title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 July 1999 in Joined Cases T-112/96 and T-115/96: Jean-Claude Séché v Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Refusal of promotion - Comparative examination of the merits - Statement of reasons - Token appointment - Equal treatment principle - Discrimination on the grounds of age, sex and nationality - Duty to have due regard to the welfare of officials - Correspondence between grade and duties - Article 27, third paragraph, of the Staff Regulations - Misuse of powers and procedure - Principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and of good faith - Right to a temporary posting - Decision on the grant of a temporary posting - Discretion of the administration - Right to the differential allowance - Fault on the part of the administration - Non-material damage - Dismissal of applications for preparatory inquiries)

text:
C 246/24                EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                      28.8.1999
2. The parties shall bear their own costs, including those relating to           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      the proceedings on the application for interim measures.
                                                                                of 6 July 1999
( 1) OJ C 351 of 30.12.1995.
                                                                             in Joined Cases T-112/96 and T-115/96: Jean-Claude Séché
                                                                                v Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                             (Officials — Refusal of promotion — Comparative examin-
                                                                             ation of the merits — Statement of reasons — Token
                                                                             appointment — Equal treatment principle — Discrimination
                                                                             on the grounds of age, sex and nationality — Duty to have
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 due regard to the welfare of officials — Correspondence
                                                                             between grade and duties — Article 27, third paragraph, of
                            of 8 July 1999                                   the Staff Regulations — Misuse of powers and procedure —
                                                                             Principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and of
                                                                             good faith — Right to a temporary posting — Decision on
in Case T-36/96: Giuliana Gaspar v European Parliament (1)                   the grant of a temporary posting — Discretion of the
                                                                             administration — Right to the differential allowance —
                                                                             Fault on the part of the administration — Non-material
(Officials — Appeal — Reference back to the Court of First                   damage — Dismissal of applications for preparatory inquir-
Instance — Sick leave — Medical certificate — Annual                                                         ies)
medical check-up — Conclusions conflicting with the medical
                              certificate)
                                                                                (1999/C 246/49)
                           (1999/C 246/48)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-36/96: Giuliana Gaspari, an official of the European
Parliament, residing at Sandweiler (Luxembourg), represented
by Lucette Defalque, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for                In Joined Cases T-112/96 and T-115/96: Jean-Claude Séché, a
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL,               former official of the Commission of the European Communi-
30 Rue de Cessange, v European Parliament (Agents: Manfred                   ties, residing in Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot, of the
Peter and Antonio Caiola) — application for annulment of the                 Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
decision of 22 May 1995 by which the Parliament treated the                  Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim,
applicant’s absence on 5 May 1995 as irregular and deducted                  supported by Union Syndicale (European Public Service Union)
one day from her annual leave entitlement pursuant to Article                — Brussels, represented initially by Véronique Lebrun and
60 of the Staff Regulations of officials of the European                     subsequently by Pierre Monville, both of the Brussels Bar,
Communities, and for annulment, in so far as may be                          against the Commission of the European Communities
necessary, of the confirmatory decision of 9 August 1995 —                   (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia, Julian Currall and Denis Wael-
the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: M.                 broeck) — application, in Case T-112/96, for the annulment
Jaeger, President, and K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; B. Pastor,          of two decisions adopted by the Commission on 22 May 1996
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment             in a procedure for filling an A 2 post in the Legal Service
on 8 July 1999, in which it:                                                 declared vacant by Notice COM/20/96, respectively appointing
                                                                             Mrs D as Principal Legal Adviser at Grade A 2 and rejecting the
                                                                             applicant’s candidature for that post; and, in Case T-115/96, for
1. Dismisses the action;                                                     the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 1 December
                                                                             1995 rejecting the applicant’s request for, effectively, reclassifi-
                                                                             cation of his post at Grade A 2 as from 1 June 1991 and, in
2. Orders the parties to bear all their own costs in respect of the          the alternative, the benefit of the temporary postings system
      proceedings before the Court of First Instance and the Court of        — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of
      Justice.                                                               J.D. Cooke, President of the Chamber, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas,
                                                                             and P. Lindh, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar,
                                                                             gave a judgment on 6 July 1999, the operative part of which
                                                                             is as follows:
(1) OJ C 145 of 18.5.1996.
                                                                             1. There is no need to adjudicate on the application, made in the
                                                                                action in Case T-112/96, for the annulment of the decision to
                                                                                appoint Mrs D to the contested post;
 ---pagebreak--- 28.8.1999                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 246/25
2. The applications in the two actions for career reclassification are       (Italy), Dora Ferriera Acciaieria Srl, established in Bergamo,
     dismissed as inadmissible;                                              Ferriera Lamifer SpA, established in Travagliato (Italy), rep-
                                                                             resented by Carmine Punzi and Filippo Satta, both of the Rome
3. In Case T-112/96, the action is dismissed;                                Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                             Chambers of Charles Turk, 13A Avenue Guillaume, Nuova
4. In Case T-115/96, the Commission’s decision of 1 December                 Sidercamuna SpA, established in Berzo Inferiore (Italy), rep-
     1995 is annulled in so far as it rejects the applicant’s alternative    resented by Enrico A. Raffaelli, of the Milan Bar, Ivo Van Bael,
     application that he be granted the benefit of the temporary             of the Brussels Bar and Fabrizio Di Gianni, of the Rome Bar,
     postings system;                                                        with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                             Freddy Brausch, 11 Rue Goethe v Commission of the European
                                                                             Communities (Agents: Paul Nemitz, Enrico Altieri, Laura
5. The Commission is ordered to pay the applicant the monthly                Pignataro and Massimo Moretto) — application for annulment
     payments of differential allowance referred to in Article 7(2) of       of Commission Decision 96/678/ECSC of 30 July 1996
     the Staff Regulations to which he would have been entitled if his       concerning certain aid proposed by Italy as part of a pro-
     application for a temporary posting had been accepted, together         gramme for the restructuring of its private steel industry and
     with interest for delay at the rate of 4.5 % per annum calculated       Commission Decision 97/258/ECSC of 18 December 1996
     from the dates on which those payments should have been made,           concerning aid closures envisaged by Italy as part of the
     as from 30 December 1995 and until full settlement;                     restructuring of its private steel industry (OJ 1996 L 316, p.
                                                                             24 and OJ 1997 L 102, p. 42 respectively) — the Court (Third
6. The remainder of the action in Case T-115/96 is dismissed;                Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: M. Jaeger,
                                                                             President, and K. Lenaerts, V. Tiili, J. Azizi and P. Mengozzi,
7. In Case T-112/96, each party is ordered to bear its own costs,            Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 May
     including those relating to the interim proceedings. Union              1999, in which it:
     Syndicale — Brussels is ordered to pay its own costs;
                                                                             1. Dismisses the applications;
8. In Case T-115/96, the Commission is ordered to pay its own
     costs and two-thirds of those incurred by the applicant, who is         2. Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and jointly and
     ordered to pay the remaining third. Union Syndicale — Brussels               severally to pay those of the Commission.
     is ordered to pay its own costs.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 40 of 8.2.1997 and C 199 of 28.6.1997.
(1) OJ C 269 of 14.9.1996 and C 294 of 5.10.1996.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 19 May 1999
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                             in Case T-214/96 Bernard Connolly v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                           of 12 May 1999
                                                                             (Officials — Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations —
in Joined Cases T-164/96, T-165/96, T-166/96, T-167/96,                      Action for compensation — Prelitigation procedure contrary
T-122/97 and T-130/97: Moccia Irme SpA and Others v                              to the terms of the Staff Regulations — Admissibility)
        Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 246/51)
(Action for annulment — State aid — ECSC Treaty — Fifth
Steel Aid Code — Requirement of regular production within                                         (Language of the case: French)
   the meaning of Article 4(2) of the Fifth Steel Aid Code)
                                                                             In Case T-214/96 Bernard Connolly, a former official of
                           (1999/C 246/50)                                   Commission of the European Communities, residing at Ever-
                                                                             berg (Belgium), represented by Jacques Sambon and Pierre-Paul
                                                                             Van Gehuchten, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                         in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du
                                                                             Fort Rheinsheim v Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Julian Currall), application for
In Joined Cases T-164/96, T-165/96, T-166/96, T-167/96,                      compensation for the material and non-material damage which
T-122/97 and T-130/97: Moccia Irme SpA, established in                       the applicant considers himself to have suffered as a result of
Naples (Italy), represented by Emilio Cappelli, Paolo De Caterini            the publication in the press of several pieces of information
and Andrea Bandini, all of the Rome Bar, with an address for                 and statements concerning him, the Court of First Instance
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Charles Turk, 13A                   (First Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, and J.
Avenue Guillaume, Prolafer, established in Bergamo (Italy),                  Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a
Ferriera Acciaieria Casilina SpA, established in Montecompatri               judgment on 19 May 1999 in which it:


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 October 2003 in Case T-148/00: The Panhellenic Union of Cotton Ginners and Exporters v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Compensatory levy — Method of financing aid — Community aid scheme for cotton — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Acts which may be challenged — Commission's refusal to continue infringement proceedings — Principle of independent legal remedies)

text:
C 7/30                   EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            10.1.2004
1.    Annuls Article 5 of Commission Decision 1999/243/EC of                 (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: R. Gar-
      16 September 1998 relating to a proceeding pursuant to                 cía-Valdecasas, President, P. Lindh, J.D. Cooke, P. Mengozzi
      Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty (Case No IV/35.134 —               and H. Legal, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the
      Trans-Atlantic Conference Agreement).                                  Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 October 2003, in which
                                                                             it:
2.    Annuls Article 6 of Decision 1999/243 in so far as it applies
      to mutual disclosure by the applicants of the availability and
                                                                             1.    Dismisses the application as inadmissible.
      content of their individual service contracts.
3.    Annuls Article 7 of Decision 1999/243 to the extent required           2.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those of
      by the annulment of Articles 5 and 6.                                        the Commission.
4.    Annuls Article 8 of Decision 1999/243.                                 3.    Orders the Hellenic Republic to bear its own costs.
5.    Dismisses the remainder of the applications.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.
6.    Orders the applicants and the Commission each to bear their
      own costs.
7.    Orders the European Council of Transport Users ASBL to bear
      its own costs.
(1) OJ C 71 of 27.03.1999 and OJ C 86 of 13.03.1999.                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 21 October 2003
                                                                             in Case T-368/00: General Motors Nederland BV and
                                                                             Opel Nederland BV v Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities (1)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                             (Competition — Distribution of motor vehicles — Article 81
                        of 16 October 2003
                                                                             EC — Regulations (EEC) No 123/85 and (EC) No 1475/95
                                                                             — Partitioning of the market — General strategy aimed at
in Case T-148/00: The Panhellenic Union of Cotton                            restricting exports — Restriction of supply — Restrictive
Ginners and Exporters v Commission of the European                           bonus policy — Ban on exports — Fine — Gravity and
                          Communities (1)                                    duration of the infringement — Proportionality — Guide-
                                                                                lines for the calculation of fines)
(State aid — Compensatory levy — Method of financing aid
— Community aid scheme for cotton — Action for annul-                                                   (2004/C 7/54)
ment — Admissibility — Acts which may be challenged —
Commission’s refusal to continue infringement proceedings
           — Principle of independent legal remedies)                                            (Language of the case: English)
                            (2004/C 7/53)
                                                                             In Case T-368/00, General Motors Nederland BV, established
                    (Language of the case: English)                          in Sliedrecht (Netherlands), Opel Nederland BV, established in
                                                                             Sliedrecht, represented by D. Vandermeersch, R. Snelders and
                                                                             S. Allcock, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
                                                                             v Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
In Case T-148/00, The Panhellenic Union of Cotton Ginners                    W. Mölls and A. Whelan): Application for, as the principal
and Exporters, established in Thessaloniki (Greece), represented             claim, annulment of the Commission’s decision 2001/146/EC
by K. Adamantopoulos, V. Akritidis and J. Gutiérrez Gisbert,                 of 20 September 2000 relating to a proceeding under
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Com-                   Article 81 EC (Case COMP/36.653 — Opel) (OJ 2001 L 59,
mission of the European Communities (Agents: M. Condou                       p. 1) or, in the alternative, cancellation or reduction of the fine
and D. Triantafyllou), supported by Hellenic Republic (Agents:               imposed on the applicants by that decision., the Court of First
I. Chalkias and C. Tsiavou): Application for the partial annul-              Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: N.J. Forwood,
ment of Commission Decision 2000/206/EC of 20 July 1999                      President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
on an aid scheme applied in Greece to cotton by the Greek                    has given a judgment on 21 October 2003, in which it has
Cotton Board (OJ 2000 L 63, p. 27), the Court of First Instance              ruled:


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of 13 May 1996, in the case of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise against the First National Bank of Chicago (Case C-172/96)

text:
6 . 7. 96          LEN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 197/ 15
Jersey of 11 April 1996 , which was received at the Court              2 . If there has been a supply of goods or services effected
Registry on 20 May 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the                   for   consideration,      what    is  the    nature    of the
case of Rui Alberto Pereira Roque against His Excellency the               consideration in relation to such transaction ?
Lieutenant Governor of Jersey, on the following
questions:                                                             P ) OJ No L 145, 13 . 6 . 1977, p. 1 ; EE 09 FI , p . 54 .
1 . On the premise that British citizens are not liable to
     immigration control in, or to be deported from, Jersey,
     does Article 4 of the third Protocol to the Act of
     Accession of the United Kingdom to the European
     Communities ( l ) have the effect that nationals of
     another Member State are equally not liable to be                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Sala de lo Social of
     deported from Jersey ?                                            the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla la Mancha by
                                                                       order of that court of 25 April 1996 in the case of Francisca
2 . If the answer to the first question is 'No', does the said         Sanchez Hidalgo and Others against Asociacion de Servicios
     Article 4 prohibit the competent authorities in Jersey                      Aser and Sociedad Cooperativa Minerva
     from deporting a national of another Member State save                                    ( Case C-1 73/96 )
     where such deportation is justified on grounds of public                                    ( 96/C 197/31 )
     policy, public security or public health ?
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
3 . If the answer to the second question is 'Yes', does the            European Communities by an order of the Sala de lo Social
     said Article 4 prohibit the competent authorities of              del Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla la Mancha
     Jersey from deporting a national of another Member                ( Social Chamber of the High Court of Justice, Castilla la
     State from Jersey where the considerations of public              Mancha ), received at the Court Registry on 20 May 1996 ,
     policy applied by those authorities would not in practice         for a preliminary ruling in the case of Francisca Sanchez
     lead to the deportation of that person from the United            Hidalgo and Others against Asociacion de Servicios Aser
     Kingdom ?                                                         and Sociedad Cooperativa Minerva Ayuntamiento, on the
                                                                       following question:
0 ) OJ, English Special Edition, 27. 3 . 1972, p. 164.
                                                                       Must there be regarded as falling within the scope of
                                                                       Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 ( ! ) the case of an
                                                                       undertaking which ceases to provide, for a municipality
                                                                       which had awarded it a contract for that purpose, the service
                                                                       of home help for certain persons in need, whereupon a new
                                                                       contract for that service is awarded to a different
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                undertaking, without there being any transfer of material
Justice, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of             assets and without there being, either in the collective
 13 May 1996, in the case of the Commissioners of Customs              agreement or in the tendering conditions, any provision
   and Excise against the First National Bank of Chicago               pursuant to which the new undertaking must be subrogated
                        Case C- 1 72/96 )
                                                                       to the employment relationship between the workers and
                                                                       the previous undertaking to which the contract had been
                          96/C 197/30                                  awarded ?
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                (M OJ No L 61 , 5 . 3 . 1977, p . 26 ; EE 05 F2 , p . 122 .
 European Communities by an order of the High Court of
Justice, Queen's Bench Division, of 13 May 1996 , which
 was received at the Court Registry on 20 May 1996 , for a
 preliminary ruling in the case of the Commissioners of
 Customs and Excise against the First National Bank of
 Chicago, on the following questions :
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
                                                                        Première Instance de Bruxelles by judgment of that court of
 On the proper interpretation of Council Directive                      23 April 1996 in the case ofJyri Lehtonen and ASBL Castors
 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the                  Canada Dry Namur-Braine v. ASBL Fédération royale belge
 laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —                                   des sociétés de basket-ball
 common system of value-added tax: uniform basis of                                             (Case C-1 76/96 )
 assessment ^), and in relation to transactions of foreign
 exchange as defined by the British Bankers' Association ( as                                     ( 96/C 197/32 )
 set out in paragraph 1 of the findings of fact):
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 1 . Do such foreign exchange transactions constitute                   European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de
      the supply of goods or services effected for                      Première Instance de Bruxelles ( Court of First Instance,
      consideration ?                                                   Brussels ) of 23 April 1996 , which was received at the Court


title: Case T-629/16: Action brought on 1 September 2016 — Shoe Branding Europe v EUIPO — adidas (Device of two parallel stripes on a shoe)

text:
               31.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/53

         Action brought on 1 September 2016 — Shoe Branding Europe v EUIPO — adidas (Device of two parallel stripes on a shoe)
   (Case T-629/16)
   (2016/C 402/62)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Shoe Branding Europe BVBA (Oudenaarde, Belgium) (represented by: J. Løje, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: adidas (Herzogenaurach, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: position mark (Device of two parallel stripes on a shoe) — EU trade mark No 8 398 141

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 June 2016 in Case R 597/2016-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Distortion of facts.


               9.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/35

         Removal from the Register of Case T-441/03 (1)

   (2005/C 171/58)

      (Language of the case: Dutch)

   By order of 28 April 2005, the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-441/03, N.V. Firma Léon Van Parys and Others v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 59 of 6.3.2004.


title: Case C-556/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 April 2016 — Holcim (Romania) SA v European Commission (Appeal — Environment — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading in the European Union — Directive 2003/87/EC — Articles 19 and 20 — Regulation (EC) No 2216/2004 — Article 10 — System of registries for transactions concerning emission allowances — Liability for fault — Commission’s refusal to disclose information on and to prohibit all transactions involving stolen emission allowances — Strict liability)

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/16

      Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 April 2016 — Holcim (Romania) SA v European Commission
      (Case C-556/14 P) (1)

      ((Appeal - Environment - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading in the European Union - Directive 2003/87/EC - Articles 19 and 20 - Regulation (EC) No 2216/2004 - Article 10 - System of registries for transactions concerning emission allowances - Liability for fault - Commission’s refusal to disclose information on and to prohibit all transactions involving stolen emission allowances - Strict liability))
      (2016/C 211/18)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: Holcim (Romania) SA (represented by: L. Arnauts, avocat)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: E. White and K. Mifsud Bonnici, Agents)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the appeal;

                  2.

                  Orders Holcim (Romania) SA to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 September 2005 in Case C-129/04 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État: Espace Trianon SA, Société wallonne de location-financement SA (Sofibail) v Office communautaire et régional de la formation professionnelle et de l'emploi (FOREM) (Public procurement — Directive 89/665/EEC — Review procedures concerning the award of public contracts — Persons to whom review procedures must be available — Tender by a consortium — Prohibition against members of a consortium bringing an action individually — Meaning of ’interest in obtaining a public contract’)

text:
               29.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 271/8

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 8 September 2005
   in Case C-129/04 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État: Espace Trianon SA, Société wallonne de location-financement SA (Sofibail) v Office communautaire et régional de la formation professionnelle et de l'emploi (FOREM) (1)

   (Public procurement - Directive 89/665/EEC - Review procedures concerning the award of public contracts - Persons to whom review procedures must be available - Tender by a consortium - Prohibition against members of a consortium bringing an action individually - Meaning of 'interest in obtaining a public contract')
   (2005/C 271/14)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-129/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Conseil d'État (Belgium), made by decision of 25 February 2004, received at the Court on 9 March 2004, in the proceedings between Espace Trianon SA, Société wallonne de location-financement SA (Sofibail) and Office communautaire et régional de la formation professionnelle et de l'emploi (FOREM) — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen, G. Arestis and J. Klučka, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; K. Sztranc, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 8 September 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               Article 1 of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts is to be interpreted as not precluding national law from providing that only the members of a consortium without legal personality which has participated, as such, in a procedure for the award of a public contract and has not been awarded that contract, acting together, may bring an action against the decision awarding the contract and not just one of its members individually.

               2.

               The same is true if all the members of such a consortium act together but the application of one of its members is held inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 106 of 30. 04. 2005.


title: Case T-465/10: Action brought on 27 September 2010 — McHugh v Commission

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/46

         Action brought on 27 September 2010 — McHugh v Commission
   (Case T-465/10)
   ()
   2010/C 328/74
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Eamon McHugh (Killybegs, Ireland) (represented by: A. Collins SC, N. Travers, Barrister and D. Barry, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision notified under document C(2010) 4767 of 13 July 2010 as a letter to Ireland, to reject a safety capacity application concerning a new pelagic trawler, the Antartic, and to replace the decision regarding the said application contained in Commission Decision No 2003/245 of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea, hygiene, product quality and working conditions for vessels of more than 12m in length overall (OJ 2003 L 90, p. 48), which was annulled, in so far as the applicant is concerned, by judgment of the General Court delivered on 13 June 2006 in Joined Cases T-218/03 to T-240/03 Boyle and Others v Commission [2006] ECR II-1699; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of the present application, the applicant seeks, pursuant to Article 263 TFUE, the annulment of Commission Decision notified under document C(2010) 4767 of 13 July 2010 as a letter to Ireland, to reject a safety capacity application concerning a new pelagic trawler, the Antartic, and to replace the decision regarding the said application contained in Commission Decision No 2003/245 of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea, hygiene, product quality and working conditions for vessels of more than 12m in length overall (OJ 2003 L 90, p. 48), which was annulled, in so far as the applicant is concerned, by judgment of the General Court delivered on 13 June 2006 in Joined Cases T-218/03 to T-240/03 Boyle and Others v Commission [2006] ECR II-1699.
   In support of his application, the applicant submits the following pleas in law:

               Firstly, the applicant submits that the defendant acted without a legal basis. Article 4(2) of Council Decision No 97/413/EC of 26 June 1997 concerning the objectives and detailed rules for restructering the Community fisheries sector for the period from 1 January 1997 to 31 December 2001 with the view to achieving a balance on a sustainable basis between resources and exploitation (OJ 1997 L 175, p. 27) continues to provide the appropriate legal basis for the impugned decision and, thus, the Commission lacked a legal basis purportedly to adopt the decision as an ad hoc decision.

               Secondly, the applicant sumits that the Commission breached an esential procedural requirement. The applicant submits that the impugned decision, under Council Decision No 97/413/EC, should have been adopted pursunat to the management committee procedure and that, in choosing to adopt the decision on an ad hoc basis, the Commission acted in breach of essential procedural requirements.

               Thirdly, the applicant submits that by misinterpreting Article 4(2) of Council Decision No 97/413/EC, the Commission exceded its powers, in particular in relying upon irrelevant criteria and ignoring the definition of ‘fishing effort’ provided in Council Decision No 97/413/EC and in Community fisheries legislation applicable at the time of the applicant’s application for safety tonnage in December 2001.

               In addition, it is submitted that the impugned decision contains a number of manifest errors in the assessment of the applicant’s application for safety tonnage. In particular, the applicant claims that the Commission’s decision to refuse the applicant’s application because of the greater volume under the main deck of the proposed new vessel, the Antartic, as its assumption that the proposed new vessel’s ‘fishing effort’ is greater than that of the vessels replaced, are manifestly flawed.

               Finally, the applicant alleges that the Commission breached its right to equal treatment. It is submitted that Commission’s rejection of his application because of the greater volume under the main deck of the proposed new vessel constitutes gross difference in treatment amounting to impermissible discrimination against him compare to the wholly different approach adopted regarding the treatment of some of the applications for additional safety tonnage accepted in Commission Decision No 2003/245, as well as regarding one of the applications initially rejected in that decision but then accepted in the decision contained in Commission Decision notified under document C(2010) 4765 of 13 July 2010.


title: Case C-83/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 17 February 2012 — Criminal proceedings against Minh Khoa V o

text:
               28.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 126/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 17 February 2012 — Criminal proceedings against Minh Khoa V o
   (Case C-83/12)
   2012/C 126/13
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Minh Khoa V o

      Other party: Generalbundesanwalt beim Bundesgerichtshof

      Question referred

   Are Articles 21 and 34 of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (‘the Visa Code’), (1) which regulate the issue and annulment of a uniform visa, to be interpreted as precluding criminal liability, resulting from the application of national legislation, for the smuggling of foreign nationals in cases where, although they hold visas, the persons smuggled obtained those visas by deceiving the competent authorities of another Member State as to the true purpose of their journey?

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 243, p. 1.


title: Case C-122/10: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Marknadsdomstolen (Sweden)) — Konsumentombudsmannen v Ving Sverige AB (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2005/29/EC — Articles 2(i) and 7(4) — Commercial communication published in a newspaper — Meaning of invitation to purchase — Entry-level price — Information which an invitation to purchase has to contain)

text:
               9.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 204/9

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Marknadsdomstolen (Sweden)) — Konsumentombudsmannen v Ving Sverige AB
   (Case C-122/10) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2005/29/EC - Articles 2(i) and 7(4) - Commercial communication published in a newspaper - Meaning of invitation to purchase - Entry-level price - Information which an invitation to purchase has to contain)
   2011/C 204/17
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Marknadsdomstolen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Konsumentombudsmannen

      Defendant: Ving Sverige AB

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Marknadsdomstolen — Interpretation of Articles 2(7)(i) and 7(4)(a) of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22) — Advertisement, published in a newspaper, concerning a promotional offer intended for consumers relating to package travel to a specific destination during a specified period with indication of an entry-level price — Meaning of invitation to purchase — Requirements as to the information to be included in the marketing of a product

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The words ‘thereby enables the consumer to make a purchase’ in Article 2(i) of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) must be interpreted as meaning that an invitation to purchase exists as soon as the information on the product advertised and its price is sufficient for the consumer to be able to make a transactional decision, without it being necessary for the commercial communication also to offer an actual opportunity to purchase the product or for it to appear in proximity to and at the same time as such an opportunity.

               2.

               Article 2(i) of Directive 2005/29 must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement relating to the indication of the price of the product may be met if the commercial communication contains an entry-level price, that is to say the lowest price for which the advertised product or category of products can be bought, while the advertised product or category of products are available in other versions or with other content at prices which are not indicated. It is for the national court to ascertain, on the basis of the nature and characteristics of the product and the commercial medium of communication used, whether the reference to an entry-level price enables the consumer to take a transactional decision.

               3.

               Article 2(i) of Directive 2005/29 must be interpreted as meaning that a verbal or visual reference to the product makes it possible to meet the requirement relating to the indication of the product’s characteristics, and that includes a situation where such a verbal or visual reference is used to designate a product which is offered in many versions. It is for the national court to ascertain, on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the nature and characteristics of the product and the medium of communication used, whether the consumer has sufficient information to identify and distinguish the product for the purpose of taking a transactional decision.

               4.

               Article 7(4)(a) of Directive 2005/29 must be interpreted as meaning that it may be sufficient for only certain of a product’s main characteristics to be given and for the trader to refer in addition to its website, on the condition that on that site there is essential information on the product’s main characteristics, price and other terms in accordance with the requirements in Article 7 of that directive. It is for the national court to assess, on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the context of the invitation to purchase, the medium of communication used and the nature and characteristics of the product, whether a reference only to certain main characteristics of the product enables the consumer to take an informed transactional decision.

               5.

               Article 7(4)(c) of Directive 2005/29 must be interpreted as meaning that a reference only to an entry-level price in an invitation to purchase cannot be regarded, in itself, as constituting a misleading omission. It is for the national court to ascertain whether a reference to an entry-level price is sufficient for the requirements concerning the reference to a price, such as those set out in that provision, to be considered to be met. That court will have to ascertain, inter alia, whether the omission of the detailed rules for calculating the final price prevents the consumer from taking an informed transactional decision and, consequently, leads him to take a transactional decision which he would not otherwise have taken. It is also for the national court to take into consideration the limitations forming an integral part of the medium of communication used; the nature and the characteristics of the product and the other measures that the trader has actually taken to make the information available to consumers.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.


title: Case C-571/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 June 2010 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 95/59/EC — Taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco — Article 9(1) — Free determination, by manufacturers and importers, of the maximum retail selling prices of their products — National legislation imposing a minimum retail selling price for cigarettes — Justification — Protection of public health)

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/7

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 June 2010 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-571/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 95/59/EC - Taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco - Article 9(1) - Free determination, by manufacturers and importers, of the maximum retail selling prices of their products - National legislation imposing a minimum retail selling price for cigarettes - Justification - Protection of public health)
   2010/C 221/11
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls and L. Pignataro, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I. Bruni, then by G. Palmieri, acting as Agents and F. Arena, avvocato dello Stato)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 9 of Council Directive 95/59/EC of 27 November 1995 on taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco (OJ 1995 L 291, p. 40) — Fixing minimum prices — Approval of prices.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by providing for a minimum price for cigarettes, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9(1) of Council Directive 95/59/EC of 27 November 1995 on taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco, as amended by Council Directive 2002/10/EC of 12 February 2002;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.


title: Judgment of the Court of 7 September 1999 in Case C-216/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties Tribunal, Belfast): Jennifer Gregg and Mervyn Gregg v Commissioners of Customs & Excise (VAT - Sixth Directive - Exemptions for certain activities in the public interest - Establishment - Organisation - Meaning - Services performed by an association of two natural persons (partnership))

text:
4.12.1999               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 352/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       1. Dismisses the appeal;
                                                                             2. Orders Montecatini SpA to pay the costs;
                         (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                             3. Orders DSM NV to pay its own costs.
                           of 8 July 1999
                                                                             (1) OJ C 167 of 4.7.1992.
in Case C-235/92 P: Montecatini SpA v Commission of
                 the European Communities (1)
(Appeal — Commission’s Rules of Procedure — Procedure
for the adoption of a decision by the College of Members
of the Commission — Competition rules applicable to
undertakings — Concepts of agreement and concerted prac-
                tice — Limitation rules — Fine)                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (1999/C 352/01)                                                          of 7 September 1999
                                                                             in Case C-216/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling by
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                          the VAT and Duties Tribunal, Belfast): Jennifer Gregg and
                                                                              Mervyn Gregg v Commissioners of Customs & Excise (1)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       (VAT — Sixth Directive — Exemptions for certain activities
                   in the European Court Reports)                            in the public interest — Establishment — Organisation —
                                                                             Meaning — Services performed by an association of two
                                                                                natural persons (partnership))
In Case C-235/92 P: Montecatini SpA (formerly Montedison
SpA, then Montepolimeri SpA, then Montedipe SpA), whose
registered office is in Milan, Italy, represented by G. Aghina                                         (1999/C 352/02)
and G. Celona, of the Milan Bar, and P.A.M. Ferrari, of the
Rome Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of G. Margue, 20 Rue Philippe II, supported by                                         (Language of the case: English)
DSM NV, whose registered office is in Heerlen, Netherlands,
represented by I.G.F. Cath, of The Hague Bar, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Dupong, 14a
                                                                             (Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published
Rue des Bains — Appeal against the judgment of the Court of
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber)
of 10 March 1992 in Case T-14/89 Montedipe v Commission
[1992] ECR II-1155, seeking to have that judgment set aside,                 In Case C-216/97: Reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the other party to the proceedings being the Commission of                   the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC), by the VAT and Duties
the European Communities (Agent: G. Marenco) — the Court                     Tribunal, Belfast, United Kingdom, for a preliminary ruling in
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the               the proceedings pending before that tribunal between Jennifer
Chamber, G. Hirsch, G.F. Mancini (Rapporteur), J.L. Murray                   Gregg and Mervyn Gregg and Commissioners of Customs &
and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; H.                    Excise, on the interpretation of Article 13A(1)(b) and (g) of the
von Holstein, Deputy Registrar and D. Louterman-Hubeau,                      Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment             harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
on 8 July 1999, in which it:                                                 turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
 ---pagebreak--- C 352/2                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          4.12.1999
basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — the Court,                     of: J.-P. Puissochet, (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,
composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P.J.G. Kapteyn,          J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward and
G. Hirsch (Rapporteur) and P. Jann (Presidents of Chambers),               M. Wathelet, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate General; R. Grass,
J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, J.L. Murray, D.A.O. Edward, H. Rag-              Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 September 1999, in
nemalm and R. Schintgen, Judges, G. Cosmas, Advocate Gen-                  which it has ruled:
eral; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 7 September 1999, in which it has ruled:                       The concept of existing legislation, within the meaning of Article 70
                                                                           of the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of
Article 13A(1) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of                Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and
17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member                 the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is
States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added           founded, covers provisions adopted after the date of accession which
tax: uniform basis of assessment is to be interpreted as meaning that      are in substance identical to the legislation previously in force or
the terms ‘other duly recognised establishments of a similar nature’       limited to reducing or eliminating an obstacle to the exercise of
and ‘other organisations recognised as charitable by the Member            Community rights and freedoms in the earlier legislation.
State concerned’, which appear in subparagraphs (b) and (g) of that
provision respectively, do not exclude from that exemption natural
persons running a business.                                                (1) OJ C 370 of 6.12.1997.
(1) OJ C 228 of 26.7.1997.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (First Chamber)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 7 September 1999
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                           in Case C-61/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                       of 7 September 1999                                 the Tariefcommissie): De Haan Beheer BV v Inspecteur
                                                                                der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen te Rotterdam (1)
in Case C-355/97: (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Oberster Gerichtshof): Landesgrundverkehrsreferent                     (Customs duties — External transit — Fraud — Incurrence
der Tiroler Landesregierung v Beck Liegenschaftsverwal-                                      and recovery of a customs debt)
    tungsgesellschaft mbH, Bergdorf Wohnbau GmbH (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 352/04)
(Article 70 of the Act of Accession of Austria — Secondary
residences — Procedure relating to the acquisition of immov-
able property in the Tyrol — Concept of ’existing legislation’)                                 (Language of the case: Dutch)
                           (1999/C 352/03)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                           In Case C-61/98: Reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                           the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tariefcommissie
                                                                           (Netherlands) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     pending before that court between De Haan Beheer BV and
                    in the European Court Reports)                         Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen te Rotterdam on
                                                                           the interpretation of Community law relating to the incurrence
In Case C-355/97: Reference to the Court under Article 177 of              and recovery of a customs debt — the Court (Fifth Chamber),
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Oberster Gerichtshof             composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,
(Austria) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending              J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward and
before that court between Landesgrundverkehrsreferent der                  M. Wathelet, (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate Gen-
Tiroler Landesregierung and Beck Liegenschaftsverwaltungsge-               eral; L. Hewlett, Administrator for the Registrar, has given a
sellschaft mbH, Bergdorf Wohnbau GmbH, in liquidation,                     judgment on 7 September 1999, in which it has ruled:
(Intervener, Karl Hacker) — on the interpretation of Article 70
of the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the                   1. Community law does not impose on customs authorities which
Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom                    have been informed of a possible fraud in connection with
of Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the                      external transit arrangements any obligation to warn a principal
European Union is founded (OJ 1994 C 241, p. 21, and OJ                         that he could incur liability for customs duty as a result of the
1995 L 1, p. 1) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed                           fraud, even where he has acted in good faith.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of  20 October 2005  in Case C-70/05: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2000/78/EC — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               10.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/7

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 20 October 2005
   in Case C-70/05: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2005/C 315/13)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-70/05 Commission of the European Communities (Agent: D. Martin) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent: S. Schreiner) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of N. Colneric (Rapporteur), acting as President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts and E. Juhász, Judges; L. A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 October 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82 of 02.04.2005


title: Case F-117/11: Action brought on 8 November 2011 — ZZ v Commission.

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/70

      Action brought on 8 November 2011 — ZZ v Commission.
      (Case F-117/11)
      (2012/C 25/136)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

      Annulment of the decision of the Office for administration and payment of individual rights determining the applicant’s retirement pension rights and of the calculation of the number of years of pensionable service to be taken into account to determine those rights.

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Annul the decision adopted by the appointing authority on 28 July 2011 rejecting the complaint made by the applicant on 3 June 2011, seeking annulment of the general implementing provisions of Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, adopted on 3 March 2011, in particular Article 9 of those general provisions, and which the appointing authority considered to be directed against the individual decision notified to the applicant on 24 May 2011, proposing a new calculation of the years of pensionable service corresponding, in the Community pension scheme, to the actuarial equivalent of the retirement pension rights acquired by the applicant under the Belgian national scheme;

                  —

                  in so far as it is necessary, annul also the abovementioned decision of 24 May 2011 and, if necessary, pursuant to Article 277 of the EEC Treaty, the general implementing provisions of 3 March 2011, in particular Article 9 of those provisions;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Action brought on 6 May 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland (Case C-151/96)

text:
6 . 7. 96            LM                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 197/ 11
the Court ofJustice of the European Communities on 3 May                    shipping register to a vessel which is owned in whole or
1996 by Roberto Galtieri, represented by Pietro Como, with                  in part by the Government, a Minister of State, an Irish
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of S.                 citizen or an Irish body corporate, Ireland has failed to
Oostvogels, 13 rue Aldringen .                                             comply with Articles 6 , 48 , 52 and 58 of the EC Treaty
                                                                           and Article 7 of Commission Regulation ( EEC )
The appellant claims that the Court should :                               No 1251 /70/EEC ( 1 ) of 29 June 1970 and Article 7 of
                                                                            Council     Directive    75/34/EEC     of  17    December
( a) declare the appeal admissible and well founded;                        1974 ( 2 );
( b ) reverse the judgment of the Court of First Instance             2 , order Ireland to pay the costs of these proceedings .
       ( First Chamber );
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments:
(c) declare the original action brought by the appellant well
       founded ;                                                      The Commission contents that where a vessel of whatever
                                                                      type it may be is an instrument for pursuing an economic
( d ) annul the decision of the Personnel Division of the             activity, Ireland has infringed Article 52 of the EC Treaty by
       European Parliament of 19 January 1994 to recover the          restricting registration of those vessels in the Irish register
       sum of Lfrs 267 628 (as amended by the European                and the right to fly the Irish flag to those which are owned or
       Parliament's letter of 21 June 1994 );                         shared by the Government, a Minister of State, an Irish
                                                                      citizen or an Irish body corporate .
(e ) order the European Parliament to reimburse forthwith
       the sums previously deducted from the appellant's              Furthermore, the requirement laid down by Section 2 of the
       salary from February 1994 onwards;                             Mercantile Marine Act ( 1955 ) that companies should be
                                                                      established under and subject to Irish law and have their
( f) order the European Parliament to pay default interest            principal place of business in Ireland impedes the right of
       from February 1994, together with costs;                       companies which fulfil the conditions of Article 58 of the EC
                                                                      Treaty and are thereby entitled to exercise freedom of
(g) order the European Parliament to pay Lfrs 100 000 by              establishment in order to manage and operate vessels by way
       way of compensation for the non-material damage                of an agency, branch or subsidiary. As to the condition
       caused by the implementation of the abovementioned             imposed on companies to have their principal place of
       decision of 19 January 1994.                                   business in Ireland, the Commission is of the opinion that
                                                                      this condition unjustifiably precludes a company which is
Pleas in law and main arguments:                                      registered in another Member State from operating a vessel
                                                                      on the basis of a real and continuous representation situated
Infringement of Community law by the Court of First                   onshore in Ireland .
Instance, particularly as regards the assessment as to
whether the payments forming the object of the contested              Where the vessel is not an instrument for pursuing an
decision to recover the sum aforesaid were patently                   economic activity but is rather used as a pleasure craft, the
undue .                                                               Commission considers that, in providing for such
                                                                      restrictions as those mentioned above, Ireland has infringed
(M OJ No C 108 , 13 . 4 . 1996 , p. 7 .                               Articles 6, 48 and 52 of the EC Treaty, Article 7 of
                                                                      Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 1251/70 and Article 7 of
                                                                      Council Directive 75/34/EEC .
                                                                      (!) OJ No L 142, 30. 6 . 1970, p. 24; EE 05 Fl , p. 93 .
                                                                      (2 ) OJ No L 14, 20. 1 . 1975, p. 10; EE 06 Fl , p. 183 .
Action brought on 6 May 1996 by the Commission of the
              European Communities against Ireland
                         ( Case C-151/96 )
                           ( 96/C 197/20 )
                                                                      Appeal brought on 7 May 1996 by Jan Robert de Rijk
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of             against the judgment delivered on 7 March 1996 by the Fifth
Justice of the European Communities on 6 May 1 996 by the             Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
 Commission of the European Communities, represented by               Communities in Case T-362/94 between Jan Robert de Rijk
 Frank Benyon and Xavier Lewis, Legal Adviser and Member                  and the Commission of the European Communities (*)
 of the Legal Service respectively acting as Agent, with an
                                                                                (Case C-1 53/96 P)
 address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
 Gômez de la Cruz, Member of its Legal Service, Wagner                                           ( 96/C 197/21 )
 Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                       An appeal against the judgment delivered on 7 March 1996
 The applicant claims that the Court should :                          by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                       European Communities in Case T-362/94 between Jan
 1 , declare that, by maintaining in force laws, regulations           Robert de Rijk and the Commission of the European
      and administrative provisions which limit the right to           Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
      register a vessel other than a fishing vessel in the Irish       European Communities on 7 May 1996 by Jan Robert de


title: Case T-43/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 November 2006 — Camper v OHIM — JC (BROTHERS by CAMPER) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative trade mark BROTHERS by CAMPER — Earlier national figurative trade marks BROTHERS — Inadmissibility — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/39

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 November 2006 — Camper v OHIM — JC (BROTHERS by CAMPER)
   (Case T-43/05) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative trade mark BROTHERS by CAMPER - Earlier national figurative trade marks BROTHERS - Inadmissibility - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2006/C 331/86)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Camper, SL, (Inca, Spain) (represented by: I. Temiño Ceniceros, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Novais Gonçalves, agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: JC AB, (Mölnlycke, Sweden), (represented by P. Hedberg, lawyer)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Chamber of the Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 November 2004 (Case R 170/2004-1), relating to opposition proceedings between JC AB and Camper SL.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs);

               3.

               Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2005.


               22.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/17

         Removal from the register of Case C-77/03 (1)

   (2005/C 19/34)

      (Language of the case: German)

   By order of 19 October 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-77/03: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.

      (1)  OJ C 101 of 26.4.2003.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 March 2001 in Case C-83/00: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to transpose Directive 97/24/EC — Components and characteristics of two or three-wheel motor vehicles)

text:
C 173/20              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          16.6.2001
(Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and S. Seam) — application for a                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
declaration that:
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
—    by retaining and applying rules providing for the appli-
     cation of a formula for calculating the engine rating for                                    of 15 March 2001
     administrative purposes which is unfavourable to vehicles
     fitted with a six-speed manual gearbox or five-speed
     automatic transmission, which has discriminatory or                 in Case C-83/00: Commission of the European Communi-
     protectionist effects in the case of vehicles manufactured                       ties v Kingdom of the Netherlands (1)
     in other Member States compared with similar or compet-
     ing domestic vehicles, and
                                                                         (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                         Failure to transpose Directive 97/24/EC — Components and
                                                                              characteristics of two or three-wheel motor vehicles)
—    by retaining provisions limiting the K factor for the
     purposes of calculating the engine rating for tax purposes                                     (2001/C 173/34)
     of vehicles approved on an individual basis between
     1 January 1978 and 12 January 1988 and which are
     regarded as equivalent to type-approved vehicles having
     an actual power output in excess of 100 kW,                                              (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under                               in the European Court Reports)
Article 95 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 90
EC) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La
Pergola, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur),             In Case C-83/00: Commission of the European Communities
D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; S. Alber,                  (Agent: C. van der Hauwaert) v Kingdom of the Netherlands
Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar,          (Agents: M.A. Fierstra and J. van Bakel) application for a
has given a judgment on 15 March 2001, in which it:                      declaration that, by failing within the prescribed period to
                                                                         adopt the laws, regulations and administrative measures
                                                                         necessary in order to comply with Directive 97/24/EC of the
                                                                         European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1997 on
1.   Declares that by retaining and applying rules providing for the     certain components and characteristics of two or three-wheel
     application of a formula for calculating the engine rating for      motor vehicles (OJ 1997 L 226, p. 1), the Kingdom of the
     administrative purposes which is unfavourable to vehicles fitted    Netherlands has failed to comply with its obligations under
     with a six-speed manual gearbox or five-speed automatic             the EC Treaty — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of:
     transmission, which has discriminatory or protectionist effects     C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, F. Macken and
     in the case of vehicles manufactured in other Member States         J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), Judges; S. Alber, Advocate
     compared with similar or competing domestic vehicles, the           General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 March
     French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the      2001, in which it:
     first paragraph of Article 95 of the EC Treaty (now, after
     amendment, the first paragraph of Article 90 EC);
                                                                         1.    Declares that, by failing within the prescribed period to adopt
                                                                               the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary in
                                                                               order to comply with Directive 97/24/EC of the European
2.   Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.                              Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1997 on certain
                                                                               components and characteristics of two or three-wheel motor
                                                                               vehicles, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to comply
                                                                               with its obligations under the EC Treaty;
                                                                         2.    Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.


title: Case T-457/11: Action brought on 17 August 2011 — Valeo Vision v Commission

text:
               8.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 298/27

         Action brought on 17 August 2011 — Valeo Vision v Commission
   (Case T-457/11)
   2011/C 298/51
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Valeo Vision (Bobigny, France) (represented by: R. Ledru, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul in its entirety Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 603/2011 of 20 June 2011 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging infringement of the rules of classification in the Combined Nomenclature in so far as the applicant considers that the general rules for interpretation Nos 1, 3(a), 3(b), 3(c) and 6; note No 2(a) of Section XVI; and note No 8 of Chapter 85 of the Combined Nomenclature mean, first, that an ‘LED electronic card’ should be classified under heading 8541 or, in the alternative, under heading 8542 of the Combined Nomenclature and, secondly, that its classification under heading 8512 should be precluded. The applicant disputes, first, the Commission’s statement of reasons and classification and submits, secondly, that the statement of the reasons on which the classification regulation is based is unfounded and has no legal basis.


title: Case F-110/13: Action brought on 11 November 2013 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/41

         Action brought on 11 November 2013 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-110/13)
   2014/C 24/78
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Rodrigues, A. Tymen and A. Blot, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the Commission decision excluding the applicant from the list of candidates authorised to attend the ‘certification’ training programme in 2013.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the European Commission of 19 April 2013 excluding the applicant from the list of candidates authorised to attend the ‘certification’ training programme in 2013 (Administrative Notice No 13-2013);

               —

               in so far as necessary, annul the Commission decision of 30 July 2013, dismissing the applicant’s complaint;

               —

               award the applicant damages in the amount of EUR 10 000;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-17/12: Action brought on 16 January 2012 — Hagenmeyer and Hahn v Commission

text:
               24.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/26

         Action brought on 16 January 2012 — Hagenmeyer and Hahn v Commission
   (Case T-17/12)
   2012/C 89/44
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Moritz Hagenmeyer (Hamburg, Germany) and Andreas Hahn (Hanover, Germany) (represented by: T. Teufer, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the part of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1170/2011 of 16 November 2011 refusing to authorise certain health claims made on foods and referring to the reduction of disease risk (OJ 2011 L 299, p. 1) concerning the applicant’s claim ‘Regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of development of dehydration and of concomitant decrease of performance’;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods, (1) health claims made on foods are prohibited in so far as they are not authorised by the Commission in accordance with that regulation and have not been added to the list of permissible claims.
   This action has been brought against Commission Regulation (EU) No 1170/2011 of 16 November 2011 refusing to authorise certain health claims made on foods and referring to the reduction of disease risk, (2) in so far as that regulation rejected the applicants' application to have added to the list of permissible claims its claim regarding the reduction of a disease risk, namely ‘regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of development of dehydration and of concomitant decrease of performance’.
   In support of their action, the applicants rely on nine pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law: The dispensability of the naming of a ‘risk factor’
               The applicants claim, first of all, that the defendant declared it mandatory that a ‘risk factor’ be named in the application, although no such obligation results from Regulation No 1924/2006.

               2.

               Second plea in law: Failure to take account of the actual naming of a ‘risk factor’ in the application.
               The applicants allege that the defendant overlooked the fact that the applicants actually named a ‘risk factor’ in the wording of the health claim which they made.

               3.

               Third plea in law: Infringement of the principle of proportionality
               The applicants submit that, on the whole, Regulation No 1170/2011 is disproportionate.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: Absence of a sufficient legal basis
               In the view of the applicants, the contested regulation lacks a sufficient legal basis, since it is based on Article 17, in conjunction with Article 14(1)(a) and Article 10(1), of Regulation No 1924/2006, which infringe European Union law and, in particular, the principle of proportionality.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law: Inadmissible legislative act
               The applicants submits that the defendant infringed essential procedural requirements in that, instead of issuing a decision, as provided for in Regulation No 1924/2006, it issued a regulation.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law: Infringement of the division of competences
               The applicants claim, in this regard, that the division of competences, provided for in Regulation No 1924/2006, between the defendant, the European food safety authority and the German Federal Office for consumer protection and food security, was not respected by the defendant in the procedure.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law: Failure to adopt a decision within the time-limit prescribed
               The applicants claim that the defendant failed to respect the imperative time-limits laid down in Regulation No 1924/2006 in relation to the forwarding of the application for authorisation, the issuing of the scientific opinion, and the issuing of the decision on whether the claim was to be authorised.

               8.

               Eighth plea in law: Inadequate consideration of the submissions
               The applicants submit that the defendant infringed essential procedural requirements since, in its decision on whether to authorise the claim, it failed to take account of a significant part of the applicants’ submissions and those of third parties involved in the procedure.

               9.

               Ninth plea in law: Erroneous grounds
               Finally, the applicants claim that the defendant did not sufficiently comply with its obligation under Article 296(2) TFEU to provide the grounds on which its decision was based.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods (OJ 2006 L 404, p. 9).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 1170/2011 of 16 November 2011 refusing to authorise certain health claims made on foods and referring to the reduction of disease risk (OJ 2011 L 299, p. 1).


title: Case T-242/07: Action brought on 6 July 2007 — Weiler v OHIM — CISQ (Q2WEB)

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/45

         Action brought on 6 July 2007 — Weiler v OHIM — CISQ (Q2WEB)
   (Case T-242/07)
   (2007/C 211/83)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Dieter Weiler (Pulheim, Germany) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, T. Dolde and A. Renck, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: CISQ Federazione Certificazione Italiana Sistemi di Qualità Aziendali
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 March 2007 in Case R 893/2005-1, and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, but with regard to the intervention of the other party before the Board of Appeal, the defendant and the intervener should be ordered to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought:‘Q2WEB’ for goods and services in classes 9, 35, 38 and 42 (Community trade mark No 2 418 150)

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the Applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: CISQ Federazione Certificazione Italiana Sistemi di Qualità Aziendali

      Trade mark right of applicant for the declaration: the word mark ‘QWEB’ for services in class 42 (Community trade mark No 1 772 078), the figurative mark ‘QWEB’ for services in classes 35, 38 and 42 (Community trade mark No 1 871 201), and the word mark ‘QWEBMARK’ for services in classes 35, 38 and 42 (Community trade mark No 1 771 963)

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declaration of the invalidity of the trade mark concerned

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), since the opposing trade marks are not visually, phonetically or conceptually similar and the differences between the marks are sufficient to rule out the risk of confusion on the part of relevant consumers.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994, L 11, p. 1).


title: Case C-615/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 May 2013 — European Commission v Ryanair Ltd (Appeal — Action for failure to act — Article 232 EC — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Article 20(2) — State aid allegedly granted to Italian airlines — Complaint — Lack of a decision from the Commission)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/16

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 May 2013 — European Commission v Ryanair Ltd
   (Case C-615/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Action for failure to act - Article 232 EC - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Article 20(2) - State aid allegedly granted to Italian airlines - Complaint - Lack of a decision from the Commission)
   2013/C 225/26
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, D. Grespan and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Ryanair Ltd (represented by: E. Vahida, avocat, and I.-G. Metaxas-Maragkidis, dikigoros), Air One SpA (represented by: M. Merola, M.C. Santacroce and G. Belotti, avvocati)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 September 2011 in Case T-442/07 Ryanair v Commission upholding in part an action for failure to act seeking a finding that the Commission had unlawfully failed to adopt a decision on Ryanair’s complaints concerning aid allegedly granted by Italy to Alitalia, Air One and Meridiana in the form of various measures granting advantages to those companies

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.


title: Case F-20/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 7 July 2011 — Bracalente v Commission (Civil service — Persons claiming the status of official or servant of the European Union — Action — Manifestly inadmissible — Failure to comply with preliminary procedure)

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/31

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 7 July 2011 — Bracalente v Commission
   (Case F-20/11)
   (Civil service - Persons claiming the status of official or servant of the European Union - Action - Manifestly inadmissible - Failure to comply with preliminary procedure)
   2012/C 138/70
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Gianpaolo Bracalente (Ispra, Italy) (represented by: S. Costantino, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Re:

   The applicant’s request to be granted the status of servant of the European Union.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Mr Bracalente shall bear his own costs.


title: Case T-763/16: Action brought on 31 October 2016 — PY v EUCAP Sahel Niger

text:
               9.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/46

         Action brought on 31 October 2016 — PY v EUCAP Sahel Niger
   (Case T-763/16)
   (2017/C 006/58)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: PY (Souffelweyersheim, France) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Tymen, lawyers)

      Defendant: EUCAP Sahel Niger (Niamey, Niger)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               declare the present action to be admissible and well founded;

         and accordingly,

               —

               declare the Mission to be liable within the meaning of Article 340 TFEU;

               —

               order the payment of compensation for the material damage suffered by the applicant;

               —

               order the payment of compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant, assessed at EUR 70 000;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all of the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant invokes a single plea in law, alleging contractual breaches on the part of the Mission EUCAP Sahel Niger (‘the Mission’) which render it contractually liable within the meaning of Article 340 TFEU.
   The applicant, a former member of staff of the Mission, alleges that the Mission committed contractual breaches in relation to internal investigation procedures and procedures for the protection of victims where a claim of harassment in the workplace has been made. Due to the Mission’s failure to act and its failure to open an internal investigation, the harassment reported by the applicant continued, intensified and resulted in substantial adverse effects on his health, leading to his emergency repatriation. It was not possible for the applicant to resume his duties before the expiry of his contract.
   The applicant consequently seeks compensation for the non-material damage that he has suffered as a result of (i) being forced to endure harassment, despite having reported it, for many months, something that the Mission could have prevented, (ii) being laid off from work and (iii) the deterioration in his health and particularly the depression from which he has been suffering ever since. The applicant also seeks compensation for the financial damage resulting from the loss of his remuneration after 30 days on sick leave and from loss of the chance to have his contract of employment renewed.


title: Case C-252/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 23 May 2014  — Pensioenfonds Metaal en Technie v Skatteverket

text:
               21.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 23 May 2014 — Pensioenfonds Metaal en Technie v Skatteverket
   (Case C-252/14)
   2014/C 235/15
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Pensioenfonds Metaal en Technie

      Defendant: Skatteverket

      Question referred

   Does Article 63 TFEU constitute an obstacle to national legislation under which dividends from a resident company are taxed at source if the shareholder is resident in another Member State, while such dividends — if paid to a resident shareholder — are subject to a tax calculated as a definitive lump sum and on a fictive yield, which, over time, is intended to correspond to the normal taxation of all yields on capital?