OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 March 1999 in Case T-66/98: Giuliana Gaspari v European Parliament (Officials - Thermal cure - Decision rejecting a request for prior authorisation for reimbursement of expenses - Statement of reasons - Medical opinion - Privacy)

text:
C 174/4                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         19.6.1999
                                                          COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               address for service at the Chambers of Francesco Caruso, 2A
                                                                           Rue Van Moer, Brussels v Commission of the European
                        of 11 March 1999                                   Communities (Agents: Dimitris Triantafyllou and Stefania
                                                                           Dragone) — application for annulment of Commission
in Case T-66/98: Giuliana Gaspari v European Parlia-                       Decision 98/95/EC of 21 October 1997 relating to aid granted
                             ment (1)                                      by the Sardinia Region to the maritime industry in Sardinia
                                                                           (OJ 1998 L 20, p. 30) — the Court of First Instance (Fifth
                                                                           Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of J.D. Cooke,
(Officials — Thermal cure — Decision rejecting a request                   President of the Chamber, and of R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas,
for prior authorisation for reimbursement of expenses —                    P. Lindh, J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
      Statement of reasons — Medical opinion — Privacy)                    has given an order in which it:
                         (1999/C 174/07)                                   1. Declines jurisdiction in Case T-58/98 Sardegna Lines v Com-
                                                                               mission in favour of the Court of Justice, in order that the latter
                                                                               may rule on the claims for annulment;
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           2. Orders the costs to be reserved.
In Case T-66/98: Giuliana Gaspari, an official of the European
Parliament, residing at Sandweiler (Luxembourg), represented
                                                                           (1) OJ No C 184 (13.6.1998).
initially by Jean-Noël Louis, Ariane Tornel and Françoise
Parmentier, and subsequently by Lucette Defalque, of the
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange, v
European Parliament (Agents: Yannis Pantalis and Matthew
Moore) — application for annulment of the decision of
26 August 1997 of the office responsible for settling claims in                  ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Luxembourg, rejecting the request submitted by the applicant
on 9 June 1997 for prior authorisation for the reimbursement                                      of 9 February 1999
of expenses in respect of a thermal cure — the Court of First
Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: R.M. Moura Ramos,
                                                                           in Case T-124/98: Corrado Politi v European Training
President, and V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; A. Mair,
                                                                                Foundation (1)
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
11 March 1999, in which it:
                                                                           (Members of the temporary staff — Time-limit for submit-
1. Dismisses the action;                                                   ting complaints — Time-limit for bringing proceedings —
                                                                                Inadmissibility)
2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                                (1999/C 174/09)
( 1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           In Case T-124/98: Corrado Politi, a former member of the
                                                                           temporary staff of the European Training Foundation, residing
                                                                           in Turin (Italy), represented by Jean-Noël Louis and Françoise
                                                                           Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue
                                                                           de Cessange, v European Training Foundation (Agent: Bertrand
                        of 16 March 1999                                   Wägenbaur) — application for annulment, first, of the decision
                                                                           of 16 September 1997 concerning the drawing-up of the
in Case T-58/98 Sardegna Lines v Commission of the                         applicant’s final assessment report and, second, of the decision
                   European Communities (1)                                of 30 September 1997 refusing to renew his contract — the
                                                                           Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of
                   (Disclaimer of jurisdiction)                            A. Potocki, President, and C.W. Bellamy and A.W.H. Meij,
                                                                           Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 9 February 1999,
                                                                           the operative part of which is as follows:
                         (1999/C 174/08)
                                                                           1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible;
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                        2. The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.
In Case T-58/98 Sardegna Lines, Servizi Marittimi della
Sardegna SpA, whose registered office is in Cagliari, represent-           (1) OJ C 312 of 10.10.1998.
ed by Francesco Caruso and Ugo Iaccarino, Avvocati, and by
Beniamino Carnevale and Claudio Caruso, Avvocati, with an


title: Case T-411/17: Action brought on 30 June 2017 — Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/51

         Action brought on 30 June 2017 — Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB
   (Case T-411/17)
   (2017/C 277/74)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Landesbank Baden-Württemberg (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and K. Rübsamen, lawyers)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Executive Session of the Single Resolution Board of 11 April 2017 concerning the calculation of the ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund for 2017 (SRB/ES/SRF/2017/05), including the Annex thereto, in so far as the contested decision, including the Annex thereto, concerns the applicant’s contribution; and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and of Article 41(1) and (2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) due to the fact that the decision fails to state adequate reasons

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard under Article 41(1) and (2)(a) of the Charter due to the absence of an opportunity for the applicant to be heard

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the fundamental right to effective legal protection under Article 47(1) of the Charter due to fact that the decision is not subject to review

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 103(7)(h) of Directive 2014/59/EU, (1) of Article 113(7) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, (2) of the first sentence of Article 6(5) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63, (3) of Articles 16 and 20 of the Charter and of the principle of proportionality, due to the application of the multiplier for the IPS (Institutional Protection Scheme) Indicator

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 16 of the Charter and of the principle of proportionality, due to the application of the risk adjustment multiplier

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging the illegality of Articles 4 to 7 and Article 9 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 and of Annex I to that delegated regulation

      (1)  Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms and amending Council Directive 82/891/EEC, and Directives 2001/24/EC, 2002/47/EC, 2004/25/EC, 2005/56/EC, 2007/36/EC, 2011/35/EU, 2012/30/EU and 2013/36/EU, and Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2014 L 173, p. 190).

      (2)  Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1).

      (3)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 of 21 October 2014 supplementing Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ex ante contributions to resolution financing arrangements (OJ 2015 L 11, p. 44).


               25.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/10

         Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Norges Høyesterett dated 5 June 2015 in the case of Holship Norge AS v Norsk Transportarbeiderforbund
   (Case E-14/15)
   (2016/C 73/06)
   A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 5 June 2015 from Norges Høyesterett (the Supreme Court of Norway), which was received at the Court Registry on 5 June 2015, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Holship Norge AS v Norsk Transportarbeiderforbund on the following questions:
   A   On competition law:

               A.1

               Does the exemption from the competition rules of the EEA Agreement that applies to collective agreements, as this exemption is described, inter alia, in the advisory opinion of the EFTA Court in Case E-8/00 Landsorganisasjonen i Norge and NKF [2002] EFTA Ct. Rep. 114, cover the use of a boycott against a port user in order to produce acceptance of a collective agreement, when such acceptance entails that the port user must give preference to buying unloading and loading services from a separate administration office as described in paragraphs 7 and 10 to 14 above, rather than to use its own employees for the same work?

               A.2

               If not, should such a system be assessed under Article 53 or Article 54 of the EEA Agreement?

               A.3

               In that case, must the existence of an identical or corresponding system in other ports be taken into account in the assessment of whether there is a noticeable effect on cross-border trade within the EEA?

         B   On the freedom of establishment:

               B.1

               Is it a restriction on the freedom of establishment pursuant to Article 31 of the EEA Agreement for a trade union to use a boycott in order to produce acceptance of a collective agreement by a company whose parent company is based in another EEA State, when the collective agreement entails that the company must give preference to buying unloading and loading services from a separate administration office having the characteristics described in paragraphs 10 to 14 above, rather than use its own employees for this work?

               B.2

               Would it be of significance for the assessment of whether a restriction exists, if the company’s need for unloading and loading services proved to be very limited and/or sporadic?

               B.3

               If a restriction exists: Is it of significance for the assessment of whether the restriction is lawful or not, that the company, in relation to its own dockworkers, applies another collective agreement negotiated between the social partners in the State where the port is located, when that collective agreement concerns matters other than unloading and loading work?


18.12.1999            EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 366/25
       Removal from the register of Case C-211/99 (1)                     Removal from the register of Case C-121/99 (1)
                        (1999/C 366/50)                                                   (1999/C 366/53)
By order of 30 September 1999 the President of the Court of        By order of 6 October 1999 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-211/99: Commission of the              from the register of Case C-121/99: Commission of the
European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.                  European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
(1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.                                         (1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-100/98 (1)
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-227/99 (1)
                        (1999/C 366/51)
                                                                                (1999/C 366/54)
By order of 4 October 1999 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        By order of 8 October 1999 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-100/98: Kingdom of Sweden v            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
Council of the European Union.                                     from the register of Case C-227/99: Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities v Portuguese Republic.
(1) OJ No C 209 of 4.7.1998.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-44/99 (1)
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-200/99 (1)
                        (1999/C 366/52)
                                                                                (1999/C 366/55)
By order of 4 October 1999 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        By order of 13 October 1999 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-44/99: Commission of the               Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
European Communities v French Republic.                            from the register of Case C-200/99: Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain
(1) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.                                         and Northern Ireland.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 March 2000 in Case T-91/99: Ford Motor Company v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — The word OPTIONS — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Acquisition through use in part of the Community)

text:
27.5.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 149/31
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             A.J. Tweedale Willoughby and, at the hearing, by B.H.E.
                                                                        Halliday, Solicitors, London, with an address for service in
                        of 16 March 2000                                Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loeff, Claeys and Verbeke, 58
                                                                        Rue Charles Martel, against Office for Harmonisation in the
in Case T-72/98: Astilleros Zamacona SA v Commission                    Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents:
              of the European Communities (1)                           F. López de Rego, A. Di Carlo and A. von Mühlendahl) —
                                                                        application for annulment of the decision of the Second Board
                                                                        of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
(State aid — Shipbuilding — Article 4(3) of Council                     Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 February 1999 (Case
Directive 90/684/EEC — Determination of the ceiling for                 R 150/98-2) refusing registration of the word OPTIONS as a
                          production aid)                               Community trade mark — the Court of First Instance (Fourth
                                                                        Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili, President, R.M. Moura Ramos
                         (2000/C 149/58)                                and P. Mengozzi, Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator, for the
                                                                        Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 March 2000, in which
                                                                        it:
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                        1. Dismisses the application;
In Case T-72/98 Astilleros Zamacona SA, established in
Santurce, Spain, represented by A. Creus Carreras, of the               2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
Barcelona Bar, and B. Uriarte, of the Madrid Bar, Cabinet
Cuatrecasas, 60 Avenue de Cortenberg, Brussels, Belgium v
                                                                        (1) OJ C 174 of 19.6.1999.
Commission of the European Communities, (Agents: P. Nem-
itz, M. Desantes and M. Muñoz) — application for the
annulment of Commission Decision 98/157/EC of 5 Novem-
ber 1997 concerning aid Spain proposes to grant to Astilleros
Zamacona SA in respect of five tugboats (OJ 1998 L 50, p. 38)
— the Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition),
composed of: A. Potocki, President, K. Lenaerts, J. Azizi,
J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Palacio González,                      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
16 March 2000, in which it:                                                                     of 7 March 2000
1. Dismisses the action;                                                in Case T-2/95 (92): Industrie des Poudres Sphériques v
                                                                                Council of the European Union (1)
2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                        (Taxation of costs — Costs of an intervener — Lawyer’s fees
(1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.98.                                                            — Travel and accommodation expenses)
                                                                                (2000/C 149/60)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             In Case T-2/95 (92): Industrie des Poudres Sphériques, estab-
                                                                        lished in Annemasse, France, represented by C. Momège, of
                        of 30 March 2000                                the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                        Chambers of A. May, 398 Route d’Esch, against Council of the
                                                                        European Union (Agents: originally R. Torrent and J. Monteiro,
in Case T-91/99: Ford Motor Company v Office for
                                                                        then Mr Torrent and Y. Cretien, and subsequently Mr Torrent,
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                        A. Tanca and P. Bentley), supported by Commission of the
                      Designs) (OHIM) (1)
                                                                        European Communities (Agents: N. Khan and X. Lewis),
                                                                        Péchiney Électrométallurgie, established in Courbevoie, France,
(Community trade mark — The word OPTIONS — Absolute                     and Chambre Syndicale de l’Électrométallurgie et de l’Électro-
ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article            chimie, established in Paris, represented originally by J.-P.
7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Acquisition through                  Gunther and H. de Broca, of the Paris Bar, then by Mr Gunther
                 use in part of the Community)                          alone, and subsequently by O. Prost, of the Paris Bar, 99-101
                                                                        Rue de la Loi, Brussels — application for taxation of the costs
                         (2000/C 149/59)                                to be reimbursed by the applicant to the intervener Péchiney
                                                                        Électrométallurgie following the judgment of the Court of First
                                                                        Instance of 15 October 1998 in Case T-2/95 Industrie des
                  (Language of the case: English)                       Poudres Sphériques v Council [1998] ECR II-3939 — the
                                                                        Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition),
In Case T-91/99: Ford Motor Company, established in Dear-               composed of: R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, President, P. Lindh, R.M.
born, Michigan, United States of America, represented by                Moura Ramos, J.D. Cooke and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung,