title: Case T-570/10: Judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2012 — Environmental Manufacturing v OHIM — Wolf (Representation of the head of a wolf) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for a Community figurative mark representing a wolf’s head — Earlier national and international figurative marks WOLF Jardin and Outils WOLF — Relative grounds for refusal — Detriment to the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               7.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2012 — Environmental Manufacturing v OHIM — Wolf (Representation of the head of a wolf)
   (Case T-570/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for a Community figurative mark representing a wolf’s head - Earlier national and international figurative marks WOLF Jardin and Outils WOLF - Relative grounds for refusal - Detriment to the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 200/27
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Environmental Manufacturing LLP (Stowmarket, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, and M. Atkins, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Société Elmar Wolf (Wissembourg, France) (represented by: N. Boespflug, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 October 2010 (Case R 425/2010-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Société Elmar Wolf and Environmental Manufacturing LLP.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Environmental Manufacturing LLP to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 26.2.2011.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 March 2001 in Case T-192/99: Roderick Dunnett and Others v European Investment Bank (General principle of labour law common to the Member States — Bona fide consultation of staff representatives — Abolition of a financial advantage)

text:
C 161/16                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       2.6.2001
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 7 February 2001
                          of 6 March 2001
                                                                            in Case T-118/99: Beatrice Bonaiti Brighina v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities (1)
in Case T-77/99: Girish Ojha v the Commission of the                        (Officials — Competitions — Rules on the use of languages
                    European Communities (1)                                — Admissibility — Non-admission to the oral test — Access
                                                                                to documents)
(Officials — VAT-free importation of personal effects —                                               (2001/C 161/35)
    Action for damages — Breach of administrative duty)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                          (2001/C 161/34)                                   In Case T-118/99: Beatrice Bonaiti Brighina, an official of the
                                                                            Commission posted to the Joint Research Centre at Ispra,
                                                                            represented by M. Rizzoglio and F. Colussi, Avvocati, with an
                                                                            address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the
                                                                            European Communities (Agent: G. Valsesia) — application for
                    (Language of the case: French)                          the annulment of the decision of the selection board in
                                                                            competition COM/B/18/96 not to admit the applicant to the
                                                                            oral tests in that competition and, if necessary, the annulment
                                                                            of the list drawn up on the basis of the written tests and of the
In Case T-77/99: Girish Ojha, an official in the Commission of
the European Communities, residing in Bierbeek (Belgium),                   final list of successful candidates in the competition —
                                                                            the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of
represented by Antonietta Ottati and Marc Dallemagne, avo-
                                                                            B. Vesterdorf, President, M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood, Judges;
cats, against Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: C. Berardis-Kayser) — application for compensation to               J. Palacio González, Administrator, gave a judgment on
                                                                            7 February 2001, in which it:
make good the material and non-material damage suffered by
the applicant as a result of being deprived of use of his
                                                                            1.    dismisses the application;
vehicle during the period running from 1 February 1996 to
31 December 1997— the Court of First Instance (First                        2.    orders each of the parties to bear its own costs.
Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, M. Vilaras
and N.J. Forwood, Judges; D. Christensen, for the Registrar,
gave a judgment on 6 March 2001, in which it:                               (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.99.
1.    orders the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of
      BFR 35 000 by way of compensation for the material damage
      caused to him, together with interest at an annual rate of
      interest of 6,75 %, with effect from delivery of the judgment
      until actual payment;
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2.    dismisses the remainder of the application;                                                     of 6 March 2001
                                                                            in Case T-192/99: Roderick Dunnett and Others v Euro-
3.    orders the Commission to bear its own costs and pay one half                              pean Investment Bank (1)
      of those of the applicant;
                                                                            (General principle of labour law common to the Member
                                                                            States — Bona fide consultation of staff representatives —
4.    orders the applicant to bear one half of its own costs.                              Abolition of a financial advantage)
                                                                                (2001/C 161/36)
(1) OJ C 174 of 19.6.99.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                            In Case T-192/99: Roderick Dunnett, residing in Luxembourg
                                                                            (Luxembourg), Thomas Hackett, residing in Rameldange (Lux-
                                                                            embourg), Mateo Turró Calvet, residing in Rameldange,
 ---pagebreak--- 2.6.2001                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 161/17
represented by A. Dashwood and W.-J. Outhwaite, Barristers,                1.    Annuls the Commission’s decision of 29 June 1999, rejecting
with an address for service in Luxembourg, against European                      the complaint of Métropole Télévision SA of 5 December
Investment Bank (Agents: J.-P. Minnaert, Z. Zachariadis, and                     1997;
A. Barav) — application for annulment of both the decision to
abolish, as of 1 January 1999, the system of special conversion            2.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
rates and the salary statements of the applicants in which that
decision was applied — the Court of First Instance (Third
Chamber), composed of: J. Azizi, President, K. Lenaerts and
M. Jaeger, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the             (1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.99.
Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 March 2001, in which it:
1.    Annuls the applicants’ salary statements for January 1999 in
      so far as the system of special conversion rates is not applied in
      them;
2.    Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible;
3.    Orders the European Investment Bank to pay the costs.                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 6 March 2001
(1) OJ C 314 of 30.10.99.
                                                                           in Case T-100/00: Franco Campoli v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                                                                           (Officials — Transfer/Reassignment — Statement of
                                                                              reasons — Misuse of powers — Interests of the service)
                                                                                (2001/C 161/38)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                          of 20 March 2001
                                                                           In Case T-100/00: Franco Campoli, an official of the Com-
in Case T-206/99: Métropole Télévision SA v Commission                     mission of the European Communities, residing at Brussels,
                of the European Communities (1)                            represented by S. Diana, Avocat, with an address for service in
                                                                           Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties (Agents: G. Valsesia and D. Waelbroeck) — first, appli-
(Competition — Rejection of a complaint — Compliance                       cation for the annulment of the decision of the Commission
with a judgment of the Court of First Instance annulling an                transferring the applicant from the ‘Foodstuffs — Legislation
exemption decision of the Commission — Duty to state                       and scientific and technical aspects’ unit 1 to the ‘Food
reasons — Obligations in relation to the investigation of                  production and biotechnology’ unit 2 of Industry Directorate E
                             complaints)                                   of DG III as well as the decision to appoint another official to
                                                                           the ‘Foodstuffs — Legislation and scientific and technical
                                                                           aspects’ unit as deputy-head and, secondly, a claim for damages
                           (2001/C 161/37)                                 — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of
                                                                           P. Lindh , President, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke,
                                                                           Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, gave a judgment on
                     (Language of the case: French)                        6 March 2001, in which it:
                                                                           1.    dismisses the application;
In Case T-206/99: Métropole Télévision SA, established in
Paris (France), represented by D. Théophile, Avocat, with an
address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the               2.    orders each of the parties to bear its own costs.
European Communities (Agents: K. Wiedner and B. Mongin)
— application for the annulment of the Commission’s decision
of 29 June 1999 rejecting the complaint lodged by Métropole                (1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.00.
Télévision on 5 December 1997 — the Court of First Instance
(Fourth Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, President, R.M. Moura
Ramos and P. Mengozzi, Judges; G. Herzig, administrator, for
the Registrar gave a judgment on 21 March 2001, in which it:


title: Case T-455/15: Action brought on 10 August 2015 — Vitra Collections v OHIM — Consorzio Origini (Shape of a chair)

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/48

         Action brought on 10 August 2015 — Vitra Collections v OHIM — Consorzio Origini (Shape of a chair)
   (Case T-455/15)
   (2015/C 320/66)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Vitra Collections AG (Muttenz, Switzerland) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Consorzio Origini (Florence, Italy)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community tridimensional mark (Shape of a chair) — Community trade mark No 182 451

      Procedure before OHIM: Cancellation proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 March 2015 in Case R 664/2011-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM and the intervener to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 75, second sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(e)(iii) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-131/07: Action brought on 24 April 2007 — Mohr & Sohn v Commission

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/25

         Action brought on 24 April 2007 — Mohr & Sohn v Commission
   (Case T-131/07)
   (2007/C 155/50)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Paul Mohr & Sohn, Baggerei und Schiffahrt (Niederwalluf (Rhg), Germany) (represented by: F. von Waldstein, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the defendant's decision of 28 February 2007 and order the European Commission to grant the applicant an exemption for the crane vessel ‘Niclas’, in accordance with Article 4(6) of Council Regulation (EC) No 718/1999 of 29 March 1999 on a Community-fleet capacity policy to promote inland waterway transport;

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant challenges the decision of the Directorate-General for Energy and Transport of the Commission (2007) D/200972 of 28 February 2007 in respect of the application which it made pursuant to Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 718/1999 (1) for an exemption for the crane vessel ‘Niclas’. The applicant applied for that specialised vessel to be exempted from the application of the ‘old-for-new’ rule. In the contested decision the defendant decided not to grant the relevant exemption for the vessel ‘Niclas’.
   In support of its action the applicant claims, in particular, that the crane vessel ‘Niclas’ is not a vessel which is subject to Regulation No 718/1999. It submits, in that regard, that the ship concerned is not in possession of a certificate of entitlement to operate on the Rhine, which is however a requirement for the legal transportation of goods on the European waterways. According to the applicant, the crane vessel ‘Niclas’ is no different from storage vessels under Article 2(2)(f) of Regulation No 718/1999 or from hopper vessels and floating construction plants within the meaning of Article 2(2)(g) of that regulation.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 718/1999 of 29 March 1999 on a Community-fleet capacity policy to promote inland waterway transport.


title: Case C-374/14 P: Appeal brought on 4 August 2014 by Walcher Meßtechnik GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 22 May 2014 in Case T-95/13 Walcher Meßtechnik GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               6.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 351/6

         Appeal brought on 4 August 2014 by Walcher Meßtechnik GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 22 May 2014 in Case T-95/13 Walcher Meßtechnik GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-374/14 P)
   2014/C 351/08
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Walcher Meßtechnik GmbH (represented by: S. Walter, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Sixth Chamber of the General Court of the European Union of 22 May 2014 in Case T-95/13 and annul the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 December 2012 in Case R 1779/2012-1;

               —

               in the alternative, set aside the judgment of the Sixth Chamber of the General Court of 22 May 2014 in Case T-95/13 and refer the case back to the General Court;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant puts forward two grounds of appeal, the first of which is divided into three parts:

               1.

               First ground of appeal
               The judgment under appeal infringes Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1) for three reasons:

                           —

                           When assessing whether a sign is registrable, account should be taken of the wording of the goods and/or services applied for. That did not happen in the proceedings before the General Court. Instead, the General Court took account of websites belonging to the appellant and the list of goods covered by a US trade mark, which were not the subject of the dispute.

                           —

                           Even with the meaning assigned by the General Court to the word HIPERDRIVE, only one characteristic of a drive is described by the sign HIPERDRIVE. However, in the present case, no essential characteristics of the applied-for goods themselves were described by the alleged description of the part of the drive integrated into the goods applied for. The General Court therefore erred in law in the application of the criteria set out in the recent European case-law in that regard (see judgment of 15 January 2013 in Case T-625/11 BSH v OHIM (ecoDoor) (2) and judgment of 10 July 2014 in Case C-126/13 P BSH v OHIM
                               (3), paragraph 27).

                           —

                           The General Court’s allegedly incorrect assumption that ‘HIPER’ must be equated with ‘hyper’, although those terms are never used interchangeably, is based on the inaccurate assertion that both ‘HIPER’ and ‘hyper’ are pronounced identically in English. Despite the appellant’s numerous examples to the contrary, that allegedly incorrect assertion is neither verified nor substantiated by the General Court. According to the case-law, the question whether the grounds of a judgment of the General Court are contradictory or inadequate is a question of law.

               2.

               Second ground of appeal:

                           —

                           The judgment under appeal infringes the general principles of Union law, namely, the principle of equal treatment and the prohibition of arbitrary decisions. It is the clear practice of OHIM not to equate the element HIPER with ‘hyper’ in the case of registrations. That practice existed before the registration of the sign at issue and exists afterwards as well. The present case is different from cases in which applicants rely merely on previous registrations. The fact that, following the objection to the registrations at issue, ‘HIPER’ trade marks were no longer objected to by OHIM shows that the objection to the trade mark application at issue clearly infringes the principle of equal treatment and the prohibition of arbitrary decisions.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark, OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.

      (2)  ECLI:EU:T:2013:14.

      (3)  ECLI:EU:C:2014:2065.


title: Case C-134/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Jaworznie (Republic of Poland) lodged on 7 March 2007 — Piotr Kawala v Gmina Miasta Jaworzna

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/33

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Jaworznie (Republic of Poland) lodged on 7 March 2007 — Piotr Kawala v Gmina Miasta Jaworzna
   (Case C-134/07)
   (2007/C 95/63)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Referring court
   Sąd Rejonowy w Jaworznie
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Piotr Kawala

      Defendant: Gmina Miasta Jaworzna
   Question referred
   The following question is referred to the Court of Justice of the European Communities in Luxembourg pursuant to Article 234 EC: Does Article 90 EC prevent the application of Paragraph 1 of the Regulation of the Minister for Infrastructure of 28 July 2003 on the amount of the charges for a vehicle registration card to the extent that it makes registration of a vehicle brought in from outside the Republic of Poland, from another Member State, dependent upon payment of a charge for issue of a vehicle registration card amounting to PLN 500?


title: Case C-233/17 P: Appeal brought on 4 May 2017 by GX against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 3 March 2017 in Case T-556/16: GX v European Commission

text:
               10.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/12

         Appeal brought on 4 May 2017 by GX against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 3 March 2017 in Case T-556/16: GX v European Commission
   (Case C-233/17 P)
   (2017/C 221/16)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: GX (represented by: G.-M. Enache, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal and, consequently, annul the contested decision of the appointing authority;

               —

               pay compensation in respect of the material and non-material harm suffered on account of that decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By his appeal, the appellant requests the Court to set aside the order of the General Court of 3 March 2017 in Case T-556/16, GX v Commission, by which his action for annulment of the decision of the selection board of open competition EPSO/AD/248/13 not to include his name on the reserve list of successful candidates in that competition, was dismissed.
   In support of the appeal, the applicant relies on two pleas in law:

               1.

               The illegality of the notice of competition, of the corrigendum, and of the Assessment Centre fundamental principles
               The appellant considers that the competition notice is unlawful insofar as it does not provide an objective justification either as regards the limitation of the choice of second language (German, English or French) in the light of the interest of the service or as regards the proportionality of that limitation with regard to the real needs of the service.
               Secondly, the appellant claims the illegality, lack of validity and of scientific foundation of the Assessment Centre fundamental principles governing EPSO open competitions as there is no support, evidence, or verification of the fundamental practices used at EPSO based on the following principles: (i) ‘past behavior is the best predictor of future performance’, (ii) ‘assessment centers, simulating real-life working situations, are the best predictor of real-life performance’.
               Thirdly, the appellant claims the illegality of a corrigendum published in competition EPSO/AD/248/13.

               2.

               Procedural irregularities at the Assessment Centre.
               The appellant raises a certain number of alleged procedural irregularities at the assessment center in competition EPSO/AD/248/13.


title: Case C-233/02: Action brought on 21 June 2002 by French Republic against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 180/18                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      27.7.2002
—     Order the French Republic to pay the costs.                         Action brought on 18 June 2002 by the Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
                                                                                Luxembourg
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Case C-228/02)
The period prescribed for transposition expired on 21 August                                        (2002/C 180/31)
2001.
(1) OJ L 101, 1.4.1998, p. 17.
                                                                          An action against The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                          brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties on 18 June 2002 by the Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities, represented by Denis Martin and Miguel França,
                                                                          acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
Action brought on 18 June 2002 by the Commission of                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
                             Luxembourg                                   —     Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force the
                                                                                laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary
                           (Case C-227/02)                                      to comply with Directive 97/7/EC of the European
                                                                                Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on
                                                                                the protection of consumers in respect of distance
                           (2002/C 180/30)                                      contracts (1), or, in any event, by failing to communicate
                                                                                to the Commission the adoption of such provisions, the
                                                                                Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
                                                                                obligations under that directive;
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-              —     Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
ties on 18 June 2002 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Denis Martin and Miguel França,
of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service
in Luxembourg.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          The period prescribed for transposition expired on 4 June
1.    Declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,              2000.
      regulations and administrative provisions needed in order
      to comply with Directive 97/55/EC (1) of the European
                                                                          (1) OJ 1997 L 144, p. 19.
      Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997
      amending Directive 84/450/EEC (2) concerning mislead-
      ing advertising so as to include comparative advertising,
      or, in any event, by failing to have informed the
      Commission of any such laws, regulations or administrat-
      ive provisions, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has
      failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.
                                                                          Action brought on 21 June 2002 by French Republic
2.    Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
                                                                              against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case C-233/02)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (2002/C 180/32)
The period prescribed for transposition expired on 23 April
2000.
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
(1) OJ L 290, 23.10.1997, p. 18.                                          ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
(2) OJ L 250, 19.9.1984, p. 17.                                           Communities on 21 June 2002 by the French Republic,
                                                                          represented by R. Abraham, G. de Bergues and P. Boussaroque,
                                                                          acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- 27.7.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 180/19
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Appeal brought on 24 June 2002 by the European
                                                                        Ombudsman against the judgment delivered on 10 April
                                                                        2002 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance
                                                                        of the European Communities in Case T-209/00 between
—     annul the decision whereby the Commission concluded                        F. Lamberts and the European Ombudsman
      with the United States of America guidelines on legislative
      cooperation and transparency;
                                                                                (Case C-234/02 P)
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                                                     (2002/C 180/33)
                                                                        An appeal against the judgment delivered on 10 April 2002
                                                                        by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities in Case T-209/00 between F. Lamberts
                                                                        and the European Ombudsman was brought before the Court
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         of Justice of the European Communities on 24 June 2002 by
                                                                        the European Ombudsman represented by J. Sant’Anna, with
                                                                        an address for service in Luxembourg.
—     Despite the careful language of the document attached to
      a memorandum which the Commission sent to Com-                    The appellant claims that the Court should:
      mittee 133, responsible for the common commercial
      policy, matters of substance lead the French Government
      to think that the guidelines are a genuine undertaking            —     annul the decision concerning the admissibility of the
      and place obligations on the parties. In those guidelines               action for damages in the judgment of the Court of First
      are very precisely set out the objectives pursued, the                  Instance delivered on 10 April 2002 in Case T-209/00
      scope of action and the measures to adopt in order to                   Frank Lamberts v European Ombudsman and thus declare
      achieve the objectives set. The fact that those guidelines              that that action is inadmissible.
      are not, of themselves, intended to modify the state of
      Community law cannot disguise the fact that they
      constitute, at the very least, an undertaking to cooperate
      on the part of the parties. Moreover, the provisions under
      Title VI of the guidelines, regarding monitoring of               Pleas in law and main arguments
      their implementation, clearly demonstrate the mandatory
      nature of the cooperation undertaking entered into by
      the parties. The existence of a surveillance mechanism is
      witness to the fact that the authors of the guidelines            Breach of Community law
      clearly sought to rule out the parties seeking refuge
      behind the voluntary nature of the cooperation to negate
      the undertaking to which they had subscribed.                     The decision at issue contravenes the constitutional scheme
                                                                        established by the Treaty, concerning the liability of the
                                                                        Ombudsman. In reviewing the legality of the inquiry procedure
      Since those guidelines must be seen as an international           conducted by the Ombudsman and of the decision closing the
      agreement within the meaning of Article 300 EC, the               case, the Court of First Instance overstepped the limits of
      measure whereby the Commission decided to enter into              judicial review of action by the Ombudsman. It carried out a
      it is vitiated by lack of competence and cannot but be            review of the Ombudsman’s exercise of his mandate, a review
      annulled.                                                         which the treaties assign to the European Parliament and
                                                                        which had already been carried out by that institution.
—     The guidelines are also contrary to the EC Treaty inas-           In declaring the case admissible the Court of First Instance
      much as they amount to a restriction of the sole power            failed to distinguish between actions for damages, on the one
      to propose which the Commission enjoys in the context             hand, and actions for annulment and actions for failure to act,
      of the Community legislative process and they affect the          on the other. The Ombudsman does not in the least deny that
      whole of the legislative process.                                 it is open to a citizen to bring an action for damages against
                                                                        the Ombudsman on the ground of the latter’s possibly
                                                                        wrongful action or behaviour causing damage to the former.
                                                                        However, whilst the Court of First Instance rightly found that
                                                                        the Treaty confers on citizens a right to submit complaints to
                                                                        the Ombudsman and to receive an answer from him, it was
                                                                        wrong to conclude that it could review the Ombudsman’s


title: Case C-238/07 P: Order of the Court of 19 October 2007 — Derya Beyatli v Commission of the European Communities (Appeals — Staff cases — Open competition for citizens of the Republic of Cyprus — Notice of competition — Time-limits — Complaint — Letter addressed to the head of the Commission delegation in Cyprus)

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/30

         Order of the Court of 19 October 2007 — Derya Beyatli v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-238/07 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Staff cases - Open competition for citizens of the Republic of Cyprus - Notice of competition - Time-limits - Complaint - Letter addressed to the head of the Commission delegation in Cyprus)
   (2008/C 51/51)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: Derya Beyatli (represented by: A. Demetriades, dikigoros)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and H. Kraemer, Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 5 March 2007 in Case T-455/04 Beyatli and Candan v Commission by which the Court of First Instance dismissed as inadmissible an application seeking the annulment of the decision of the selection board in Competition EPSO/A/1/03 for the establishment of a reserve list of assistant administrators of Cypriot nationality not to admit the appellants to the oral tests in that competition — Period within which a complaint must be lodged pursuant to Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations
   Operative part of the order
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Ms Beyatli to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 183, 4.8.2007.


title: Case C-531/11: Order of the President of the Court of 13 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Landessozialgericht, Darmstadt — Germany) — Angela Strehl v Bundesagentur für Arbeit Nürnberg

text:
               10.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/25

         Order of the President of the Court of 13 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Landessozialgericht, Darmstadt — Germany) — Angela Strehl v Bundesagentur für Arbeit Nürnberg
   (Case C-531/11) (1)

   2012/C 73/48
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2005 in Case C-28/04 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Paris): Tod's SpA, Tod's France SARL v Heyraud SA (Equal treatment — Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality — Copyright and related rights)

text:
               20.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/4

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 30 June 2005
   in Case C-28/04 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Paris): Tod's SpA, Tod's France SARL v Heyraud SA (1)

   (Equal treatment - Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality - Copyright and related rights)
   (2005/C 205/07)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-28/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Tribunal de grande instance de Paris (France), made by decision of 5 December 2003, received at the Court on 28 January 2004, in the proceedings between Tod's SpA, Tod's France SARL and Heyraud SA, intervener: Technisynthèse, the Court: (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta, R. Schintgen, P. Kūris and G. Arestis, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General: R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 30 June 2005, in which it ruled:
   Article 12 EC, which lays down the general principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality, must be interpreted as meaning that the right of an author to claim in a Member State the copyright protection afforded by the law of that State may not be subject to a distinguishing criterion based on the country of origin of the work.

      (1)  OJ C 71 of 20.03.2004


title: Case F-29/16: Action brought on 14 June 2016 — ZZ and Others v Commission

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/53

         Action brought on 14 June 2016 — ZZ and Others v Commission
   (Case F-29/16)
   (2016/C 335/69)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: C. Cortese, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision withholding amounts from a pension adopted by the Commission under Article 85 of the Staff Regulations and determining that an amount of EUR 22 368,13 be withheld from the survivor’s pension granted to the applicant and from the orphan’s pension granted in respect of his three children.

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Office for Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO.4) of 17 August 2015 concerning recovery of sums overpaid in respect of survivor’s and orphan’s pensions, in relation to the entitlements of ZZ and of his two minor daughters and, to the extent necessary, the express decision rejecting the complaint;

               —

               annul the decision of the Office for Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO.4) of 17 August 2015 concerning recovery of sums overpaid in respect of survivor’s and orphan’s pensions, in relation to the entitlements of X and, to the extent necessary, the implied decision rejecting the complaint;

               —

               order the Commission to compensate the material and non-material damage suffered by the applicants owing to the breach of their right to good administration and of the Administration’s duty of care towards them, amounting, respectively:

                           —

                           to the difference between the remuneration received by ZZ as a temporary agent of the EFSA in grade AD 9, and the remuneration that he would receive as an official of the Commission in grade AD 12, for a period of one year;

                           —

                           to the amount of the recovery sought from the applicants in the contested decision, increased by the difference between the pensions amount determined in Statement of amendment No 2 and the amount determined in Statement of amendment No 3, from the date on which Statement No 3 takes effect until such time as the family will be in a position to resettle in its earlier place of residence, that period being equitably estimated at one year from resolution of the present case;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case F-117/10: Action brought on 12 November 2010 — Van Soest v Commission

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/66

         Action brought on 12 November 2010 — Van Soest v Commission
   (Case F-117/10)
   ()
   2011/C 30/131
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Barry Van Soest (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the Commission's decision terminating the procedure to recruit the applicant, who was successful in a competition and was included on the reserve list, because he did not hold a secondary education diploma giving access to post-secondary education.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul decision HRB.2/TV/iu (2010) 6293;

               —

               annul decision HRD.2/AL/db Ares(2010) 511204 rejecting the applicant's complaint against that decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-680/14: Action brought on 19 September 2014 — Lupin v Commission

text:
               8.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 439/33

         Action brought on 19 September 2014 — Lupin v Commission
   (Case T-680/14)
   (2014/C 439/43)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Lupin Ltd (Maharashtra, India) (represented by: M. Pullen, R. Fawcett-Feuillette, M. Boles, Solicitors, V. Wakefield, Barrister, and M. Hoskins QC)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the Decision void insofar as it finds that Lupin infringed Article 101 TFEU; and/or

               —

               set aside or reduce the fine imposed on Lupin; and

               —

               require the Commission to pay Lupin’s costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its present action, the applicant seeks the annulment, in part, of Commission Decision C(2014) 4955 final of 9 July 2014 in case AT.39612 — Perindopril (Servier).
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law insofar as it found that the applicant had committed an infringement by object of Article 101 TFEU. The applicant submits that:

                           —

                           the Commission’s finding is unlawful because it applies a wholly novel and incorrect legal test. In particular, it is dependent upon the payment of a ‘significant inducement’, which according to the applicant is not reflected in the existing case-law and is wrong as a matter of law;

                           —

                           the Commission’s approach fails to recognise and give effect not just to the objectives of competition law, but also those of patent law and modern civil procedure. According to the applicant, the Commission should have assessed the question of restriction by object by reference to the ancillary restraints doctrine and/or by reference to the principles recognised in the Wouters judgment. Its failure to do so was wrong in law.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law insofar as it found that the applicant had committed an infringement by effect of Article 101 TFEU. The applicant considers that the Commission’s approach to determining whether a patent settlement agreement was an infringement by effect suffered from the same flaws as its approach to object infringements.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission was wrong to impose any fine upon the applicant, alternatively the fine imposed was too high and should be reduced. The applicant contends that:

                           —

                           its alleged wrong-doing was novel and merits no fine, alternatively only a symbolic fine;

                           —

                           the fine fails to reflect the relative gravity and duration of the applicant’s alleged infringement and is unfair;

                           —

                           the Commission failed to take account of the legitimate value of the intellectual property transferred by the applicant to Servier;

                           —

                           the Commission breached the principle of equal treatment in comparison with the fine imposed on Krka.


title: Case T-67/01: Action brought on 22 March 2001 by JCB Service against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
30.6.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 186/9
The applicant challenges those decisions, alleging:                      In February 1996, a French company, Central Parts SA, lodged
                                                                         a complaint with the Commission against the applicant,
—     infringement of Articles 4, 5, 7, 25 and 29 of the Staff           according to which the applicant had taken steps to prevent
      Regulations,                                                       Central Parts SA from obtaining supplies for resale of JCB
                                                                         equipment from the applicant’s authorised distributors in the
—     breach of the principle of correspondence between grade
                                                                         United Kingdom.
      and post,
—     breach of the principle of entitlement to reasonable career
      prospects,
                                                                         According to the applicant, it had indeed taken such steps and
—     failure to have regard to the interests of the service,            had done so pursuant to express terms of its standard
                                                                         distributor agreement with its authorised distributors in the
—     breach of the principle of equal treatment,                        United Kingdom, this agreement having been notified, dis-
                                                                         cussed with and approved by the Commission in the 1970s.
—     breach of the duty to provide a proper statement of
      reasons, and
—     breach of the principle of sound management and proper             By the contested decision, the Commission found that the
      administration.                                                    applicant had infringed Article 81 of the Treaty by entering into
                                                                         agreements or concerted practices with authorised distributors,
                                                                         the object of which was to restrict competition.
                                                                         The applicant contends that the process leading up to the
                                                                         contested decision breached its fundamental rights of defence
Action brought on 22 March 2001 by JCB Service against                   and its rights under Article 6(1) and 6(2) of the European
       the Commission of the European Communities                        Convention on Human Rights. In particular, the applicant
                                                                         alleges that the Commission has failed to act within a
                                                                         reasonable time, has failed to behave impartially and to apply
                          (Case T-67/01)                                 the presumption of innocence and has denied the applicant
                                                                         access to documents on its file to which access should have
                         (2001/C 186/14)                                 been given.
                   (Language of the case: English)                       Furthermore, the applicant submits that the Commission has
                                                                         fallen well short of establishing the alleged infringements to
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                the requisite legal standard.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 22 March 2001 by JCB Service,
Staffordshire (UK) represented by Richard Fowler QC, Rupert
Anderson, Barrister, Laura Carstensen and Marc Israel of                 The applicant also contends that it is plain from the case-law
Slaughter and May, London (UK).                                          on exclusive and selective distribution networks that the
                                                                         applicant’s distribution agreement, as notified to the Com-
                                                                         mission and subject to notified amendments, are eligible for
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         individual exemption, and the contested decision contains no
—     declare the Commission’s Decision C(2000) 3887 of                  reasoned grounds upon which these agreements should be
      21 December 2000 in Case COMP.F.1/35/918 — JCB                     denied exemption under Article 81(3).
      void and annul it in its entirety;
—     in the alternative, annul those parts of the Decision to the
      extent that the Court considers just and appropriate in            Finally, the applicant disputes the imposition of any fine. It
      the circumstances and to reduce the fine imposed on JCB            maintains that most if not all of the conduct wrongly
      accordingly;                                                       characterised by the Commission as infringing Article 81 is
                                                                         legitimate conduct referable to and within the scope of
—     order that all the costs of the application for annulment          the agreements notified to the Commission and that the
      should be paid by the Commission.                                  Commission is accordingly prevented by Article 15(5)(a) of
                                                                         Regulation No 17 from imposing any fine in respect of such
                                                                         conduct. In any event, the fine imposed is disproportionate.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant manufactures and supplies machinery and
associated parts for earthmoving, excavation, materials hand-
ling and agricultural purposes.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 17 November 1998 in Case C-391/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Van Uden Maritime BV, trading as Van Uden Africa Line, v. Kommanditgesellschaft in Firma Deco-Line and Another (Brussels Convention - Arbitration clause - Interim payment - Meaning of 'provisional measures')

text:
C 20/2                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  23.1.1999
     intra-Community trade with a view to the completion             Wathelet, Judges; P. LeÂger, Advocate-General; D.
     of the internal market;                                         Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the
                                                                     Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 November 1998, in
                                                                     which it has ruled:
2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
     costs.
                                                                     1. On a proper construction of Article 5, point 1, of
                                                                         the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction
(1) OJ C 158, 1.6.1996.                                                  and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and
                                                                         Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention
                                                                         of 9 October 1978 on the accession of the Kingdom of
                                                                         Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great
                                                                         Britain and Northern Ireland, and by the Convention
                                                                         of 25 October 1982 on the accession of the Hellenic
                                                                         Republic, the court which has jurisdiction by virtue
                                                                         of that provision also has jurisdiction to order
                                                                         provisional or protective measures, without that
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     jurisdiction being subject to any further conditions.
                    of 17 November 1998
in Case C-391/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from            2. Where the parties have validly excluded the
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Van Uden Maritime BV,                    jurisdiction of the courts in a dispute arising under a
trading as Van Uden Africa Line, v. Kommanditgesellschaft                contract and have referred that dispute to arbitration,
              in Firma Deco-Line and Another (1)                         no provisional or protective measures may be ordered
                                                                         on the basis of Article 5, point 1, of the Convention of
(Brussels Convention Ð Arbitration clause Ð Interim
                                                                         27 September 1968.
       payment Ð Meaning of provisional measures')
                        (1999/C 20/02)
                                                                     3. Where the subject-matter of an application for
                                                                         provisional measures relates to a question falling
                                                                         within the scope ratione materiae of the Convention of
                (Language of the case: Dutch)                            27 September 1968, that Convention is applicable and
                                                                         Article 24 thereof may confer jurisdiction on the court
                                                                         hearing that application even where proceedings have
                                                                         already been, or may be, commenced on the substance
                                                                         of the case and even where those proceedings are to be
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           conducted before arbitrators.
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     4. On a proper construction, the granting of provisional
In Case C-391/95: reference to the Court under the                       or protective measures on the basis of Article 24 of the
Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the                     Convention of 27 September 1968 is conditional on,
Court of Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968                  inter alia, the existence of a real connecting link
on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil                between the subject-matter of the measures sought and
and Commercial Matters from the Hoge Raad der                            the territorial jurisdiction of the Contracting State of
Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) for a                     the court before which those measures are sought.
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Van Uden Maritime BV, trading as Van
Uden Africa Line, and Kommanditgesellschaft in Firma                 5. Interim payment of a contractual consideration does
Deco-Line and Another Ð on the interpretation of                         not constitute a provisional measure within the
Article 1, second paragraph, point 4, Article 3, Article 5,              meaning of Article 24 of the Convention of
point 1, and Article 24 of the Convention of 27 September                27 September 1968 unless, first, repayment to the
1968, cited above (OJ L 304, 30.10.1978, p. 17), as                      defendant of the sum awarded is guaranteed if the
amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the                       plaintiff is unsuccessful as regards the substance of his
accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the                     claim and, second, the measure sought relates only to
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland                     specific assets of the defendant located or to be
(OJ L 304, 30.10.1978, p. 1, and Ð amended text Ð                        located within the confines of the territorial
p. 77), and by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the                  jurisdiction of the court to which application is made.
accession of the Hellenic Republic (OJ L 388, 31.12.1982,
p. 1) Ð the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias,
President, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P.         (1) OJ C 46, 17.2.1996.
Jann (Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C.
Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, D. A. O.
Edward, H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur), L. Sevón and M.


title: Case C-43/10: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Greece) — Nomarchiaki Aftodioikisi Aitoloakarnanias and Others v Ipourgos Perivallontos and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directives 85/337/EEC, 92/43/EEC, 2000/60/EC and 2001/42/EC — Community action in the field of water policy — Diversion of the course of a river — Meaning of the time-limit for production of river basin management plans)

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Greece) — Nomarchiaki Aftodioikisi Aitoloakarnanias and Others v Ipourgos Perivallontos and Others
   (Case C-43/10) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directives 85/337/EEC, 92/43/EEC, 2000/60/EC and 2001/42/EC - Community action in the field of water policy - Diversion of the course of a river - Meaning of the time-limit for production of river basin management plans)
   2012/C 355/03
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Simvoulio tis Epikratias

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Nomarchiaki Aftodioikisi Aitoloakarnanias, Dimos Agriniou, Dimos Iniadon, Emporiko kai Viomikhaniko Epimelitirio Aitoloakarnanias, Enosi Agrotikon Sinetairismon Agriniou, Aitoliki Etairia Prostasias Topiou kai Perivallontos, Elliniki Ornithologiki Etairia, Elliniki Etairia gia tin Prostasia tou Perivallontos kai tis Politistikis Klironomias, Dimos Mesolongiou, Dimos Aitolikou, Dimos Inakhou, Topiki Enosi Dimon kai Kinotiton Nomou Aitoloakarnanias, Pagkosmio Tamio gia ti Fisi WWF Ellas

      Defendants: Ipourgos Perivallontos, Khorotaxias kai Dimosion Ergon, Ipourgos Esoterikon, Dimosias Diikisis kai Apokentrosis, Ipourgos Ikonomias kai Ikonomikon, Ipourgos Anaptixis, Ipourgos Agrotikis Anaptixis kai Trofimon, Ipourgos Politismou

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Interpretation of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1) — Works to divert a river — Meaning of the time-limit for the production of river basin management plans for the purposes of Article 13(6) of the directive

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 13(6) and 24(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy must be interpreted as respectively fixing 22 December 2009 as the date of expiry of the period allowed to Member States for the publication of river basin management plans and 22 December 2003 as the date of expiry of the maximum period available to the Member States for the transposition of that directive, in particular Articles 3 to 6, 9, 13 and 15 thereof.

               2.

               Directive 2000/60 must be interpreted as meaning that:

                           —

                           it does not preclude, in principle, a provision of national law whereby consent is given, prior to 22 December 2009, to a transfer of water from one river basin to another or from one river basin district to another where the managements plans for the river basin districts concerned were not yet adopted by the competent national authorities;

                           —

                           such a transfer must not be such as seriously to jeopardise the realisation of the objectives laid down by that directive;

                           —

                           however, to the extent that that transfer is liable to have adverse effects on water of the kind stated in Article 4(7) of that directive, consent may be given to it, at the very least if the conditions set out in Article 4(7)(a) to (d) are satisfied, and

                           —

                           the fact that it is impossible for the receiving river basin or river basin district to meet from its own water resources its needs in terms of drinking water, electricity production or irrigation is not a sine qua non for such a transfer of water to be compatible with that directive provided that the conditions listed above are satisfied.

               3.

               The fact that a national parliament approves management plans for river basins, such as the plans at issue in the main proceedings, where no procedure for public information, consultation or participation has been implemented does not fall within the scope of Article 14 of Directive 2000/60, and in particular the scope of Article 14(1) thereof.

               4.

               Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003, and in particular Article 1(5) thereof, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation such as Law 3481/2006, adopted by the Greek Parliament on 2 August 2006, which approves a project for the partial diversion of the waters of a river such as that at issue in the main proceedings on the basis of an environmental impact assessment for that project which had served as the basis for an administrative decision adopted on the conclusion of a procedure which complied with the obligations in terms of public information and participation laid down by that directive, even where that decision was annulled by court order, provided that that legislation constitutes a specific legislative act, so that the objectives of that directive can be achieved through the legislative process. It is for the national court to determine whether those two conditions have been complied with.

               5.

               A project for the partial diversion of the waters of a river, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, is not to be regarded as a plan or programme falling within the scope of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment.

               6.

               The areas which were listed in the national list of sites of Community importance transmitted to the European Commission pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora and were then included in the list of SCIs adopted by Commission Decision 2006/613/EC of 19 July 2006 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region were entitled, after notification of Decision 2006/613 to the Member State concerned, to the protection of that directive before that decision was published. In particular, after that notification, the Member State concerned also had to take the protective measures laid down in Article 6(2) to (4) of the directive.

               7.

               Directive 92/43, and in particular Article 6(3) and (4) thereof, must be interpreted as precluding development consent being given to a project for the diversion of water which is not directly connected with or necessary to the conservation of a special protection area, but likely to have a significant effect on that special protection area, in the absence of information or of reliable and updated data concerning the birds in that area.

               8.

               Directive 92/43, and in particular Article 6(4) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that grounds linked, on the one hand, to irrigation and, on the other, to the supply of drinking water, relied on in support of a project for the diversion of water, may constitute imperative reasons of overriding public interest capable of justifying the implementation of a project which adversely affects the integrity of the sites concerned. Where such a project adversely affects the integrity of a site of Community importance hosting a priority natural habitat type and/or a priority species, its implementation may, in principle, be justified by grounds linked with the supply of drinking water. In some circumstances, it might be justified by reference to beneficial consequences of primary importance which irrigation has for the environment. On the other hand, irrigation cannot, in principle, qualify as a consideration relating to human health and public safety, justifying the implementation of a project such as that at issue in the main proceedings.

               9.

               Under Directive 92/43, and in particular the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 6(4) thereof, for the purposes of determining the adequacy of compensatory measures account should be taken of the extent of the diversion of water and the scale of the works involved in that diversion.

               10.

               Directive 92/43, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 6(4) thereof, interpreted in the light of the objective of sustainable development, as enshrined in Article 6 EC, permits, in relation to sites which are part of the Natura 2000 network, the conversion of a natural fluvial ecosystem into a largely man-made fluvial and lacustrine ecosystem provided that the conditions referred to in that provision of the directive are satisfied.

      (1)  OJ C 100, 17.04.2010.


title: Case T-679/16: Action brought on 26 September 2016 — Athletic Club v Commission

text:
               14.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 419/56

         Action brought on 26 September 2016 — Athletic Club v Commission
   (Case T-679/16)
   (2016/C 419/73)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Athletic Club (Bilbao, Spain) (represented by: E. Lucas Murillo de la Cueva and J. Luís Carrasco, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2016) 4046 final of 4 July 2016 on State aid SA.29769 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) granted by Spain to certain football clubs, in so far as it affects Athletic Club;

               —

               annul Articles 4 and 5 of Commission Decision C(2016) 4046 final of 4 July 2016 on State aid SA.29769 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) granted by Spain to certain football clubs, in so far as they order the recovery of the aid allegedly granted to Athletic Club and the elimination of the corporate tax regime for non-profit entities under which Athletic Club has been taxed;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action is brought against Commission Decision C(2016) 4046 final of 4 July 2016 on State aid SA.29769 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) granted by Spain to certain football clubs. As regards the applicant, that aid consists in the tax advantage which it had allegedly obtained during the relevant period, because it was taxed as a non-profit association and therefore did not pay the standard corporate tax rate.
   In support of its action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU

                           —

                           By this plea in law, the applicant submits that in the geographic frame of reference (Vizcaya), the measure examined in the decision cannot be considered to be selective, since all the football clubs are non-profit entities subject to the same corporate tax regime and rate.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU

                           —

                           By this plea in law, the applicant submits that the difference in tax treatment between non-profit entities and limited liability companies is justified by the fundamental differences between those two types of entity.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU

                           —

                           By this plea in law, the applicant submits that the measure examined in the decision neither distorts competition nor affects trade between Member States.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 108 TFEU and Articles 1(b)(i), 17, 18 and 19 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).

                           —

                           By this plea in law, the applicant submits that if the measure examined in the decision is held to constitute state aid, it should, in any event, be given the treatment provided for existing aid.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(1)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

                           —

                           By this plea in law, the applicant submits that the Commission failed to state sufficient reasons in the contested decision, since it did not assess essential elements of the definition of state aid, did not respond to reasoned arguments made by the parties and disregarded essential elements of the burden of proof.


title: Joined Cases T-240/12 and T-211/13: Order of the General Court of 7 March 2014  — Eni v Commission (Competition  — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices  — Butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene butadiene rubber market  — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC  — Partial annulment and alteration by the General Court of the Commission’s decision  — Reopening of the procedure  — New statement of objections  — Closure of the procedure  — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/36

         Order of the General Court of 7 March 2014 — Eni v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-240/12 and T-211/13) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene butadiene rubber market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Partial annulment and alteration by the General Court of the Commission’s decision - Reopening of the procedure - New statement of objections - Closure of the procedure - No need to adjudicate))
   2014/C 135/46
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Eni SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: G.M. Roberti and I. Perego, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka, G. Conte, R. Striani and T. Vecchi, Agents)

      Re:

   In Case T-240/12, application for annulment of the Commission’s decision contained in a letter of 23 April 2012, informing the applicant of the Commission’s intention to reopen the procedure and to adopt a new statement of objections and, in Case T-211/13, application for annulment of Commission decisions C(2013) 1200 final of 26 February 2013 and C(2013) 1199 final of 27 February 2013 to reopen the procedure and to send the applicant a new statement of objections in Case AT. 40032–BR/ESBR — Recidivism, following the partial annulment by the General Court of Commission Decision C(2006) 5700 final of 29 November 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.638 — Butadiene Rubber and Emulsion Styrene Butadiene Rubber).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Cases T-240/12 and T-211/13 are joined for the purposes of the order.

               2.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present actions.

               3.

               Eni SpA and the European Commission shall each bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 217, 21.7.2012.


title: Case T-502/10: Action brought on 18 October 2010 — Département du Gers v Commission

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/54

         Action brought on 18 October 2010 — Département du Gers v Commission
   (Case T-502/10)
   ()
   2010/C 346/105
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Département du Gers (Auch, France) (represented by: S. Mabile and J.-P. Mignard, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Decision 2010/428/EU of the European Commission of 28 July 2010 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize 59122x1507xNK603 (DAS-59122-7xDAS-Ø15Ø7xMON-ØØ6Ø3-6) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and the main arguments raised by the applicant are identical or essentially the same as those raised in Case T-478/10 Département du Gers v Commission.


title: Case T-394/12: Action brought on 28 August 2012 — Alfastar Benelux v Council

text:
               27.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/30

      Action brought on 28 August 2012 — Alfastar Benelux v Council
      (Case T-394/12)
      (2012/C 331/57)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Alfastar Benelux SA (Ixelles, Belgium) (represented by: N. Keramidas and N. Korogiannakis, lawyers)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Annul the decision of the defendant to reject the bid of the applicant filed in response to the open call for tenders UCA-218-07 for the provision of technical maintenance — help desk and on-site intervention services for the PC’s printers and peripherals of the General Secretariat of the Council (OJ/S 2008/S 91-122796), communicated afresh to the applicant by registered letter dated 18 June 2012, following the annulment of the previous award decision dated 1 December 2008 by the General Court in its judgment in case T-57/09 Alfastar Benelux v Council;

                  —

                  Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s damages suffered on account if the tendering procedure in question; and

                  —

                  Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violated the tender specification since the use of the movers to execute technical assistance tasks as envisaged in the winning tender is contrary to such specifications;

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by multiple manifest errors of assessment especially concerning the certification of the winning tenderer, the qualifications of the personnel of the winning tenderer as opposed to those of the applicant, the knowledge transfer marks, the evaluation of the number of staff proposed by the tenderers.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that the evaluation committee mixed selection and award criteria and phases of the tendering procedure.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that there exist various inconsistencies and inaccurate information in the call for tenders.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant did not comply with the provision of Article 100(2) of the Financial Regulation (1), especially with regard to the verification of selection criteria.

         (1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1)


title: Case C-75/06: Action brought on  8 February 2006  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/16

         Action brought on 8 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-75/06)
   (2006/C 86/29)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 February 2006, by the Portuguese Republic, represented by Carmel O'Reilly and Piedade Costa de Oliveira, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

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

               2.

               order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period allowed for transposition into domestic law of Directive 2003/9 expired on 6 February 2005.

      (1)  OJ L 31, p. 18.


title: Case F-15/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 20 April 2012 — Collado v Commission

text:
               23.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/25

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 20 April 2012 — Collado v Commission
   (Case F-15/12)
   2012/C 184/57
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


title: Case C-66/06: Action brought on  6 February 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

text:
               6.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/1

         Action brought on 6 February 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
   (Case C-66/06)
   (2006/C 108/01)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Simonetti and X. Lewis, Agents, F. Louis, avocat and C. O'Daly, Solicitor)
   Defendant: Ireland
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by not adopting, in conformity with Articles 2(1) and 4(2), (3) and (4) of the EIA Directive, all measures to ensure that, before consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment that belong to the categories of projects covered by Annex II Class 1(a), (b), (c) and (f) are made subject to a requirement for development consent and to an assessment with regard to their effects in accordance with Articles 5 to 10 of the EIA Directive, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the said Directive; and

               —

               order Ireland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The use of uniform, unqualified size thresholds
   The Commission considers the Irish transposing legislation is deficient as it does not provide, in respect of project categories covered by Annex II Class 1(a), (b) and (c) of the Environmental Impact Assessment (the EIA Directive), for effective measures to achieve the results required by Articles 2(1), 4(2) and 4(3) of the EIA Directive.
   Article 4(2) permits Member States to determine, by either a case-by-case examination or by ‘thresholds or criteria set by the Member State’, the necessity of an EIA for projects listed in Annex II. Whatever the means of determination implemented by the Member State, this means must satisfy Article 4(3), i.e., take into account the selection criteria listed in Annex III. These selection criteria include, for example, the project size, cumulation with other projects, its location, the environmental sensitivity of the geographical area and its impact on landscapes of historical, cultural or archaeological significance.
   In its transposing legislation regarding projects falling under Annex II Class 1(a), (b) and (c), Ireland has, however, relied on a uniform, unqualified size threshold without any possibility of assessing any other project characteristics.
   Intensive fish farming
   With regard to trial fish farms, the transposing legislation would appear to allow for the possibility of an EIA ‘if the Minister considers that the proposed aquaculture is likely to have significant effects on the environment.’ This legislation, however, does not contain any reference to the selection criteria set out in Annex III of the EIA Directive. Thus, the Minister is under no express obligation to take account of the proposed location of such a trial fish farm or of any of the other selection criteria, for the purposes of determining if an EIA is necessary.
   The Commission notes that Ireland acknowledges the need to make express provision for the Annex III selection criteria with regard to fish farm projects. However, as far as the Commission is aware, no amending legislation has been enacted or communicated to the Commission.