title: Case C-453/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that Court of 6 November in the case of Finanzamt Gladbeck against Edith Linneweber

text:
22.3.2003            EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 70/1
                                                                  I
                                                           (Information)
                                              COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                       COURT OF JUSTICE
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-              in the case of Finanzamt Gladbeck against Edith Linneweber
hof by order of that Court of 4 September 2002 in the                on the following questions:
case of Finanzamt Kassel-Goethestraße against Qualitair
                 Engineering Services Limited                        1.     Is Article 13B(f) of Directive 77/388/EEC (1) to be inter-
                                                                            preted as precluding a Member State from making the
                       (Case C-450/02)                                      organisation of gambling subject to value added tax if it
                                                                            is exempt when organised by a licensed public casino?
                        (2003/C 70/01)
                                                                     2.     Does Article 13B(f) of Directive 77/388/EEC prohibit a
                                                                            Member State from making the operation of a gaming
                                                                            machine subject to value added tax if the operation of a
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      gaming machine by a licensed public casino is exempt, or
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof                        must the game of chance machines operated outside
(Federal Finance Court) of 4 September 2002, received at the                casinos also be comparable for that purpose in essential
Court Registry on 12 December 2002, for a preliminary ruling                respects, for example as regards the maximum stake and
in the case of Finanzamt Kassel-Goethestraße against Qualitair              the maximum winnings, with the gaming machines in
Engineering Services Limited on the following question:                     the casinos?
                                                                     3.     Is the installer of the machine permitted to rely on the
Does the fact that a national employer but not a foreign hirer
of labour is exempt from the obligation to deduct income tax                exemption laid down in Article 13B(f) of Directive 77/
                                                                            388/EEC?
at source where a double taxation treaty provides that the
salary paid is to be exempt from income tax constitute an
infringement of Article 49 EC?                                       (1 ) OJ L 145 of 13.06.1977, p. 1.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-
hof by order of that Court of 6 November in the case of              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozial-
      Finanzamt Gladbeck against Edith Linneweber                    gericht by order of that Court of 30 October 2002 in the
                                                                         case of Karin Bautz against AOK Baden-Württemberg
                       (Case C-453/02)
                                                                                (Case C-454/02)
                        (2003/C 70/02)
                                                                                (2003/C 70/03)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
(Federal Finance Court) of 6 November 2002, received at the          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Court Registry on 13 December 2002, for a preliminary ruling         European Communities by order of the Bundessozialgericht


title: Action brought on 26 November 1997 by Dimitrios Coussios against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-295/97)

text:
24.1.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 26/9
Action brought on 26 November 1997 by Dimitrios                    Action brought on 28 November 1997 by David T.
Coussios against the Commission of the European                    Keeling against the Office for Harmonization in the
                          Communities                                      Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                       (Case T-295/97)                                                   (Case T-297/97)
                          (98/C 26/16)                                                     (98/C 26/17)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                   An action against the Office for Harmonization in the
                                                                   Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought
An action against the Commission of the European                   before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                  Communities on 28 November 1997 by David T. Keeling,
Instance of the European Communities on 26 November                represented by Professor A. A. Dashwood, with an address
1997 by Dimitrios Coussios, resident in Brussels, Belgium,         for service in Luxembourg at the offices of ArseÁne
living temporarily in Athens, Greece, represented by               Kronshagen, 22, rue Marie-Adelaïde.
Georgios Sakellaropoulos of the Athens Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the chambers of               The applicant claims that the Court should:
Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue.
                                                                   Ð annul Decision ADM-97-3 of the President of the
                                                                       Office of 21 February 1997 concerning the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            organization of the Boards of Appeal, as revised on
                                                                       27 February 1997, and in particular Article 2 thereof,
Ð find that the action for annulment of Decision                   Ð order the office to pay the costs of the action.
     No 5458/26.9.1997 (R/403/97) of the appointing
     authority is admissible,
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð declare that the applicant is entitled to an invalidity          The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as
     pension at a rate of 29 % (4 % + 25 %) payable from           those raised in Case T-148/97 (OJ C 199, 28.6.1997,
     1 December 1993,                                              p. 39). The present application, based on Article 179 of
                                                                   the EC Treaty, is being lodged as a precautionary measure,
                                                                   lest the action for annulment in Case T-148/97
Ð classify the applicant's case under Article 78 of the            commenced by the applicant pursuant to Article 173 of
     Staff Regulations, so that he receives an invalidity          the EC Treaty is declared inadmissible by the Court.
     pension equal in amount to the retirement pension to
     which he would have been entitled if he had been in
     service on reaching 65 years of age, that is to say 70 %
     of the basic salary,
                                                                   Action brought on 2 December 1997 by Pierre-Alexis
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.                                   Feral against the Committee of the Regions
                                                                                (Case T-301/97)
                                                                                (98/C 26/18)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The contested decision is unlawful because the appointing
authority arbitrarily set the applicant's invalidity rate at       An action against the Committee of the Regions was
15,5 %, without the Medical Committee provided for                 brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
under the Staff Regulations having first given an opinion,         Communities on 2 December 1997 by Pierre-Alexis
when the rate applicable to him is in reality much higher.         Feral, residing in Brussels, represented by Georges
                                                                   Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
                                                                   service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
                                                                   Sarl, 30 Rue de Cessange.
The statement of reasons for the contested decision is
faulty because it wrongly proceeds on the basis that
Articles 73 and 78 of the Staff Regulations pursue                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
different objectives when, as is acknowledged, application
of one of those articles does not affect application of the        Ð annul the decision of 2 September 1997 of the
other.                                                                 Secretary-General of the Committee of the Regions
                                                                       refusing to pay the applicant daily allowances for a
                                                                       period of 10 months by virtue of his status as a
                                                                       probationer official,


title: ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 19 June 1997 in Case T-159/97 R: Luis Manuel Chaves Fonseca Ferrão v. Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) - Decision of the President of the Office relating to the organization of Boards of Appeal - Periculum in mora - None)

text:
No C 252/32           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    16 . 8 . 97
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
          (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition )                                             of 9 June 1997
                                                                    in Case T-9/97: Elf Atochem SA v. Commission of the
                         of 3 June 1997
                                                                                European Communities (')
in Case T-60/96: Merck & Co. Inc. and Others, v.                    (Competition        —       Administrative   procedure        —
        Commission of the European Communities (')                  Investigations — Drawing-up of reports following an
(Free Movement of goods — Transitional measures — Act               investigation — Actions for annulment of measures —
of accession — Protective measures — Pharmaceutical                             Actionable measures — Inadmissibility)
    products — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility)                                       ( 97/C 252/71 )
                         ( 97/C 252/70 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                (Language of the case: English)                     In Case T-9/97: Elf Atochem SA, established at Puteaux
                                                                    ( France ), represented by Xavier de Roux, of the Paris Bar,
                                                                    with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                    Chambers of Jacques Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe, v.
In Case , T-60/96 : Merck & Co. Inc., established at                Commission of the European Communities ( Agent:
Whitehouse Station, New Jersey (United States of                    Wouter Wils ) — application for annulment of the reports
America ), NV Organon, established at Oss (Netherlands ),           and annexes thereto drawn up by the Commission on 18 ,
Glaxo Wellcome pic, established at Greenford (United                19 and 20 November 1996 following an investigation
Kingdom ), represented by Romano Subiotto, Solicitor, and           carried out pursuant to Article 14 (2 ) of Council
Mario Siragusa, of the Rome Bar, with an address for                Regulation No 17, First regulation implementing
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger &                 Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty, of 6 February 1962 ( OJ,
Hoss, 15 Cote d'Eich, against Commission of the                     English Special Edition 1959-1962, p. 87) at the
European Communities ( Agents : Richard Wainwright and              applicant's registered office in the context of an inquiry
Fernando Castillo de la Torre ) — application for                   concerning the existence of certain agreements or
annulment of Commission Decisions C(95)3316 final/1 ,               concerted practices contrary to Article 85 ( 1 ) of the Treaty
C(95)3316 final/2 and C(95)3316 def./2, K(95)3316                   in the olefins and polyolefins sector ( Case No IV/E-2/
endg./3 , K(95)3316 endg./4, K(95)3316 endelig. udg./5 ,            35.765 ) — the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber),
C(95)3316 final/6 and C(95)3316 final/7 of 20 December              composed of: A. Saggio, President; V. Tiili and R. M.
1995 refusing the authorization sought, respectively, by            Moura-Ramos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order
France, Belgium, Germany, Austria, Denmark, Ireland and             on 9 June 1997, the operative part of which is as follows:
the United Kingdom to take protective measures with
regard to pharmaceutical products coming from Spain —
the Court of First Instance ( Fifth Chamber, Extended               1 . The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
Composition), composed of R. García-Valdecasas,
President, and V. Tiili, J. Azizi, R. M. Moura Ramos and            2 . The applicant is ordered to pay all the costs.
M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
3 June 1997, the operative part of which is as follows :            o OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997.
1 . The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
2 . The applicants are ordered jointly and severally to pay                    OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     the costs.
                                                                                of 19 June 1997
                                                                    in Case T-159/97 R: Luis Manuel Chaves Fonseca Ferrão
3 . The applications to intervene need not be considered.           v. Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (trade
                                                                                marks and designs )
                                                                     (Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (trade
4 . The Bundesverband der Arzneimittel-Importeure e.V. ,            marks and designs) — Decision of the President of the
     the Asociación de Exportadores Españoles de                     Office relating to the organization of Boards of Appeal —
     Productos Farmacéuticos and the Vereniging Euro                                  Periculum in mora — None )
     Specialités are to bear their own costs.                                                 ( 97/C 252/72 )
(') OJ No C 197, 6 . 7. 1996 .                                                       (Language of the case: French)
                                                                    In Case T-159/97: Luis Manuel Chaves Fonseca Ferrão, a
                                                                    member of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for the
 ---pagebreak---  16 . 8 . 97           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 252/33
Harmonization of the Internal Market (trade marks and                1 . Infringement of Article 190 of EC Treaty
designs ), resident in Campello, Alicante ( Spain ),
represented by Roland Assa, of the Luxembourg Bar, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the latter's                     The applicant claims that the Council has not fulfilled
Chambers, 1 Rue Jean-Pierre Brasseur, against Office for                 its obligations under Article 190 as interpreted by the
the Harmonization of the Internal Market (trade marks                    case-law of the Court of First Instance and the Court
and designs ) (Agents: Oreste Montalto and Joao Paulo                    of Justice since, in the statement of reasons of
Miranda de Sousa ) — application for suspension of the                   the contested regulation, particularly where it deals
operation of Decision ADM-97-3 of 21 February 1997 of                    with the issue of injury, it gives an unclear and
the President of the Office for the Harmonization of the                 contradictory exposition of the facts on the basis
Internal Market relating to the organization of the Boards               of which it established the applicant's average
of Appeal — the President of the Court of First Instance                 underselling margin ( 17% ), the percentage which was
made an order on 19 June 1997, the operative part of                     used precisely to set the rate of duty applicable to it.
which is as follows :
                                                                     2 . Infringement of the essential procedural requirement
1 . The application for interim measures is dismissed.                   set out in Article 20 (4 ) of the basic anti-dumping
                                                                         regulation
2.    The costs are reserved.
                                                                         The applicant claims that there have been two
                                                                         infringements of Article 20 (4 ): the first consists of
                                                                         improper notification of the disclosure laid down by
                                                                         that article and the second lies in the content of the
                                                                         disclosure document:
Action brought on 5 June 1997 by Swedish Match
Philippines, Inc. against the Council of the European                    — the applicant states, as far as the first point is
                               Union                                         concerned, that the Commission did not send the
                        ( Case T-171 /97
                                                                             disclosure document to its representative in the
                                                                             anti-dumping proceeding, thereby preventing it
                          ( 97/C 252/73 )                                    from responding through its representative to the
                                                                             content of that document within the time limit set
                                                                             by the Commission. It considers, therefore, that
                 (Language of the case: English)                             this constituted a breach of its right to a fair
                                                                             hearing, implicitly enshrined in Article 20 ( 4 ),
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European               — with regard to the second question, the applicant
Communities on 5 June 1997 by Swedish Match                                  argues that no trace of how the injury margin was
Philippines Inc ., represented by Angel Adell de Bernando                    assessed by the Commission can be found in the
and Francisco Miguel Rodero Lopez, with an address for                       disclosure document. Accordingly, it cannot tell on
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers Dupong &                               the basis of which date the underselling margin
Associes, 14a Rue des Bains, Luxembourg.                                     found in regard to it was calculated and therefore
                                                                             is unable to defend itself on the substance of the
                                                                             injury findings. It adds that, in its regulation, the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  Council increased the rate proposed by the
                                                                             Commission without giving any explanation of its
                                                                             decision to do so, which also constitutes an
— declare that Article 2 ( 2 ) ( b ) of Council Regulation
                                                                             infringement of the abovementioned article .
      ( EC ) No 423/97 of 3 March 1997 is void in so far as
      it affects Swedish Match Philippines, Inc., the
      condition 'in so far as it affects' being interpreted as
                                                                     3 . Infringement of Articles 1 ( 1 ), 3 ( 2 ) and 3 ( 6 ) of the
      comprising the suspension for the applicant of the                 basic anti-dumping regulation
      application of the residual duty set out in such article
      concerning imports of disposable flint lighters from
      the Philippines,                                                   The applicant maintains, on the one hand, that the
                                                                         exports which it made during the investigation period
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                                  to the Community market could not have given rise to
                                                                         any injury to the Community industry, since extremely
                                                                         limited quantities were exported and, on the other
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      hand, there is no causal link between its exports and
                                                                         the injury caused to the Community industry by
                                                                         imports made by other exporters .
The applicant submits that the contested regulation is void
in so far as it affects Swedish Match Philippines, Inc. on
the following grounds:


title: Case C-368/15: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — proceedings brought by Ilves Jakelu Oy (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 97/67/EC — Article 9 — Freedom to provide services — Postal services — Notions of universal service and essential requirements — General and individual authorisations — Authorisation to provide postal services under individually negotiated contracts — Conditions imposed)

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/3

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — proceedings brought by Ilves Jakelu Oy
   (Case C-368/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 97/67/EC - Article 9 - Freedom to provide services - Postal services - Notions of universal service and essential requirements - General and individual authorisations - Authorisation to provide postal services under individually negotiated contracts - Conditions imposed))
   (2017/C 277/03)
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein hallinto-oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Ilves Jakelu Oy

      Intervening party: Liikenne- ja viestintäministeriö

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 9(1) of Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service, as amended by Directive 2008/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008, must be interpreted to the effect that a postal items service such as the one at issue in the main proceedings does not fall within the scope of the universal service if it does not involve the permanent provision of a postal service of specified quality at all points in the territory at affordable prices for all users. The provision of a postal items service which does not fall within the scope of the universal service may be subjected only to the issuing of a general authorisation.

               2.

               Article 9(1) of Directive 97/67, as amended by Directive 2008/6, must be interpreted to the effect that the provision of postal services not falling within the scope of the universal service may be made subject to requirements such as those referred to in Article 9(2), second subparagraph, second indent, of that directive, as amended.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 June 2001 in Case C-381/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgerichts Wien): Susanna Brunnhofer v Bank der österreichischen Postsparkasse AG (Equal pay for men and women — Conditions of application — Difference in pay — Definition of "the same work" and "work of equal value" — Classification, under a collective agreement, in the same job category — Burden of proof — Objective justification for unequal pay — Effectiveness of a specific employee's work)

text:
11.8.2001                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 227/3
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                           of 21 June 2001
                                                                                of 26 June 2001
in Joined Cases C-280/99 P, C-281/99 P and C-282/99
P: Moccia Irme SpA v Commission of the European
                           Communities (1)                                  in Case C-381/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                            the Oberlandesgerichts Wien): Susanna Brunnhofer v
                                                                                Bank der österreichischen Postsparkasse AG (1)
(Appeal — Aid to the steel industry — Restructuring of the
                        iron and steel sector)
                                                                            (Equal pay for men and women — Conditions of application
                           (2001/C 227/04)                                  — Difference in pay — Definition of ‘the same work’ and
                                                                            ‘work of equal value’ — Classification, under a collective
                                                                            agreement, in the same job category — Burden of proof —
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                        Objective justification for unequal pay — Effectiveness of a
                                                                                specific employee’s work)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                                 (2001/C 227/05)
                    in the European Court Reports)
in Joined Cases C-280/99 P, C-281/99 P and C-282/99 P,
Moccia Irme SpA, established in Naples (Italy), represented by                                  (Language of the case: German)
E. Capelli, P. de Caterini and A. Bandini, avvocati, Ferriera
Lamifer SpA, established in Travagliato (Italy), represented by
C. Punzi, M. Siragusa and F. Satta, avvocati, and Ferriera
Acciaieria Casilina SpA, established in Montecomprati (Italy),
represented by C. Punzi, M. Siragusa and F. Satta, avvocati,                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
appeals against the judgment of the Court of First Instance                                     in the European Court Reports)
of the European Communities (Third Chamber, Extended
Composition) of 12 May 1999 in Case T-164/96 to
T-167/96, T-122/97 and T-130/97 Moccia Irme and Others v                    In Case C-381/99: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
Commission [1999] ECR II-1477, seeking to have that judg-                   from the Oberlandesgerichts Wien (Austria) for a preliminary
ment set aside, the other parties to the proceedings being:                 ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: L. Pignatu-                  Susanna Brunnhofer and Bank der österreichischen Postspark-
ro, assisted by M. Moretto), Prolafer Srl, established in Bergamo           asse AG — on the interpretation of Article 119 of the EC
(Italy), Dora Ferriera Acciaieria Srl, established in Bergamo,              Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been
and Nuova Sidercamuna SpA, established in Berzo Inferiore                   replaced by Articles 136 to 143 EC) and of Council Directive
(Italy) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gul-                   75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of
mann, President of the Chamber, V. Skouris, J.-P. Puissochet,               the laws of the Member States relating to the application of
R. Schintgen and F. Macken (Rapporteur), Judges; L. A. Geel-                the principle of equal pay for men and women (OJ 1975
hoed, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of                        L 45, p. 19) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
Division, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 June                C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, V. Skouris,
2001, in which it:                                                          R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodri-
                                                                            gues, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, for
1.    Dismisses the appeals;                                                the Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 June 2001, in which
                                                                            it has ruled:
2.    Orders Moccia Irme SpA, Ferriera Lamifer SpA and Ferriera
      Acciaieria Casilina SpA to bear their own costs and jointly and       The principle of equal pay for men and women laid down in
      severally to pay those incurred by the Commission in these            Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty
      proceedings.                                                          have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) and elaborated
                                                                            by Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approxi-
                                                                            mation of the laws of the Member States relating to the application
(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.                                                  of the principle of equal pay for men and women must be interpreted
                                                                            as follows:
                                                                            —     a monthly salary supplement to which the employees concerned
                                                                                are entitled under their individual employment contracts, paid
 ---pagebreak--- C 227/4                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          11.8.2001
     by the employer in respect of their employment, constitutes pay                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
     within the scope of Article 119 of the EC Treaty and the
     Directive; equal pay must be ensured not only on the basis of
     an overall assessment of all the consideration granted to                                         (First Chamber)
     employees but also in the light of each aspect of pay taken in
     isolation;                                                                                of 28 June 2001
                                                                            in Case C-118/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
—    the fact that a female employee who claims to be the victim of
                                                                            the Cour du travail de Mons): Gervais Larsy v Institut
     discrimination on grounds of sex and the male comparator are
                                                                            national d’assurances sociales pour travailleurs indépen-
     classified in the same job category under the collective agreement
                                                                                dants (Inasti) (1)
     governing their employment is not in itself sufficient for
     concluding that the two employees concerned are performing
     the same work or work to which equal value is attributed within        (Regulations (EEC) Nos 1408/71 and 1248/92 — Retire-
     the meaning of Article 119 of the EC Treaty and Article 1 of           ment pensions — Anti-overlapping rules — Unenforceability
     the Directive, since this fact is only one indication amongst          pursuant to a judgment of the Court of Justice — Limitation
     others that this criterion is met;                                             of effects — Serious breach of Community law)
                                                                                (2001/C 227/06)
—    as a general rule, it is for employees who consider themselves to
     be the victims of discrimination to prove that they are receiving
     lower pay than paid by the employer to a colleague of the other
     sex and that they are in fact performing the same work or work                              (Language of the case: French)
     of equal value, comparable to that performed by the chosen
     comparator; the employer may then not only dispute the fact
     that the conditions for the application of the principle of equal      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
     pay for men and women are met in the case but also put                                     in the European Court Reports)
     forward objective grounds, unrelated to any discrimination
     based on sex, to justify the difference in pay;
                                                                            In Case C-118/00: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                            the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Cour du travail
                                                                            de Mons (Labour Court, Mons) Belgium for a preliminary
—    a difference in pay is capable of being justified by circumstances     ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
     not taken into consideration under the collective agreement            Gervais Larsy and Institut national d’assurances sociales pour
     application to the employees concerned, provided that they             travailleurs indépendants (Inasti) — on the interpretation of
     constitute objective reasons unrelated to any discrimination           Article 95a of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of
     based on sex and in conformity with the principle of pro-              14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to
     portionality;                                                          employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members
                                                                            of their families moving within the Community, as amended
                                                                            and updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of
—    in the case of work paid at time rates, a difference in pay            2 June 1983 (OJ L 230, p. 6), as amended by Council
     awarded, at the time of their appointment, to two employees of         Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92 of 30 April 1992 (OJ 1992
     different sex for the same job or work of equal value cannot be        L 136, p. 7), and on the conditions governing a Member State’s
     justified by factors which become known only after the employees       liability for damage caused to individuals by breaches of
     concerned take up their duties and which can be assessed only          Community law — the Court (First Chamber), composed of:
     once the employment contract is being performed, such as a             M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur)
     difference in the individual work capacity of the persons              and L. Sevón, Judges; P. Léger; Advocate General; H. von
     concerned or in the effectiveness of the work of a specific            Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a
     employee compared with that of a colleague.                            judgment on 28 June 2001, in which it has ruled:
                                                                            1.    Article 95a(4), (5) and (6) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71
                                                                                of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social
                                                                                security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons
                                                                                and to members of their families moving within the Community
(1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.                                                           as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC)
                                                                                No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983, as amended by Council
                                                                                Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92 of 30 April 1992, does not
                                                                                apply to an application for review of a retirement pension, the
                                                                                amount of which has been limited under an anti-overlapping
                                                                                rule applicable in a Member State, on the ground that the
                                                                                person receiving that pension has also been awarded a retirement
                                                                                pension paid by the competent institution of another Member
                                                                                State, where the application for review is based on provisions
                                                                                other than those in Regulation No 1248/92.


title: Case T-47/16: Action brought on 2 February 2016 — Sigma Orionis v REA

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/58

         Action brought on 2 February 2016 — Sigma Orionis v REA
   (Case T-47/16)
   (2016/C 098/74)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Sigma Orionis SA (Valbonne, France) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

      Defendant: Research Executive Agency (REA)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare that REA failed to fulfil its contractual obligations under grant contract H2020 by suspending all payments due to the applicant on the basis of an OLAF investigation report that was drawn up unlawfully;

               —

               In the alternative, order the appointment of an expert whose task will be to determine the amounts indisputably payable to the applicant under the contested grant contract.

         Consequently, that the defendant be ordered:

               —

               to pay the amounts due under grant contract H2020, that is EUR ,, together with interest on late payment in accordance Article 21.11.1, calculated from the due date of the amounts payable, at the rate fixed by the European Central bank (ECB) for main refinancing operations, increased by 3.5 points,

               —

               to compensate the applicant for the additional harm that it has suffered, assessed at this stage in the amount of EUR 1 500 000 subject to increase or reduction in the course of the proceedings,

               —

               to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Research Executive Agency (REA) cannot rely on an investigation report drawn up on the basis of evidence obtained unlawfully to justify its decision to suspend, in their entirety, the payments due to the applicant. The applicant claims, in that regard, that in so far as REA relied on unlawfully obtained evidence, both the suspension of payments and the termination of the grant contracts are unlawful.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality, in that the various technical audit reports invariably concluded that the resources were used by the applicant in accordance with the principles of economy, efficiency and sound financial management. It follows from this that REA could not claim to have validly found that the applicant had committed irregularities in connection with other grants such as to justify either the termination or suspension of all payments in the contested grant contracts. Moreover, participation in the grant agreements constitutes the only source of funding for the applicant and the absence of new European projects would inevitably lead to bankruptcy.


title: Case T-391/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 September 2009 — Arcandor v OHIM — dm drogerie market (S-HE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark S-HE — Earlier national word mark SHE, earlier national and international figurative trade mark She — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Lack of similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 [now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/55

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 September 2009 — Arcandor v OHIM — dm drogerie market (S-HE)
   (Case T-391/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark S-HE - Earlier national word mark SHE, earlier national and international figurative trade mark She - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Lack of similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 [now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2009/C 267/94
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Arcandor AG, previously Karstadt Quelle AG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, A. Renck and T. Dolde, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: dm drogerie market GmbH (Wals, Austria) (represented by: N. Dick and M. Dyck, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM No R 301/2006-1 of 26 September 2006 concerning opposition proceedings between Karstadt Quelle AG and dm drogerie market GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Arcandor AG, previouslyt Karstadt Quelle AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 42 of 24.2.2007.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 March 2002 in Case T-95/99: Satellimages TV 5 SA v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Competition — Complaint — Commission letter addressed to the complainant — Preparatory measure — Inadmissibility)

text:
29.6.2002                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 156/15
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                          of 20 March 2002
                                                                                of 7 March 2002
in Case T-21/99, Dansk Rørindustri A/S v Commission of
                  the European Communities (1)
                                                                            in Case T-95/99: Satellimages TV 5 SA v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
(Competition — Cartel — District heating pipes —
Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) —
Continuous infringement — Boycott — Fine — Guidelines
on the method of setting fines — Non-retroactivity —                        (Action for annulment — Competition — Complaint —
                      Legitimate expectations)                              Commission letter addressed to the complainant — Prepara-
                                                                                tory measure — Inadmissibility)
                           (2002/C 156/27)
                                                                                (2002/C 156/28)
                    (Language of the case: Danish)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
In Case T-21/99, Dansk Rørindustri A/S, established in Frede-
ricia (Denmark), represented by K. Dyekjær-Hansen, K. Høegh
et C. Karhula Lauridsen, avocats, with an address for service in
Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Commu-
nities (Agents: E. Gippini Fournier and H.C. Støvlbæk) —                    In Case T-95/99, Satellimages TV 5 SA, established in Paris
application for annulment of Commission Decision 1999/60/                   (France), represented by E. Marissens, lawyer, with an address
EC of 21 October 1998 relating to a proceeding under                        for service in Luxembourg, supported by French Republic
Article 85 of the EC Treaty (Case No IV/35.691/E-4: — Pre-                  (Agents: initially K. Rispal-Bellanger, and, subsequently, G. de
Insulated Pipe Cartel) (OJ 1999 L 24, p. 1) and also for                    Bergues and F. Million), v Commission of the European
reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision             Communities (Agents: B. Doherty and K. Wiedner), supported
— the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of                 by Deutsche Telekom Ag, established in Bonn (Germany),
P. Mengozzi, President, V. Tiili and R.M. Moura Ramos, Judges;              represented by F. Roitzsch and K. Quack, with an address for
J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given           service in Luxembourg: Application for the annulment of the
a judgment on 20 March 2002, in which it:                                   alleged decision by the Commission of 15 February 1999
                                                                            relating to a complaint by the applicant under Article 86 of
                                                                            the EC Treaty (now Article 82 EC) (IV/36.968 — Satellimages
1.    Annuls Commission Decision 1999/60/EC of 21 October                   TV 5/Deutsche Telekom), the Court of First Instance (Second
      1998 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC              Chamber), composed of: R.M. Moura Ramos, President, J. Pir-
      Treaty (Case No IV/35.691/E-4 — Pre-Insulated Pipe Cartel)            rung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a
      in so far as it finds that the applicant infringed Article 85(1)      judgment on 7 March 2002, in which it:
      of the Treaty by participating in the infringement referred to in
      that article during the period April to August 1994;
                                                                            1.    Dismisses the application as inadmissible;
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
                                                                            2.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay the costs
3.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay 90 % of               incurred by the Commission;
      the costs incurred by the Commission;
                                                                            3.    Orders the interveners to bear their own costs.
4.    Orders the Commission to bear 10 % of its own costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
(1) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.


title: Case C-276/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof by order of that court of 24 May 2005 in The Wellcome Foundation Ltd. v Paranova Pharmazeutika Handels GmbH

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/29

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof by order of that court of 24 May 2005 in The Wellcome Foundation Ltd. v Paranova Pharmazeutika Handels GmbH
   (Case C-276/05)
   (2005/C 217/58)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court, Austria) of 24 May 2005, received at the Court Registry on 6 July 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between The Wellcome Foundation Ltd. and Paranova Pharmazeutika Handels GmbH on the following questions:

               1.

                           a.

                           Are Article 7 of the Trade Marks Directive [First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks] (1) and the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities which has been pronounced on it to be interpreted as meaning that proof that reliance on the trade mark would contribute to an artificial partitioning of the market must be furnished not only as regards the repackaging in itself, but also as regards the presentation of the new packaging?

                     If the answer to this question is in the negative:

                           b.

                           Is the presentation of the new packaging to be measured against the principle of minimum intervention or (only) against whether it is such as to damage the reputation of the trade mark and its proprietor?

               2.

               Are Article 7 of the Trade Marks Directive and the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities which has been pronounced on it to be interpreted as meaning that the parallel importer fulfils his duty of notification only if he informs the proprietor of the trade mark also of the state of export and the precise reasons for the repackaging?

      (1)  OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1.


title: Case C-212/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Jyske Bank Gibraltar Ltd v Administración del Estado (Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering and terrorist financing — Directive 2005/60/EC — Article 22(2) — Decision 2000/642/JHA — Requirement to report suspicious financial transactions applicable to credit institutions — Institution operating under the rules on the freedom to provide services — Identification of the national financial information unit responsible for the collection of information — Article 56 TFEU — Obstacle to freedom to provide services — Overriding requirements in the public interest — Proportionality)

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/5

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Jyske Bank Gibraltar Ltd v Administración del Estado
   (Case C-212/11) (1)

   (Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering and terrorist financing - Directive 2005/60/EC - Article 22(2) - Decision 2000/642/JHA - Requirement to report suspicious financial transactions applicable to credit institutions - Institution operating under the rules on the freedom to provide services - Identification of the national financial information unit responsible for the collection of information - Article 56 TFEU - Obstacle to freedom to provide services - Overriding requirements in the public interest - Proportionality)
   2013/C 171/09
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Jyske Bank Gibraltar Ltd

      Defendant: Administración del Estado

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Supremo — Interpretation of Article 22(2) of Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing (OJ 2005 L 309, p.15) — National legislation under which it is a direct and mandatory requirement that the information which must be provided by credit institutions operating in its territory without a permanent establishment be forwarded by them directly to the competent national authorities of that State

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 22(2) of Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which requires credit institutions to communicate the information required for the purpose of combating money laundering and terrorist financing directly to the FIU of that Member State where the institutions carry out their activities in that State under the freedom to provide services, to the extent that that legislation does not compromise the effectiveness of that directive and of Council Decision 2000/642/JHA of 17 October 2000 concerning arrangements for cooperation between financial intelligence units of the Member States in respect of exchanging information;
   Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding such legislation if the latter is justified by overriding reasons in the public interest, secures the attainment of the aim in view and does not go beyond that which is necessary in order to attain it, and is applied in a non-discriminatory manner, which it is for the national court to ascertain taking account of the following considerations:

               —

               such legislation is appropriate to attain the aim of preventing money laundering and terrorist financing if it enables the Member State concerned effectively to supervise and suspend suspicious financial transactions concluded by credit institutions offering their services in the national territory and, if appropriate, to pursue and punish those responsible;

               —

               the obligation imposed by that legislation on credit institutions carrying out their activities under the freedom to provide services may constitute a proportionate measure in pursuit of that aim in the absence, at the time of the facts in the main proceedings, of any effective mechanism guaranteeing full and complete cooperation between financial intelligence units.

      (1)  OJ C 226, 30.7.2011.


title: Case T-790/16: Action brought on 11 November 2016 — C & J Clark International v Commission

text:
               16.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 14/51

         Action brought on 11 November 2016 — C & J Clark International v Commission
   (Case T-790/16)
   (2017/C 014/61)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: C & J Clark International Ltd (Somerset, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Willems and S. De Knop, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare the application admissible;

               —

               Annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1395 of 18 August 2016 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and produced by Buckinghan Shoe Mfg Co. Ltd, Buildyet Shoes Mfg., DongGuan Elegant Top Shoes Co. Ltd, Dongguan Stella Footwear Co. Ltd, Dongguan Taiway Sports Goods Limited, Foshan City Nanhai Qun Rui Footwear Co., Jianle Footwear Industrial, Sihui Kingo Rubber Shoes Factory, Synfort Shoes Co. Ltd, Taicang Kotoni Shoes Co. Ltd, Wei Hao Shoe Co. Ltd, Wei Hua Shoe Co. Ltd, Win Profile Industries Ltd, and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in joined cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 (OJ L 225, p. 52);

               —

               Order the Commission 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 by proceeding without a valid legal basis, the Commission violated the principle of conferral under Articles 5(1) and 5(2) TFUE.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that by failing to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of 4 February 2016, C & J Clark International, C-659/13 and C-34/14, EU:C:2016:74, the Commission violated Article 266 TFUE.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that by imposing an anti-dumping duty on imports of Footwear ‘which took place during the period of application of the [Invalidated Regulations]’, the Commission violated Articles 1(1) and 10(1) of the Basic Regulation (1) and the principle of legal certainty (non-retroactivity);

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that by imposing an anti-dumping duty without conducting a fresh Union interest assessment, the Commission violated Article 21 of the Basic Regulation, in any event, it would have been manifestly erroneous to conclude that the imposition of the anti-dumping duty was in the Union interest;

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that by adopting an act that exceeds what is necessary to achieve its objective, the Commission violated Articles 5(1) and 5(4) TEU.

      (1)  Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union, OJ L 176, p. 21.


title: Case F-122/07: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 7 October 2009 — Marcuccio v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Request for investigation — Refusal of an institution to translate a decision into the language chosen by the applicant — Manifest inadmissibility — Application manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/64

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 7 October 2009 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-122/07) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Request for investigation - Refusal of an institution to translate a decision into the language chosen by the applicant - Manifest inadmissibility - Application manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
   2009/C 282/121
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

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

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Annulment of the Commission’s decision not to grant the applicant’s request that an investigation be carried out in relation to certain events which occurred during the period when the applicant was assigned to its delegation in Angola — Request that findings of investigation be communicated — Annulment of decision not to translate a note into the language chosen by the applicant — Application for damages.

      Operative part of the order

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               dismisses Mr Marcuccio’s action as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and in part, as lacking any foundation in law.

               2.

               orders Mr Marcuccio to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 64 of 08.03.2008, p. 65


title: Case T-74/05: Action brought on 16 February 2005 by The International Institute for the Urban Environment against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/37

         Action brought on 16 February 2005 by The International Institute for the Urban Environment against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-74/05)
   (2005/C 106/74)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 16 February 2005 by The International Institute for the Urban Environment, established in Delft (the Netherlands) represented by Ph. W. M. ter Burg, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Decision INFSO-R2/RB/SOC/Isc D(2004) 541407 regarding the financial audit of IIUE-NL 02-BA14-032 of the Commission;

               —

               declare it for law that the sum claimed by the applicant is justified and according to the contracts;

               —

               allow IIEU to claim the hours it spent on the Contracts and to order the Commission to make a well justified decision in accordance with the applicable communal rules of sound administration;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The International Institute for the Urban Environment is a one-man business fully owned by the applicant. In 1999 it entered into contract No. IPS-1999-00016 with the Commission, under the terms of which the Institute would receive financial assistance in the context of the technological development programme ‘Promotion of innovation and encouragement of SME participation’. The Commission proceeded to an audit regarding the reimbursements claimed by the contractors and the applicant challenges the findings of that audit concerning personnel costs.
   The applicant first contends that the method used by the Institute to calculate personnel costs was allowed under the conditions of the contract and that, further, the Commission's attention was explicitly drawn to the use of this particular method. The Commission never rejected that method which, according to the applicant, had also been used in the context of other programmes submitted by the applicant for which the Commission had also provided financial assistance. The applicant thus argues that he was justified in considering that this method was acceptable by the Commission.
   The applicant further alleges that the contested decision does not contain a sufficient statement of reasons and is disproportional with regard to the aim pursued, since the total sum claimed by the applicant is, in his view, reasonable and in accordance with the contracts.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 24 February 2000 in Case T-104/99: AS Bolderaja and Others v Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Dumping — Regulation (EC) No 194/1999 — Time-limit — Inadmissibility)

text:
C 149/32                  EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      27.5.2000
Registrar, made an order on 7 March 2000, the operative part                      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
of which is as follows:
                                                                                of 24 February 2000
The total amount of the costs to be reimbursed by Industrie des
Poudres Sphériques to the intervener Péchiney Électrométallurgie is       in Case T-162/99: Luigia Dricot-Daniele and others v the
fixed at FRF 207 507,50.                                                           Commission of the European Communities (1)
(1) OJ C 54 of 4.3.1995.                                                   (Action for annulment — Withdrawal of contested measure
                                                                                — No need to adjudicate)
                                                                                (2000/C 149/62)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                           In Case T-162/99: Luigia Dricot-Daniele, residing in Overijse
                         of 24 February 2000                               (Belgium), Patricia De Palma, residing in Brussels, and Claudine
                                                                           Hamptaux, residing in Brussels, officials of the Commission of
in Case T-104/99: AS Bolderaja and Others v Council of                     the European Communities, represented by L. Vogel , of the
                       the European Union (1)                              Brussels Bar, with an address for service at the Chambers of C.
                                                                           Kremer, of Faltz et Associés, 6 Rue Heinrich Heine, against
(Action for annulment — Dumping — Regulation (EC) No                       Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Valse-
           194/1999 — Time-limit — Inadmissibility)                        sia and J. Currall ) — application for annulment of the elections
                                                                           held on 9, 10 and 11 March 1999 to the Staff Committee of
                                                                           the local Brussels section and the appointments made by that
                           (2000/C 149/61)
                                                                           committee following those elections — the Court of First
                                                                           Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas,
                     (Language of the case: English)                       President, and P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung,
                                                                           Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 February 2000, the
                                                                           operative part of which is as follows:
In Case T-104/99: AS Bolderaja, established in Riga (Latvia),
Zaklady Plyt Pilśniowych SA w Krośnie Odrzańskim, estab-
                                                                           1. There is no need to adjudicate on this application.
lished in Krosno Odrzanskie (Poland), Alpex-Karlino SA w
Karlino, established in Karlino (Poland) and Zaklady Plyt                  2. The Commission is ordered to pay the costs of these proceedings
Pilśœniowych SA w Czarnej Wodzie, established in Czarna                        including the costs relating to the application for interim
Woda (Poland) represented by V.N. Akritidis, of the Athens                      measures.
Bar, and T. Pick, Rechtsanwalt, Bonn, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt and
Medernach, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt v Council of the European                (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
Union (Agents: S. Marquardt, H.-J. Rabe, G.M. Berrisch and
H.-G. Kamann) — application for the annulment of Council
Regulation (EC) No 194/1999 of 25 January 1999 imposing
definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of hardboard orig-
inating in Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and
Russia and definitively collecting the provisional duties
imposed (OJ 1999 L 22, p. 16) — the Court (Fifth Chamber,
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Extended Composition), composed of: R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas,
President, P. Lindh, J.D. Cooke, P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras,
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 February                                     of 16 March 2000
2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                           in Case T-262/99: Anthony Goldstein v Commission of
1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.                                                the European Communities (1)
2. There is no need to adjudicate on the Commission’s application
                                                                           (Action for compensation — Manifest inadmissibility —
     for leave to intervene.
                                                                                Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
3. The applicants are ordered to bear their own costs and, jointly
     and severally, to pay the costs of the Council save for those                                   (2000/C 149/63)
     relating to the preparation and submission of its defence.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
(1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.99.
                                                                           In Case T-262/99: Anthony Goldstein, residing in Harrow,
                                                                           Middlesex (United Kingdom), represented by R. St. John


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 30 November 1995 in Case T-507/93: Paulo Branco v. Court of Auditors of the European Communities (Officials - List of officials eligible for promotion - Transfer to another institution - Act adversely affecting an official - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - Claim for damages - Inadmissible)

text:
No C 16/ 12            EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                        20 . 1 . 96
2 , orders the parties to bear their own costs.                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 7 December 1995
f 1 ) OJ No C 90, 26 . 3 . 1994 .                                  in Joined Cases T-544/93 and T-566/93 : Giovanni Battista
                                                                   Abello and Others and Gerhard Riesch v. Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities f 1 )
                                                                   (Officials — Pay slips — Weightings — Council Regulations
                                                                   (EEC/Euratom/ECSC) No 3761/92, (EEC/Euratom/ECSC)
                                                                   No 3765/92 and (EEC/Euratom/ECSC) No 3766/92 —
                                                                                Objection of illegality)
                                                                                ( 96/C 16/27)
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                    of 30 November 1995
in Case T-507/93 : Paulo Branco v. Court of Auditors of the        In Joined Cases T-544/93 and T-566/93 : Giovanni Battista
                  European Communities (*)                         Abello and the other officials and servants of the
(Officials — List of officials eligible for promotion —            Commission of the European Communities listed in the
 Transfer to another institution — Act adversely affecting an      Annex to the judgment, and Gerhard Riesch, an official of
official — Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Claim          the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                 for damages — Inadmissible)                       by Michele Tamburini and Franco Colussi, of the Milan Bar,
                            96/C 16/26
                                                                   with an address for service in Luxembourg at 36 rue de
                                                                   Wiltz, v. Commission of the European Communities
                                                                   ( Agent: Gianluigi Valsesia ), supported by the Council of the
                                                                   European Union ( Agent: Anna Lo Monaco ) — application,
             (Language of the case: Portuguese)                    first, for the annulment of the applicants' pay slips for
                                                                   December 1992 and January 1993 , inasmuch as they were
                                                                   drawn up in accordance with the weightings resulting
In Case T-507/93 : Paulo Branco, an official of the                from the application of Council Regulations
Commission of the European Communities, formerly an                ( EEC/Euratom/ECSC ) No 3761 /92, ( EEC/Euratom/ECSC )
official of the Court of Auditors of the European                  No 3765/92 and ( EEC/Euratom/ECSC ) No 3766/92 ( OJ No
Communities, residing in Brussels, represented initially by        L 383 , pp . 1 , 9 and 11 ), and, by way of objection, a
Dieter Grozinger de Rosnay and David M. Travessa                   declaration that the Regulations in question are illegal, and,
Mendes, and subsequently by Raoul Wagener and David M.             second, for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered
Travessa Mendes, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address            by the applicants as a result of the application of the
for service in Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers, 6-12           contested weightings — the Court of First Instance ( Fourth
Place d'Armes, v. Court of Auditors of the European                Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, and R.
Communities (Agents : initially Jean-Marie Steiner and Jan         Schintgen and R. Garria-Valdecasas, Judges; H. Jung,
Inghelram and subsequently Jan Inghelram and Isabel Jalles )       Registrar, gave a judgment on 7 December 1995 , in
— application, first, for the annulment of the promotion           which it :
procedure of the Court of Auditors for 1993 , inasmuch as
the applicant was excluded therefrom, and, second, for
compensation for the non-material damage allegedly                 1 , dismisses the application;
suffered by the applicant as a result of breaches of duty
allegedly committed by the administration of the defendant         2 , orders the parties to bear their own costs.
institution in the context of the promotion procedures for
1992 and 1993 — the Court of First Instance ( First                (!) OJ No C 325 , 9 . 12 . 1993 and OJ No C 1 , 4 . 1 . 1994 .
Chamber ), composed of: H. Kirschner, acting for the
President, and A. Kalogeropoulos and V. Tiili, Judges;
J. Palacio Gonzalez, Registrar, gave a judgment on
30 November 1 995 , in which it:
                                                                       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
1 , dismisses the application as inadmissible;                                         of 10 November 1995
                                                                   in Case T-554/93 : A. T. E. Saint, C. Murray and M. Craig v.
                                                                   Council of the European Union and Commission of the
2 , orders the parties to bear their own costs, including the                         European Communities ( x )
      costs relating to the proceedings for interim
      measures .
                                                                                (Removal from the register)
                                                                                ( 96/C 16/28 )
(!) OJ No C 282 , 20 . 10 . 1993 .                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                   In Case T-554/93 : A. T. E. Saint, C. Murray and M. Craig
                                                                   (United Kingdom and Ireland ), represented by E. H.


title: Case C-28/13 P: Appeal brought on 18 January 2013 by Gabi Thesing, Bloomberg Finance LP against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 29 November 2012 in Case T-590/10: Gabi Thesing, Bloomberg Finance LP v European Central Bank

text:
               6.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 101/9

         Appeal brought on 18 January 2013 by Gabi Thesing, Bloomberg Finance LP against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 29 November 2012 in Case T-590/10: Gabi Thesing, Bloomberg Finance LP v European Central Bank
   (Case C-28/13 P)
   2013/C 101/21
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Gabi Thesing, Bloomberg Finance LP (represented by: M Stephens, R Lands, Solicitors)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank

      Form of order sought

   The Appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               quash the decision of the General Court dated 29 November 2012 in case number T-590/10. It should do so on the basis that the General Court erred in law in reaching that decision.

               —

               annul the decision of the European Central Bank (‘ECB’) communicated by letters dated 17 September 2010 and 21 October 2010, refusing to grant access to the documents requested by the Appellants pursuant to the Decision of the ECB of 4 March 2004 (ECB/2004/3) on public access to ECB documents (1). The Court should annul that decision on the basis that:

                           i)

                           the ECB made a manifest error of assessment and/or abused its powers in reaching that decision; and

                           ii)

                           the only lawful course was for the ECB to permit access to those documents, as requested.

               —

               quash the decision of the General Court insofar as it required the Appellants to pay the ECB's costs. It should do so on the basis that the General Court erred in law in reaching that decision.

               —

               alternatively, remit the case to the General Court for determination in accordance with the Court's ruling on the points of law raised in this appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Appellants submit that the General Court erred in law:-

               —

               in misconstruing Article 4.1 (a) of the decision of the European Central Bank, dated 4 March 2004 (ECB/2004/3), which provides for an exception to the general right of access conferred by Article 2 of that decision;

               —

               in holding that the ECB was entitled to conclude that disclosure of the documents requested by the Appellants would have undermined the economic policy of the EU and Greece;

               —

               in misconstruing Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights;

               —

               in failing to consider the Appellants’ contentions in relation to Article 4.2 and 4.3 of the decision of the ECB;

               —

               the Appellants also submit that the General Court erred in relation to costs.

      (1)  OJ L 80, p. 42


title: Case C-490/15 P: Appeal brought on 18 September 2015 by Ori Martin SA against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 15 July 2015 in Joined Cases T-389/10 and T-419/10

text:
               7.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 406/19

         Appeal brought on 18 September 2015 by Ori Martin SA against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 15 July 2015 in Joined Cases T-389/10 and T-419/10
   (Case C-490/15 P)
   (2015/C 406/19)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Ori Martin SA (represented by: G. Belotti and P. Ziotti, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               (1)

               primarily: set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as, by that judgment, the General Court of the European Union dismissed its action in Case T-419/10 to the extent that it sought the annulment of the contested decision for unlawfully extending joint liability to the appellant for acts committed by its subsidiary SLM; set aside the judgment for infringement of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights [of the European Union] or, alternatively, grant the appellant fair compensation;

               (2)

               in the alternative: amend the judgment under appeal, giving a definitive ruling on the dispute and, exercising its unlimited jurisdiction, reducing the fine imposed on the appellant, taking into account (i) the evidence produced in the proceedings at first instance, (ii) the sanctioning Guidelines in force at the time of the alleged events, and (iii) the shorter period of participation in the cartel which, for SLM/ORI, started at the end of 1999, the only date for which there is consistent evidence available to support allegations of such participation;
               in any event: order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   ORI raises, in essence, [five] grounds of appeal, intended to show that the General Court:

               (a)

               redefined, in a way that was disproportionate and inconsistent with the evidence produced, the fine imposed on the appellant, thereby infringing Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the established principles of EU law on the subject of the proportionality of antitrust sanctions as well as the duty to state reasons;

               (b)

               infringed EU law as regards the principle of personal responsibility on which EU competition law is based, through the unwarranted extension of joint liability to the appellant, who played no part whatsoever in the alleged events;

               (c)

               infringed the EU legislation on the subject of the non-retroactivity of unfavourable criminal law, in particular Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights;

               (d)

               did not fully exercise its power of judicial review, with a manifest misgovernment of the evidence produced and a failure to state reasons;

               (e)

               infringed Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as the case was not dealt with within a reasonable time.


title: Case F-40/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2016 — FV v Council (Civil service — Assessment — Staff report — Interest in bringing proceedings — Downgrading of analytical assessments — Referral to the Reports Committee — Amendment by the second reporting officer of certain assessments not affecting the overall assessment — Manifest error of assessment — Duty to provide a statement of reasons — Duty to have regard to the welfare of staff)

text:
               8.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/35

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2016 — FV v Council
   (Case F-40/15) (1)

   ((Civil service - Assessment - Staff report - Interest in bringing proceedings - Downgrading of analytical assessments - Referral to the Reports Committee - Amendment by the second reporting officer of certain assessments not affecting the overall assessment - Manifest error of assessment - Duty to provide a statement of reasons - Duty to have regard to the welfare of staff))
   (2016/C 287/42)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: FV (represented by: initially by T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers, and subsequently by L. Levi, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and M. Veiga, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the applicant’s staff report for 2013.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders FV to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 178, 1.6.2015, p. 27.


18.12.1999              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 366/23
Action brought on 28 October 1999 by the Commission                              Removal from the register of Case C-116/99 (1)
of the European Communities against the Republic of
                                 Austria
                                                                                (1999/C 366/40)
                           (Case C-411/99)
                                                                          By order of 21 September 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                          Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                           (1999/C 366/38)
                                                                          from the register of Case C-116/99: Commission of the
                                                                          European Communities v Italian Republic.
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 28 October 1999 by the Commission of the European
                                                                          (1) OJ No C 188 of 3.7.1999.
Communities, represented by Josef Christian Schieferer, of its
Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
(1) declare that, by failing to adopt and communicate to
     the Commission the laws, regulations and administrative
     measures necessary in order to comply with Directive
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-349/98 (1)
     95/47/EC (1) of the European Parliament and the Council
     of 24 October 1995 on the use of standards for the
     transmission of television signals, the Republic of Austria                                  (1999/C 366/41)
     has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
(2) order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.                       By order of 22 September 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                          Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                          from the register of Case C-349/98: Commission of the
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case               European Communities v Italian Republic.
C-386/99 (2); the time-limit laid down in Article 8 of the
directive expired on 23 August 1996.
                                                                          (1) OJ No C 340 of 7.11.1998.
( 1) OJ L 281 of 23.11.1995, p. 51.
(2) See p. 20 of this Official Journal.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-12/99 (1)
        Removal from the register of Case C-474/98 (1)
                           (1999/C 366/39)                                                        (1999/C 366/42)
By order of 20 September 1999 the President of the Court of               By order of 23 September 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-474/98 (reference for a preliminary           from the register of Case C-12/99: Commission of the Euro-
ruling by the Tribunal Administratif de Lille): Clinique Grégoire         pean Communities v Portuguese Republic.
SA v Direction Régionale des Impôts du Nord-Pas-de-Calais.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
(1) OJ No C 71 of 13.3.1999.


title: Case C-82/04 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of  19 January 2006  — Audi AG v OHIM (Appeal — Community trade mark — Word mark  TDI  — Refusal of registration — Appeal which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               1.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 154/1

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 January 2006 — Audi AG v OHIM
   (Case C-82/04 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Word mark ‘TDI’ - Refusal of registration - Appeal which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)
   (2006/C 154/01)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Audi AG (represented by: L. von Zumbusch, avocat)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 3 December 2003 in Case T-16/02 Audi v OHIM dismissing the action brought against decision R 652/2000-1 of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 November 2001 refusing registration as a Community trade mark of the word sign ‘TDI’ for certain goods in classes 12 and 37 — Descriptive nature as absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1)
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the appeal brought by Audi AG;

               2.

               Audi AG is ordered to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.04.2004.


title: Case C-29/05 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 March 2007 — Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) v Kaul GmbH, Bayer AG (Appeal — Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Submission of new facts and evidence in support of an appeal brought before the Board of Appeal of OHIM)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/6

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 March 2007 — Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) v Kaul GmbH, Bayer AG
   (Case C-29/05 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Submission of new facts and evidence in support of an appeal brought before the Board of Appeal of OHIM)
   (2007/C 95/08)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and G. Schneider, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Kaul GmbH (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, Rechtsanwälte), Bayer AG
   Re:
   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 10 November 2004 in Case T-164/02 Kaul v OHIM and Bayer, by which the Court of First Instance annulled Decision R 782/2000-3 of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 March 2002 relating to opposition proceedings between Kaul GmbH and Bayer AG — Examination of the opposition — Examination of the facts by the Board of Appeal — Scope — Articles 43(2) and 74(2) of Council Regulation No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 10 November 2004 in Case T-164/02 Kaul v OHIM — Bayer (ARCOL);

               2.

               Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 4 March 2002 (Case R 782/2000-3);

               3.

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings both at first instance and on appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.


title: Case T-69/08: Action brought on 12 February 2008 — Poland v Commission

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/42

         Action brought on 12 February 2008 — Poland v Commission
   (Case T-69/08)
   (2008/C 92/83)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Dowgielewicz, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul Commission Decision 2008/62/EC of 12 October 2007 relating to Articles 111 and 172 of the Polish Draft Act on Genetically Modified Organisms, notified by the Republic of Poland pursuant to Article 95(5) of the EC Treaty as derogations from the provisions of Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms (decision notified under document number C(2007) 4697) (1);

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision 2008/62/EC of 12 October 2007 which rejects proposed national provisions laying down a derogation from Directive 2001/18/EC (2) that were notified by the Republic of Poland pursuant to Article 95(5) EC. The applicant states that it was notified by the Commission of the contested decision on 4 December 2007, that is to say after expiry of the six-month period laid down in Article 95(6) EC, meaning that, in accordance with that article, those provisions should be considered to have been approved upon expiry of the six-month period.
   The applicant submits that the fact that the decision was adopted on 12 October 2007 is immaterial as regards observance of that time-limit; it is the date of notification of the contested decision, and that alone, which is decisive in this regard.
   The applicant therefore puts forward the following pleas in support of its application:

               —

               breach of Article 95(6) EC, in conjunction with Article 254(3) EC;

               —

               breach of an essential procedural requirement consisting in the obligation to notify a decision to those to whom it is addressed within the period laid down by law and thus to enable them to become aware of the decision's content;

               —

               breach of the principle of legal certainty.

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 16, p. 17.

      (2)  Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (OJ 2001 L 106, p. 1).