title: Case C-268/12 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 May 2013 — Cadila Healthcare Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Novartis AG (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Likelihood of confusion — Word mark ZYDUS — Opposition by the proprietor of the Community trade mark ZIMBUS — Partial refusal of registration by the Board of Appeal of OHIM)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/44

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 May 2013 — Cadila Healthcare Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Novartis AG
   (Case C-268/12 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Likelihood of confusion - Word mark ZYDUS - Opposition by the proprietor of the Community trade mark ZIMBUS - Partial refusal of registration by the Board of Appeal of OHIM)
   2013/C 225/76
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Cadila Healthcare Ltd (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent), Novartis AG (represented by: N. Hebeis, Rechtsanwalt)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 March 2012 in Case T-288/08 Cadila Healthcare v OHIM — Novartis (ZYDUS), by which that court dismissed an action brought by the proprietor of the word mark ‘ZYDUS’ for goods in Classes 3, 5 and 10 for annulment of Decision R 1092/2007-2 of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 7 May 2008 rejecting in part the appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division refusing in part registration of that mark in opposition proceedings brought by the proprietor of the Community trade mark ‘ZIMBUS’ for goods in Class 5 — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods and signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Cadila Healthcare Ltd shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 258, 25.8.2012.


title: Case T-575/10: Action brought on 14 December 2010 — Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías v Commission

text:
               19.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/28

         Action brought on 14 December 2010 — Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías v Commission
   (Case T-575/10)
   2011/C 55/50
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías, S.A. (Gijón, Spain) (represented by F. González Díaz and A. Tresandi Blanco, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul, pursuant to Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the decision of the European Commission of 30 September 2010 amending the decision of 30 June 2010 (C(2010) 4837 final in Case COMP/38.344 — prestressing steel); and

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its appeal, the applicant relies on three pleas in law:

               —

               first plea, based on breach of the principle of inalterability of the acts of the institutions and of the principle of good administration.

               —

               second plea, based on the fact that the amended decision breached essential procedural requirements, in that it was adopted without the mandatory consultation of the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions, as required pursuant to Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

               —

               third plea, in the alternative, based on breach of the principle of non-discrimination in the fixing of the conditions of the payment of the fine and breach of the obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based.


title: Case C-210/04: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of  23 March 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy)) — Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate v FCE Bank plc (Sixth VAT Directive — Articles 2 and 9 — Fixed establishment — Non-resident company — Legal relationship — Cost-sharing agreement — OECD Convention on double taxation — Meaning of  taxable person  — Supply of services effected for consideration — Administrative practice)

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/14

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 March 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy)) — Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate v FCE Bank plc
   (Case C-210/04) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Articles 2 and 9 - Fixed establishment - Non-resident company - Legal relationship - Cost-sharing agreement - OECD Convention on double taxation - Meaning of ‘taxable person’ - Supply of services effected for consideration - Administrative practice)
   (2006/C 131/24)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Corte Suprema di Cassazione
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate

      Defendant: FCE Bank plc
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte Suprema di Cassazione — Interpretation of Articles 2(1) and 9(1) of the Sixth VAT Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Subsidiary, organised as a producer unit of a company established in another Member State — Whether the branch can be considered an independent person and the ‘arm's length’ standard laid down in the OECD model Convention on double taxation can be applied
   Operative part of the judgment
   Articles 2(1) and 9(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, must be interpreted as meaning that a fixed establishment, which is not a legal entity distinct from the company of which it forms part, established in another Member State and to which the company supplies services, should not be treated as a taxable person by reason of the costs imputed to it in respect of those supplies.

      (1)  OJ C 190, 24.07.2004.


title: Case C-520/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 28 September 2015 — Aiudapds — Associazione Italiana delle Unità Dedicate Autonome Private di Day Surgery e dei Centri di Chirurgia Ambulatoriale v Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA) and Ministero della Salute

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 28 September 2015 — Aiudapds — Associazione Italiana delle Unità Dedicate Autonome Private di Day Surgery e dei Centri di Chirurgia Ambulatoriale v Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA) and Ministero della Salute
   (Case C-520/15)
   (2015/C 398/26)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Aiudapds — Associazione Italiana delle Unità Dedicate Autonome Private di Day Surgery e dei Centri di Chirurgia Ambulatoriale

      Respondents: Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA) and Ministero della Salute

      Other parties: Roche SpA, Novartis Farma SpA, and Regione Marche

      Question referred

   Do the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2000/C 364/01), in which it is stated that everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law and which guarantees the right to a fair trial, Article 54 of that Charter which prohibits abuse of that right, and Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950, in which it is stated that everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law, preclude national legislation which, pursuant to Article 10 of Presidential Decree No 1199 of 24 November 1971 and Article 48 of Legislative Decree No 104 of 2 July 2010, enables only one of the parties to extraordinary proceedings brought exclusively before the Consiglio di Stato to have those proceedings transferred at first instance to a Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale without the approval or participation of the appellant or any other party to those proceedings?


title: Case C-302/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Szombathelyi Városi Bíróság by order of that court of 10 June 2004 in the case Ynos Kft. against János Varga

text:
               9.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Szombathelyi Városi Bíróság by order of that court of 10 June 2004 in the case Ynos Kft. against János Varga
   (Case C-302/04)
   (2004/C 251/09)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Szombathelyi Városi Bíróság (Szombathely City Court, Hungary), of 10 June 2004, which was received at the Court Registry on 19 July 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ynos Kft. against János Varga.
   The Szombathelyi Városi Bíróság asks the Court of Justice to give a preliminary ruling on the following questions:

               1.

               May Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, which provides that Member States are to lay down that unfair terms used in a contract concluded with a consumer by a seller or supplier are, as provided for under their national law, not to be binding on the consumer, be interpreted as meaning that it may constitute the basis of a national provision such as Article 209(1) of Law No IV of 1959 on the Civil Code, applicable when a general condition in a contract stating that unfair terms do not cease to bind the consumer ipso jure, but do so only where an express declaration to that effect is made, that is to say, when they are successfully contested, is found to be unfair?

               2.

               Does it follow from that provision of the Directive, according to which the contract is to continue to bind the parties upon those terms if it is capable of continuing in existence without the unfair terms, that where the unfair terms inserted by a seller or supplier are not binding on the consumer as provided for under national law, but where in the absence of those terms, which form part of the contract, the seller or supplier would not have concluded the contract with the consumer, the validity of the contract as a whole cannot be affected if it is capable of continuing in existence without the unfair terms?

               3.

               From the point of view of the application of Community law, is it relevant that the main dispute arose before the accession of the Republic of Hungary to the European Union, but after the adaptation of its domestic law to the Directive?

      (1)  OJ L 95, p. 29.


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 17 January 2001 in Case T-342/00 R: Petrolessence and Société de Gestion de Restauration Routière (SG2R) v Commission of the European Communities (Procedure for interim relief — Competition — Concentration — Admissibility — Urgency — Balancing of interests)

text:
5.5.2001                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 134/23
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                                 of the European Communities (Agents: W. Mölls and F. Siredey-
                              INSTANCE                                       Garnier) — application for, first, suspension of execution of
                                                                             the Commission Decision of 13 September 2000 rejecting
                         of 16 January 2001                                  TotalFina Elf’s proposal in relation to approval of the applicants
                                                                             as concessionaires of six motorway service stations and,
in Case T-328/00 R: Mario Costacurta v Commission of                         second, a direction that the Commission order TotalFina Elf to
                          the Communities                                    suspend execution of the undertaking set out in point 36
                                                                             of the annex ‘undertakings proposed by TotalFina’ to the
                                                                             Commission Decision of 9 February 2000 authorising the
(Officials — Procedure for interim relief — Admissibility of                 acquisition of Elf Aquitaine by TotalFina, in so far as it concerns
                           the main action)                                  the six service stations whose transfer to the applicants was
                                                                             proposed to the Commission by TotalFina Elf on 12 August
                           (2001/C 134/50)                                   2000, the President of the Court of First Instance has made an
                                                                             order on 17 January 2001, the operative part of which is as
                                                                             follows:
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             1.    The application for interim relief is dismissed;
In Case T-328/00 R: Mario Costacurta, an official of the
Commission of the European Communities, residing in Luxem-                   2.    The decision as to costs is reserved.
bourg, represented by M. Petit, of the Luxembourg Bar, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at his Chambers,
74 Val Sainte-Croix, against Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: G. Valsesia and J. Currall) — application
for, first, stay of execution of the implied decision rejecting the
applicant’s request lodged on 23 June 2000 and, second, a
declaration that the applicant is to be temporarily reassigned               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
pursuant to Article 3 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations of                                               INSTANCE
Officials of the European Communities, the President of the
Court has made an order on 16 January 2001, the operative
part of which is as follows:                                                                         of 26 January 2001
1.     The application for interim relief is dismissed;                      in Case T-353/00 R: Jean-Marie Le Pen v European
                                                                                Parliament
2.     The decision as to costs is reserved.
                                                                             (Interlocutory proceedings — Measure adopted by the Parlia-
                                                                             ment — Termination of the term of office of an MEP as a
                                                                             result of the application of national law — Admissibility —
                                                                                Prima facie case — Urgency — Balancing of interests)
                                                                                (2001/C 134/52)
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                              INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                         of 17 January 2001
                                                                             In Case T-353/00 R: Jean-Marie Le Pen, residing at Saint-Cloud
in Case T-342/00 R: Petrolessence and Société de Gestion                     (France), represented by F. Wagner, lawyer, v European
de Restauration Routière (SG2R) v Commission of the                          Parliament (Agents: H. Krück and C. Karamarcos), supported
                      European Communities                                   by the French Republic (Agents: D. Wibaux and G. de Bergues)
                                                                             — application for annulment of the decision taken by the
(Procedure for interim relief — Competition — Concen-                        President of the European Parliament in the form of a
tration — Admissibility — Urgency — Balancing of inter-                      declaration dated 23 October 2000 — the President of the
                                   ests)                                     Court of First Instance made an order on 26 January 2001, the
                                                                             operative part of which is as follows:
                           (2001/C 134/51)
                                                                             1.    Operation of the decision taken by the President of the European
                                                                                Parliament in the form of a declaration dated 23 October
                     (Language of the case: French)                                2000 is suspended inasmuch as it constitutes a decision of the
                                                                                European Parliament by which the Parliament took formal note
                                                                                of the termination of the applicant’s term of office as a member
In Case T-342/00 R: Petrolessence, Société de Gestion de
                                                                                of the European Parliament.
Restauration Routière (SG2R), established in Nancy (France),
represented by F. Puel, of the Hauts-de-Seine and Brussels Bars,             2.    The costs are reserved.
and M. Troncoso Ferrer, of the Pamplona and Brussels Bars,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
C. Kaufhold, 24 Avenue Marie-Thérèse, against Commission


title: Case C-55/15 P: Appeal brought on 6 February 2015 by Trenzas y Cables de Acero PSC, S.L. against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 25 November 2014 in Joined Cases T-428/10 and T-577/10 and in Case T-441/12 Trenzas y Cables de Acero v Commission

text:
               13.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/20

         Appeal brought on 6 February 2015 by Trenzas y Cables de Acero PSC, S.L. against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 25 November 2014 in Joined Cases T-428/10 and T-577/10 and in Case T-441/12 Trenzas y Cables de Acero v Commission
   (Case C-55/15 P)
   (2015/C 118/27)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Trenzas y Cables de Acero PSC, S.L. (represented by: F. González Díaz and A. Tresandi Blanco, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside, pursuant to Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the order of the General Court of 25 November 2014 in Joined Cases T-428/10 and T-577/10 and in Case T-441/12 Trenzas y Cables de Acero v Commission;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its appeal, the appellant puts forward a single ground of appeal.
   The appellant claims that the General Court erred in law in assessing the legal interest of Trenzas y Cables de Acero PSC in bringing proceedings, as regards both the action for annulment in Case T-577/10 against the decision of the Commission of 30 September 2010 amending Decision C(2010) 4387 (final) relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.344 — Prestressing Steel), and the amendment of the pleas in law and forms of order sought in Case T-428/10 in relation to the decision of the Commission of 30 September 2010 amending Decision C(2010) 4387 (final) relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.344 — Prestressing Steel).


title: Case T-380/10: Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Wabco Europe and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Coordination of price increases and exchange of sensitive business information — Distortion of competition — Proof — Calculation of the fine — Cooperation during the administrative procedure — 2002 Leniency Notice — Immunity from fines — Reduction of the fine — Significant added value — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Principle of non-retroactivity)

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Wabco Europe and Others v Commission
   (Case T-380/10) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Coordination of price increases and exchange of sensitive business information - Distortion of competition - Proof - Calculation of the fine - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - 2002 Leniency Notice - Immunity from fines - Reduction of the fine - Significant added value - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Principle of non-retroactivity)
   2013/C 325/45
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Wabco Europe (Brussels, Belgium); Wabco Austria GesmbH (Vienna, Austria); Trane Inc. (Piscataway, New Jersey, United States); Ideal Standard Italia Srl (Milan, Italy); Ideal Standard GmbH (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: S. Völcker, F. Louis, A. Israel, N. Niejahr, lawyers, C. O’Daly, E. Batchelor, Solicitors, and F. Carlin, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, F. Ronkes Agerbeek and G. Koleva, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 4185 final of 23 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.092 — Bathroom Fittings and Fixtures) in so far as it concerns the applicants, and for reduction of the fines imposed on them.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls points (3) and (4) of Article 1(1) of Commission Decision C(2010) 4185 final of 23 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.092 — Bathroom fittings and fixtures) in so far as the European Commission makes a finding of infringement against Trane Inc., Wabco Europe and Ideal Standard Italia Srl in respect of a cartel on the Italian market for ceramics for a period other than the period from 12 May 2000 to 9 March 2001;

               2.

               Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Trane in Article 2(3)(a) of Decision C(2010) 4185 final at EUR 92 664 493;

               3.

               Sets the amount of the fine imposed jointly and severally on Wabco Europe and Trane in Article 2(3)(b) of Decision C(2010) 4185 at EUR 15 820 767;

               4.

               Sets the amount of the fine imposed jointly and severally on Ideal Standard Italia, Wabco Europe and Trane in Article 2(3)(e) of Decision C(2010) 4185 at EUR 4 520 220;

               5.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               6.

               Orders the Commission to pay half of the costs incurred by Wabco Europe, Wabco Austria GesmbH, Trane, Ideal Standard Italia and Ideal Standard GmbH and to bear its own costs;

               7.

               Orders Wabco Europe, Wabco Austria, Trane, Ideal Standard Italia and Ideal Standard to bear half of their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.


title: Case F-61/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single judge) of 24 March 2015 — Maggiulli v Commission (Civil service — Promotion — 2013 promotion exercise — Decision not to promote — Consideration of comparative merits)

text:
               4.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/46

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single judge) of 24 March 2015 — Maggiulli v Commission
   (Case F-61/14) (1)

   ((Civil service - Promotion - 2013 promotion exercise - Decision not to promote - Consideration of comparative merits))
   (2015/C 146/62)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Carola Maggiulli (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Salerno, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Berscheid, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision not to promote the applicant to Grade AD 13 in the 2013 promotion exercise.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders Mrs Maggiulli to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 421, 24.11.2014, p. 61.


title: Case T-859/16: Action brought on 7 December 2016 — Damm v EUIPO — Schlossbrauerei Au-Hallertau Willibald Beck Freiherr von Peccoz (EISKELLER)

text:
               6.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/46

         Action brought on 7 December 2016 — Damm v EUIPO — Schlossbrauerei Au-Hallertau Willibald Beck Freiherr von Peccoz (EISKELLER)
   (Case T-859/16)
   (2017/C 038/60)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sociedad Anónima Damm (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Schlossbrauerei Au-Hallertau Willibald Beck Freiherr von Peccoz GmbH & Co. KG (Au-Hallertau, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: figurative mark containing the word element ‘EISKELLER’ –EU trade mark application No 12 204 426

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2016 in Case R 2428/2015-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO and Schlossbrauerei Au-Hallertau Willibald Beck Freiherr von Peccoz GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/40

         Removal from the Register of Case T-468/04 (1)

   (2005/C 229/83)

      (Language of the case: French)

   By order of 29 June 2005, the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-468/04, Kenzo Takada v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

      (1)  OJ C 57 of 5.3.2005.


title: Case T-450/07: Action brought on 3 December 2007 — Harwin International v OHIM — Cuadrado (Pickwick)

text:
               9.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/32

         Action brought on 3 December 2007 — Harwin International v OHIM — Cuadrado (Pickwick)
   (Case T-450/07)
   (2008/C 37/50)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Harwin International LLC (Albany, United States) (represented by: D. Przedborski, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cuadrado SA (Paterna, Spain)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the decision of the OHIM's Second Board of Appeal in Case R 1245/2006-2, rendered on 10 September 2007;

               —

               order the defendant and Cuadrado SA to bear their own costs and to reimburse the costs incurred by the applicant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The figurative trade mark containing the word components ‘PICKWICK COLOUR GROUP’ for goods and services in Class 25 — application No 826669

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Harwin International LLC

      Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Cuadrado SA

      Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: The earlier national word mark ‘PICK OUIC, CUADRADO SA, VALENCIA’ and the figurative trade mark containing the word elements ‘Pick Ouic’ for goods in class 25

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the mark applied for invalid in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 56(2) and (3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94.
   The applicant claims that the Board's finding as to the non-examination by the Cancellation Division of the evidence submitted by Cuadrado is inconsistent and contrary to law. Furthermore, the applicant submits that there is no likelihood of confusion between the trademarks concerned.


title: Case T-53/14: Action brought on 20 January 2014  — Ludwig-Bölkow-Systemtechnik v Commission

text:
               28.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/23

         Action brought on 20 January 2014 — Ludwig-Bölkow-Systemtechnik v Commission
   (Case T-53/14)
   2014/C 129/30
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Ludwig-Bölkow-Systemtechnik GmbH (Ottobrunn, Germany) (represented by: M. Núñez Müller and T. Becker, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, in the context of Contracts SES6-CT-2004-502596 (HyWays), SES6-CT-2005-019813 (HyApproval) and SES6-CT-2005-513542 (HarmonHy) concluded between the Commission and, inter alia, the applicant, the applicant calculated its project costs in accordance with the applicable contractual provisions, in particular Article II.19 of the General Conditions, and that the Commission has thus infringed its contractual obligations in so far as it calculated the applicant’s project costs differently when issuing debit notes No 3241314522 and No 3241315423 (HyWays); No 3241314527 and No 3241314526 (HyApproval); and No 3241314519 and No 3241313756 (HarmonHy);

               —

               declare that, in the context of Contract SES6-CT-2004-502596 (HyWays), the applicant received a financial contribution from the Community of only EUR 495 269.48, and that in issuing its debit notes No 3241314522 and No 3241315423, the Commission thus wrongly proceeded on the assumption that the applicant had been granted a financial contribution of EUR 604 240.79;

               —

               declare that the costs which, in the context of Contract SES-CT-2005-019813 (HyApproval), were reclassified by the Commission on the basis of the Final Audit Report of 15 July 2011 from management costs (MGT) to research costs (RTD) are in fact management costs;

               —

               declare that the applicant is not required under the aforementioned contracts to pay liquidated damages pursuant to Article II.30 of the General Conditions;

               —

               declare that, with the exception of the amount of EUR 1 323.02 in respect of debit note No 3241314523 (HyWays), EUR 3 870.02 in respect of debit note No 3241314527 (HyApproval), and EUR 16 868.66 in respect of debit note No 3241314519 (HarmonHy), the Commission wrongly issued the abovementioned debit notes, and that, with the exception of the amounts mentioned here, the amounts stated in the debit notes are not payable by the applicant to the Commission;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law
               The applicant submits under the first plea in law that it used a method of calculation of its project costs which accords with Article II.19 of the General Conditions of the contracts at issue. It therefore takes the view that the Commission was not entitled to query the method of calculation of project costs used by the applicant or to apply a different method of calculation when issuing the debit notes at issue.

               2.

               Second plea in law
               The applicant submits that it received a financial contribution of only EUR 495 269.48 in respect of the HyWays project. The Commission therefore wrongly proceeded on the assumption, when issuing the debit notes, that the applicant had been granted a financial contribution of EUR 604 240.79.

               3.

               Third plea in law
               The applicant submits under the third plea in law that the Commission wrongly reclassified certain costs in the HyApproval project from ‘management’ to ‘research’.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law
               The applicant submits that the Commission is not entitled to claim liquidated damages from it under Article II.30 of the General Conditions of the contracts at issue.


title: Case T-914/16: Action brought on 27 December 2016 — Proof IT v EIGE

text:
               13.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/34

         Action brought on 27 December 2016 — Proof IT v EIGE
   (Case T-914/16)
   (2017/C 078/47)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Proof IT SIA (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: J. Jerņeva and D. Pāvila, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Institute for Gender Equality adopted in the procurement procedure for the award of a framework contract ‘Maintenance and update of EIGE’s gender statistics tools and resources’ EIGE/2016/OPER/01-Lot 1 and EIGE/2016/OPER/01-Lot 2, notified to the applicant by letter of 14 October 2016, to reject the applicant’s tender and to award the framework contract to a third company;

               —

               award damages to the applicant for loss of opportunity and/or for loss of the contract itself in the amount of EUR 128 480;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached the principles of equal treatment and transparency by failing to interpret the award criteria in the same way throughout the entire procurement procedure.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached the principles of equal treatment and transparency by entirely re-evaluating the applicant’s tender, thus acting in an arbitrary manner giving rise to concerns about favouritism.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached the principles of equal treatment and transparency since the award criteria are imprecise, thus conferring on the defendant an unrestricted freedom of choice as regards the awarding of the contract in question.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment in evaluating the applicant’s tender which, once corrected, would lead to a different result of the procurement procedure, i.e. the applicant’s tender should not have been rejected and the framework contract should have been awarded to the applicant.


title: Joined Cases C-72/07 and C-111/07: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 June 2007 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Asturias (Spain)) — José Manuel Blanco Pérez, María del Pilar Chao Gómez v Consejería de Salud y Servicios Sanitarios, Federación Empresarial de Farmacéuticos (FEFE), Principado de Asturias (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Inadmissibility)

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/14

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 June 2007 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Asturias (Spain)) — José Manuel Blanco Pérez, María del Pilar Chao Gómez v Consejería de Salud y Servicios Sanitarios, Federación Empresarial de Farmacéuticos (FEFE), Principado de Asturias
   (Joined Cases C-72/07 and C-111/07) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Inadmissibility)
   (2007/C 199/24)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Referring court
   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Asturias (Spain)
   Parties

      Applicants: José Manuel Blanco Pérez, María del Pilar Chao Gómez

      Defendants: Consejería de Salud y Servicios Sanitarios, Federación Empresarial de Farmacéuticos (FEFE), Principado de Asturias
   Re:
   Reference for preliminary ruling — Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Asturias — Interpretation of Article 43 EC — Regulations laying down conditions required to open new pharmacies
   Operative part of the order
   The references for preliminary rulings made by the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Asturias, by decisions of 30 November 2006 and 29 January 2007, are manifestly inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.

      OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 March 2005 in Case T-275/02 D v European Investment Bank (EIB) (Agents of the EIB — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Extension of the probationary period — Termination of contract — Conditions — Action for compensation)

text:
               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/19

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 8 March 2005
   in Case T-275/02 D v European Investment Bank (EIB) (1)

   (Agents of the EIB - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Extension of the probationary period - Termination of contract - Conditions - Action for compensation)
   (2005/C 115/36)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-275/02: D, a former agent of the European Investment Bank, residing in Luxembourg (Luxembourg), represented by J. Choucroun, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against European Investment Bank (EIB) (Agent: J.-P. Minnaert, assisted by P. Mousel, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of the decisions of the EIB extending the applicant's probationary period and terminating his contract, and application for compensation in respect of the material and non-material damage allegedly suffered — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President, F. Dehousse and D. Šváby, Judges; C. Kristensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 March 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Declares that it is unnecessary to rule on the request for confidentiality of the European Investment Bank;

               3.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 261 of 26.10.2002.


title: Case C-342/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do trabalho de Viseu — Portugal) — Worten — Equipamentos para o Lar SA v Autoridade para as Condições de Trabalho (ACT) (Processing of personal data — Directive 95/46/EC — Article 2 — Concept of ‘personal data’ — Articles 6 and 7 — Principles relating to data quality and criteria for making data processing legitimate — Article 17 — Security of processing — Working time — Record of working time — Access by the national authority responsible for monitoring working conditions — Employer’s obligation to make available the record of working time so as to allow its immediate consultation)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/37

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do trabalho de Viseu — Portugal) — Worten — Equipamentos para o Lar SA v Autoridade para as Condições de Trabalho (ACT)
   (Case C-342/12) (1)

   (Processing of personal data - Directive 95/46/EC - Article 2 - Concept of ‘personal data’ - Articles 6 and 7 - Principles relating to data quality and criteria for making data processing legitimate - Article 17 - Security of processing - Working time - Record of working time - Access by the national authority responsible for monitoring working conditions - Employer’s obligation to make available the record of working time so as to allow its immediate consultation)
   2013/C 225/63
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal do trabalho de Viseu

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Worten — Equipamentos para o Lar SA

      Defendant: Autoridade para as Condições de Trabalho (ACT)

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal do Trabalho de Viseu — Interpretation of Article 2 and Article 17(1) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31) — Concept of personal data — Data registered in a system recording the working time of workers of a company

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 2(a) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data is to be interpreted as meaning that a record of working time, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which indicates, in relation to each worker, the times when working hours begin and end, as well as the corresponding breaks and intervals, is included within the concept of ‘personal data’, within the meaning of that provision.

               2.

               Article 6(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(c) and (e) of Directive 95/46 do not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which requires an employer to make the record of working time available to the national authority responsible for monitoring working conditions so as to allow its immediate consultation, provided that this obligation is necessary for the purposes of the performance by that authority of its task of monitoring the application of the legislation relating to working conditions, in particular as regards working time.

      (1)  OJ C 295, 29.9.2012.


title: Case T-761/14: Action brought on 17 November 2014  — Consolidated Artists v OHIM — Body Cosmetics International (MANGO)

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/45

         Action brought on 17 November 2014 — Consolidated Artists v OHIM — Body Cosmetics International (MANGO)
   (Case T-761/14)
   (2015/C 007/51)
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Consolidated Artists BV (Amstelveen, Netherlands) (represented by: B. Corne, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Body Cosmetics International GmbH (Willich, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘MANGO’

      Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2014 in Case R 2337/2013-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 7(3) and 52(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 April 2005 in Case C-494/01: Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Waste management — Directive 75/442/EEC, as amended by Directive 91/156/EC — Articles 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 14)

text:
               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/5

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Grand Chamber)
   of 26 April 2005
   in Case C-494/01: Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Waste management - Directive 75/442/EEC, as amended by Directive 91/156/EC - Articles 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 14)
   (2005/C 143/02)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-494/01, action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 20 December 2001, Commission of the European Communities (Agents: R. Wainwright and X. Lewis) v Ireland (Agent: D. O'Hagan, assisted by P. Charleton SC and A. Collins BL) — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann (Rapporteur), C.W.A. Timmermans and A. Rosas, Presidents of Chambers, J. P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, M. Ilešič, J. Malenovský, U. Lõhmus and E. Levits, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 26 April 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to take all the measures necessary to ensure a correct implementation of the provisions of Articles 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 14 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, Ireland has failed to comply with its obligations under those provisions;

               2.

               Declares that, by failing to respond to a request for information dated 20 September 1999 in relation to waste operations at Fermoy, County Cork, Ireland has failed to fulfil the obligations which it has pursuant to Article 10 EC;

               3.

               Orders Ireland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 56 of 02.03.2002.


title: Case T-8/15: Action brought on 8 January 2015 — Auyantepui Corp. v OHIM — Magda Rose (Mr Jones)

text:
               13.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/31

         Action brought on 8 January 2015 — Auyantepui Corp. v OHIM — Magda Rose (Mr Jones)
   (Case T-8/15)
   (2015/C 118/39)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Auyantepui Corp., SA (Panama, Panama) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Magda Rose GmbH & Co. KG (Vienna, Austria)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Mr Jones’ — Application for registration No 10 669 794

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 October 2014 in Case R 49/2014-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the contested decision and grant the application for the trade mark;

               —

               Order OHIM and the other party, should it intervene, to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-304/05: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Directive 79/409/EEC — Conservation of wild birds — Assessment of the environmental impact of works to modify ski runs)

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-304/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Directive 79/409/EEC - Conservation of wild birds - Assessment of the environmental impact of works to modify ski runs)
   (2007/C 269/13)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. van Beek and D. Recchia, agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I.M. Braguglia and G. Fiengo, agents)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 6(2) to (4) in conjunction with Article 7 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7) — Infringement of Article 4(1) and (2) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 203, p. 1) — Extension of the Santa Caterina Valfurva ski area in the Stelvio National Park (Special Protection Area IT 2040044) without any prior environmental impact assessment being carried out — Failure to take measures to avoid disturbing and damaging the habitats of species for which the special protection area was designated.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that:

                           —

                           by authorising measures likely to have a significant impact on Special Protection Area IT 2040044, Parco Nazionale dello Stelvio, without making them subject to an appropriate assessment of their implications in the light of the area's conservation objectives;

                           —

                           by authorising such measures, without complying with the provisions which allow a project to be carried out, in spite of a negative assessment of the implications and in the absence of alternative solutions, only for imperative reasons of overriding public interest and then only after adopting and communicating to the Commission of the European Communities all compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected; and

                           —

                           by failing to adopt measures to avoid the deterioration of natural habitats and habitats of species and the disturbance of species for which SPA IT 2040044, Parco Nazionale dello Stelvio, was designated,

                     the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(2) to (4) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, in conjunction with Article 7 of that directive, and under Article 4(1) and (2) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 299, 17.9.2005.


title: Case T-348/07: Action brought on 12 September 2007 — Al-Aqsa v Council of the European Union

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/61

         Action brought on 12 September 2007 — Al-Aqsa v Council of the European Union
   (Case T-348/07)
   (2007/C 269/111)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Stichting Al-Aqsa (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: J. Pauw, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Decision 2007/445/EC in so far as it applies to the applicant, and declare that Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 does not apply to the applicant;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant submits that Council Decision 2007/445/EC of 28 June 2007 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism is void in so far as it relates to it.
   In support of its application, the applicant submits, first, that the Council Common Position of 27 December 2001 on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism (1) does not apply to it.
   Second, the applicant submits that no competent authority has taken a decision with respect to the applicant within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the Council Common Position of 27 December 2001.
   Third, the applicant states that it has had no intention, culpability or knowledge with regard to the support of terrorist activities.
   Fourth, according to the applicant, it is apparent from neither the statement of grounds in the contested decision nor the underlying national decision that it can still be regarded as facilitating terrorist acts.
   Finally, the applicant complains of breach of the principle of proportionality, of essential procedural requirements inasmuch as the Council has not investigated the desirability of maintaining the applicant on the list, of the right to unfettered enjoyment of property, and of the requirement for a proper statement of reasons.

      (1)  2001/931/CFSP (OJ 2001 L 344, p. 93).


title: Case C-211/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 3 May 2010 — Doris Povse v Mauro Alpago

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 3 May 2010 — Doris Povse v Mauro Alpago
   (Case C-211/10)
   2010/C 179/41
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Doris Povse

      Respondent: Mauro Alpago

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is a ‘judgment on custody that does not entail the return of the child’ within the meaning of Article 10(b)(iv) of Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (‘Brussels II bis’) (1) also to be understood as meaning a provisional settlement by which ‘parental responsibility’, in particular the right to determine the place of residence, is awarded to the abducting parent pending the final judgment on custody?

               2.

               Does a return order fall within the scope of Article 11(8) of Brussels II bis only where the court orders return on the basis of a judgment on custody delivered by that court?

               3.

               If Question 1 or 2 is answered in the affirmative:

                           3.1.

                           Can the lack of jurisdiction of the court of origin (Question 1) or the inapplicability of Article 11(8) of Brussels II bis (Question 2) in the second State be relied on as against the enforcement of a judgment in respect of which the court of origin has issued a certificate in accordance with Article 42(2) of Brussels II bis?

                           3.2.

                           Or, in such circumstances, must the defendant apply for that certificate to be revoked in the Member State of origin, on the assumption that enforcement in the second State may be stayed pending the decision of the State of origin?

               4.

               If Questions 1 and 2 or Question 3.1. are/is answered in the negative:
               Does a judgment delivered by a court in the second State and regarded as enforceable under the law of that State, by which provisional custody was awarded to the abducting parent preclude an earlier return order made by the first State under Article 11(8) of Brussels II bis, in accordance with Article 47(2) of Brussels II bis, even if it did not prevent the enforcement of a return order made by the second State under the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the ‘Hague Convention’)?

               5.

               If Question 4 is also answered in the negative:

                           5.1.

                           Can the second State refuse to enforce a judgment in respect of which the court of origin has issued a certificate under Article 42(2) of Brussels II bis if, since its delivery, the circumstances have changed in such a way that enforcement would now constitute a serious risk to the best interests of the child?

                           5.2.

                           Or must the defendant invoke that change of circumstances in the State of origin, on the assumption that enforcement in the second State may be stayed pending the decision of the State of origin?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000; OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1.


title: Case C-247/11 P: Appeal brought on 24 May 2011 by Areva against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 3 March 2011 in Joined Cases T-117/07 and T-121/07 Areva and Others v Commission

text:
               16.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/18

         Appeal brought on 24 May 2011 by Areva against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 3 March 2011 in Joined Cases T-117/07 and T-121/07 Areva and Others v Commission
   (Case C-247/11 P)
   2011/C 211/36
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Areva SA (represented by: A. Schild, lawyer)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Alstom, European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal;

               —

               if the Court of Justice considers that the state of the proceedings is such as to permit final judgment in the matter:

                           —

                           principally, set aside the following provisions of the decision at issue:

                                       —

                                       Article 1(c),

                                       —

                                       Article 2(c);

                           —

                           in the alternative, substantially reduce the fine imposed on the appellant;

                           —

                           order the Commission to pay all the costs, including those incurred by the appellant before the General Court;

               —

               if the Court of Justice considers that the state of the proceedings is not such as to permit final judgment in the matter, refer the case back to a Chamber of the General Court with a different composition and reserve the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant puts forward four pleas in support of its appeal.
   The first plea alleges infringement by the General Court of the rules relating to the statement of reasons and of the rights of the defence in the analysis of the effective exercise of decisive influence by Areva SA over Areva T&D SA and Areva T&D AG during the period from 9 January to 11 May 2004. In this respect, the appellant observes that the General Court infringed Articles 36 and 53 of Protocol (No 3) on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union (the obligation for the General Court to state the reasons on which its judgments are based) in so far as, in paragraph 150 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court substituted its own reasoning for that of the Commission by retrospectively adding to the decision at issue reasons which do not appear in that decision. The appellant also observes that the General Court infringed its obligation to state reasons in so far as its arguments do not make it possible to understand the reasons why it did not accept the appellant's arguments. Lastly, the appellant observes that the General Court infringed Areva SA's rights of defence by imposing on it a probatio diabolica in the context of the demonstration of the absence of effective exercise of decisive influence by the parent company over its subsidiaries and by refusing to afford it an opportunity of giving its views on the new arguments that the General Court added to the decision at issue.
   The second plea alleges that the General Court erred in law when applying the rules relating to joint and several liability for the payment of fines, which resulted in infringement of the principle of legal certainty and the principle that the penalty must be specific to the offender. The appellant submits that, by imposing fines which have the effect of creating ‘de facto’ joint and several liability between two companies which have never formed a single economic unit, the General Court infringed the abovementioned principles.
   The third plea alleges misinterpretation by the General Court of the rules relating to the unlawful delegation of the Commission's powers, incorrect reasoning by the General Court and infringement of the principle that the penalty must be specific to the offender because liability was not clearly apportioned between co-debtors in the context of joint and several liability. In this respect, Areva SA claims, first, that the General Court erred in law by interpreting the Commission's decision in a manner contrary to the Commission's intention so as to find a ‘solution’, which, without having any basis in law, enabled it to reject the appellant's arguments concerning the delegation of the Commission's powers. The appellant claims, second, that the General Court's solution infringes the general principle of legal certainty and the general principle that the penalty must be specific to the offender.
   The fourth and final plea alleges an error of law regarding the application of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment as regards the fine imposed jointly and severally on Areva SA. The appellant submits that, by failing to use its power of unlimited jurisdiction and by upholding fines which do not take account of the duration of the infringement committed, the General Court infringed those principles.


title: Case T-299/09 and T-300/09: Judgment of the General Court of 3 February 2011 — Gühring v OHIM (Combination of the colours broom yellow and silver grey and combination of the colours yellow ochre and silver grey) (Community trade mark — Application for a Community trade mark consisting of a combination of the colours broom yellow and silver grey — Application for a Community trade mark consisting of a combination of the colours yellow ochre and silver grey — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Examination of the facts of the Court’s own motion — Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               19.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 February 2011 — Gühring v OHIM (Combination of the colours broom yellow and silver grey and combination of the colours yellow ochre and silver grey)
   (Case T-299/09 and T-300/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for a Community trade mark consisting of a combination of the colours broom yellow and silver grey - Application for a Community trade mark consisting of a combination of the colours yellow ochre and silver grey - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Examination of the facts of the Court’s own motion - Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2011/C 89/38
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Gühring OHG (Albstadt, Germany) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by G. Schneider and subsequently by G. Schneider and B. Schmidt, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Two actions brought against the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 April 2009 (Cases R 1330/2008-1 and R 1329/2008-1) concerning applications for registration of the combination of the colours broom yellow and silver grey and the combination of the colours yellow ochre and silver grey as Community trade marks.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Orders that Cases T-299/09 to T-300/09 be joined for the purposes of the judgment.

               2.

               Dismisses the actions.

               3.

               Orders Gühring OHG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 256, 24.10.2009.


title: Case T-180/13: Order of the General Court of 7 February 2014 — Pesquerias Riveirenses and Others v Council (Action for annulment — Fisheries policy — Regulation (EU) No 40/2013 — Amalgamation of the northern and southern components of the stock of blue whiting in the north-east Atlantic in order to establish the TAC — Lack of direct concern — Manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/34

         Order of the General Court of 7 February 2014 — Pesquerias Riveirenses and Others v Council
   (Case T-180/13) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Fisheries policy - Regulation (EU) No 40/2013 - Amalgamation of the northern and southern components of the stock of blue whiting in the north-east Atlantic in order to establish the TAC - Lack of direct concern - Manifestly inadmissible))
   2014/C 112/45
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Pesquerias Riveirenses, SL (Ribeira, Spain); Pesquerias Campo de Marte, SL (Ribeira); Pesquera Anpajo, SL (Ribeira); Arrastreros del Barbanza, SA (Ribeira); Martínez Pardavila e Hijos, SL (Ribeira); Lijo Pesca, SL (Ribeira); Frigoríficos Hermanos Vidal, SA (Ribeira); Pesquera Boteira, SL (Ribeira); Francisco Mariño Mos y Otros, CB (Ribeira); Pérez Vidal Juan Antonio y Hno, CB (Ribeira); Marina Nalda, SL (Ribeira); Portillo y Otros, SL (Ribeira); Vidiña Pesca, SL (Ribeira); Pesca Hermo, SL (Ribeira); Pescados Oubiña Pérez, SL (Ribeira); Manuel Pena Graña (Ribeira); Campo Eder, SL (Ribeira); Pesquera Laga, SL (Ribeira); Pesquera Jalisco, SL (Ribeira); Pesquera Jopitos, SL (Ribeira); y Pesca-Julimar, SL (Ribeira) (represented by: J. Tojeiro Sierto, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Westerhof Löfflerová and A. de Gregorio Merino, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   ACTION for annulment of Council Regulation (EU) No 40/2013 of 21 January 2013 fixing for 2013 the fishing opportunities available in EU waters and, to EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are subject to international negotiations or agreements (OJ 2013 L 23, p. 54), as amended, in so far as it amalgamates the northern and southern components of the stock of blue whiting in the north-east Atlantic in order to establish the TAC (total allowable catch) for blue whiting set out in Annexes IA and IB of that regulation.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               The applicants, Pesquerias Riveirenses, SL, and others, are ordered to bear their own costs as well as those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.


title: Case C-182/05: Order of the President of the Court of  11 January 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               1.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 154/13

         Order of the President of the Court of 11 January 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-182/05) (1)

   (2006/C 154/33)

      Language of the case: Greek

   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 155, 25.06.2005.


title: Case C-231/11 P: Appeal brought on 13 May 2011 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 3 March 2011 in Joined Cases T-122/07 to T-124/07 Siemens AG Österreich and Others v Commission.

text:
               9.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 204/17

         Appeal brought on 13 May 2011 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 3 March 2011 in Joined Cases T-122/07 to T-124/07 Siemens AG Österreich and Others v Commission.
   (Case C-231/11 P)
   2011/C 204/31
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: A. Antoniadis, R. Sauer, N. von Lingen, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Siemens AG Österreich, VA Tech Transmission & Distribution GmbH & Co. KEG, Siemens Transmission & Distribution Ltd, Siemens Transmission & Distribution SA, Nuova Magrini Galileo SpA.

      Form of order sought

   The Commission claims that the Court should:
   First,

               —

               set aside paragraph 2 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of 3 March 2011 in Joined Cases T-122/07 to T-124/07, in so far as it is based on the finding of the Court in Paragraph 157 of the judgment under appeal, that the Commission is obliged to determine the respective shares of the various companies in the fines imposed on them as jointly and severally liable;

               —

               set aside paragraph 3 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of 3 March 2011 in Joined Cases T-122/07 to T-124/07, in so far as the General Court in accordance with the findings in Paragraph 158 in conjunction with Paragraphs 245, 247, 262 and 263 of the judgment under appeal imposed fines anew to include a determination of the proportion of the fine for which each individual company was liable;

         Second, in the alternative,

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 3 March 2011 in Joined Cases T-122/07 to T-124/07, in so far as it imposed on the Commission in accordance with Paragraph 157 of the judgment under appeal an obligation to determine the respective shares of the various companies in the fines imposed on them as jointly and severally liable;

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 3 March 2011 in Joined Cases T-122/07 to T-124/07, in so far as the General Court in accordance with the findings in Paragraph 158 of the judgment under appeal in conjunction with Paragraphs 245, 247, 262 and 263 of the judgment determines the proportion of the fine for which each individual company was liable, and thereby alters the Commission Decision of 24. January 2007 (C(2006) 6762 final) in COMP/38.899 — Gas insulated switchgear;

         Third,

               —

               reject the claims in Joined Cases T-122/07, T-123/07 and T-124/07 for the annulment of Article 2(j) (k) and (l) of Decision C(2006) 6762 final;

         Fourth,

               —

               order the respondents and applicants to pay the costs both of the appeal and of the proceedings at first instance.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

               1.

               The obligation imposed on the Commission, to apportion individual liability on parties who are jointly and severally liable as between themselves, misconceives the limits on the powers and duties conferred on the Commission under Article 23 of Regulation No 1/2003 and encroaches on the national legal systems. Those powers and duties extend to the external relationship, in other words, the imposition of fines and when appropriate the determination that the parties to whom the decision is addressed should be jointly and severally liable. The internal relationship of parties who are jointly and severally liable as the result of a determination of joint and severally liability, which may include rights of recourse by one joint debtor against another is conversely, as a matter of principle, subject to the law of the Member States.

               2.

               The General Court exceeded the boundaries of its unlimited jurisdiction to review, where it determined fixed proportions of liability in that internal relationship with regard to possible claims for redress before the national courts.

               3.

               The duty asserted by the Court that the Commission must undertake a comprehensive resolution of the legal effects of the attribution of joint and several liability cannot be supported by the principle that penalties must be specific to the individual and to the offence which is relied on by the General Court for that purpose; in any event it is contrary to the principle of liability of undertakings for infringements of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU.

               4.

               The General Court’s ruling was ultra petita and the Court failed to respect the principle of inter partes proceedings, where it effected an allocation of liability in the internal relationship and implicitly an alteration of the decision which was not sought and was not the subject of sufficient argument.

               5.

               The General Court is further in breach of the obligation to state reasons, because the supporting grounds for the decision cannot with sufficient clarity be extracted from the judgment and the General Court did not deal with the arguments put forward by the Commission in relation to joint and several liability.

               6.

               Finally, the judgment encroaches on the Commission’s discretion in relation to the identification of the parties who are liable.


title: Case F-31/10: Action brought on 14 May 2010 — Guittet v Commission

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/59

         Action brought on 14 May 2010 — Guittet v Commission
   (Case F-31/10)
   2010/C 179/105
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Christian Guittet (Cannes, France) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   First, annulment of the decision to close the oral procedure opened under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations, granting the applicant a rate of permanent invalidity of 64.5 %, and, secondly, an application for compensation for the material and non-material harm suffered.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision of the appointing authority of 27 July 2009 closing the procedure opened under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations following the applicant’s accident of 8 December 2003;

               —

               so far as necessary, annul the decision of 16 February 2010 rejecting the applicant’s complaint;

               —

               as a result, conclude that the rate of permanent partial invalidity (PPI) be evaluated on the basis of the rules and the scale for evaluation in force at the date of the accident and until 1 January 2006, that the application brought by the applicant under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations be re-examined by a medical committee made up of an impartial, independent and neutral body which can work quickly, with complete independence and without bias;

               —

               order the defendant to pay default interest on the capital due under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations at a rate of 12 % over a period which opened at the latest on 8 December 2004, until complete payment of the capital;

               —

               order the defendant to pay damages, fixed on equitable principles at EUR 50 000, in respect of the non-material harm suffered as a result of the decision taken;

               —

               order the defendant to pay damages, fixed at EUR 15 000, in respect of the material harm suffered as a result of the decision taken;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-263/15: Action brought on 15 May 2015 — Gmina Miasto Gdynia and Port Lotniczy Gdynia Kosakowo v Commission

text:
               3.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 254/16

         Action brought on 15 May 2015 — Gmina Miasto Gdynia and Port Lotniczy Gdynia Kosakowo v Commission
   (Case T-263/15)
   (2015/C 254/20)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicants: Gmina Miasto Gdynia (Gdynia, Poland) and Port Lotniczy Gdynia Kosakowo sp. z o. o. (Gdynia, Poland) (represented by: T. Koncewicz, K. Gruszecka-Spychała and M. Le Berre, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul and set aside in its entirety the decision of the European Commission of 26 February 2015 on measure SA.35388 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN and ex 2012/N), Poland, ‘Setting up of Gdynia-Kosakowo Airport’;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies inter alia on the following pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law:

                           —

                           Arbitrariness and manifest error in determining the facts taken as the basis for making the contested decision, and consequently exceeding by the Commission of the bounds of its discretion and committing manifest errors in the assessment of the evidence.

               2.

               Second plea in law:

                           —

                           Failure of the Commission to consider the relevant factors and circumstances for the legal assessment of the investments in Port Lotniczy Gdynia Kosakowo.

               3.

               Third plea in law:

                           —

                           Exceeding by the Commission of the bounds of its discretion within the meaning of the case-law emphasising the obligations of the institution exercising discretion to explain both why certain items of evidence and facts are taken into consideration and why others are rejected.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law:

                           —

                           Breach of Article 107(1) TFEU in conjunction with a general principle of European law — the principle of legal certainty and good faith of the institution towards subjects of law, by its erroneous application and interpretation.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law:

                           —

                           Infringement in the erroneous legal categorisation of facts and evidence, resulting in a breach by the contested decision of Article 107(1) TFEU, in finding that the conditions were not fulfilled in this case for regarding the operations at issue as satisfying the private investor test and that it had not been shown that the investment project would be carried out by a private investor, and consequently finding that the Gdynia Kosakowo investment was unauthorised public aid.


title: Case T-304/00: Action brought on 22 September 2000 by María Jesús Sáez Acevedo against Commission of the European Communities

text:
9.12.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 355/33
The pleas in law and principal arguments are similar to those             The applicant puts forward three pleas in law in support of his
relied on in Case T-297/00 (1).                                           application:
                                                                          —     Infringement of Articles 81 and 82 EC;
(1) See p. 30 of this Official Journal.
                                                                          —     Infringement of Council Directive 93/16/EEC of 5 April
                                                                                1993 to facilitate the free movement of doctors and the
                                                                                mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates and
                                                                                other evidence of formal qualifications (1);
                                                                          —     Breach of the rules of assessment of the Community
                                                                                interest.
                                                                          (1) OJ 1993 L 165, p. 1.
Action brought on 21 September 2000 by Anthony
Goldstein against the Commission of the European Com-
                                munities
                           (Case T-302/00)
                           (2000/C 355/71)
                                                                          Action brought on 22 September 2000 by Marı́a Jesús
                                                                          Sáez Acevedo against Commission of the European Com-
                    (Language of the case: English)                                                   munities
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                                          (Case T-304/00)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 21 September 2000 by Anthony
                                                                                (2000/C 355/72)
Goldstein, represented by Raymond St John Murphy, Solicitor,
of Merriman White, London.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
—     annul the decision of the Commission of 7 July 2000                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      rejecting the complaint made pursuant to Regulation                 European Communities on 22 September 2000 by Marı́a Jesús
      No 17 by the applicant concerning infringement of                   Sáez Acevedo, residing in Brussels represented by Juan Ramón
      Articles 81 and 82 EC by the General Medical Council;               Iturriagagoitia.
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —     annul the decision adopted on 13 December 1999 by the
                                                                                Commission’s Pensions Unit, in accordance with the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 earlier requests of 23 August 1999, 22 September 1999
                                                                                and 3 December 1999;
In 1993 the applicant, a Community medical specialist in
                                                                          —     review of the applicant’s file, in view of the transfer of her
rheumatology, submitted to the Commission under Article
                                                                                pension rights, by the Transfer of Pension Rights Section
3 (2) of Council Regulation No 17 an application for a finding
                                                                                of the Commission Pensions Unit following receipt of
that the General Medical Council, a statutory body which
                                                                                the interest arising from enforcement of a judgment,
regulates the medical profession in the territory of the United
                                                                                transferred by the Spanish social security;
Kingdom, had infringed Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty
(now Articles 81 and 82 EC). By letter of 7 July 2000 the
Commission informed the applicant that his complaint had                  —     order any calculation necessary in respect of the above-
been rejected (the contested decision).                                         mentioned transfer;
 ---pagebreak--- C 355/34                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      9.12.2000
—     order the Commission to compensate the applicant                     Pleas in law and main arguments
      pursuant to the general implementing provisions (GIP)
      by paying interest at a rate of 3,5 % per annum, calculated
      on the basis of the capital sum required to ensure the number
      of years of pensionable service with which she is to be credited     This present action is directed against the Commission’s
      under the Staff Regulations in respect of the periods to which       decision of 11 July 2000 C (2000) 1099), which withdraws
      such interest relates;                                               the grant made to Massalombarda Colombani S.p.A. by
                                                                           Commission Decision No C (88) 1005/275 of 30 June 1988
—     order the repayment to the applicant of any amount                   concerning a grant of aid by the EAGGF, Guidance Section,
      overpaid as a result of the difference between the                   pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 355/77 for project
      transferable capital sum together with interest of all kinds         No 88.41.IT.003.0, entitled ‘Modernisation of a fruit and
      and the capital sum required to ensure payment together              vegetable processing establishment in Portomaggiore (Ferrara)’.
      with interest payable to the Commission; and
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                           It is pointed out in this regard that one year before Massalom-
                                                                           barda Colombani was acquired by the applicant it was
                                                                           inspected by the Italian Finance Ministry and the Commission
                                                                           jointly for the purpose of verifying the implementation of an
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           EAGGF project, approved by Decision No C (91) 225576 of
                                                                           28 October 1991. During that inspection certain irregularities
                                                                           were discovered in the documentation and payment of the
The pleas in law and main arguments are those relied on in
                                                                           final part of the grant provided for was suspended. The
Case T-303/00 Caballero Montoya v Commission.
                                                                           following year three other projects were checked. In those
                                                                           cases too the Commission found various irregularities.
                                                                           The applicant stresses the fact that it never received any
                                                                           information from the vendor, just as no information was given
                                                                           concerning the state of the other EAGGF projects undertaken
                                                                           by Massalombarda.
Action brought on 21 September 2000 by Società Italia
Soc. Coop. a.r.l. against Commission of the European
                           Communities                                     Meanwhile, as a result of the irregularities found in the 1994
                                                                           inspection, in 1997 the Commission proceeded to discontinue
                                                                           one of the projects checked, namely, the project relating to the
                         (Case T-305/00)                                   Massalombarda plant. That company having been acquired by
                                                                           the applicant, it fell to an undertaking which had no connection
                                                                           at all with the matter to bear the burden of the decision.
                         (2000/C 355/73)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                        In support of its claims the applicant pleads:
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  —      that the contested decision is unlawful for want of
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                        reasoning;
European Communities on 21 September 2000 by Società
Italia Soc. Coop. a.r.l., established at S. Lazzaro di Savena,
represented by Maria Averani, Andrea Pisaneschi and Stefano
Zunarelli, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg              —      that the decision is unlawful and that the factual grounds
at the Chambers of Charles Turk, 13b Avenue Guillaume.                            were incorrectly determined, in that the Commission
                                                                                ought not to have considered it necessary to specify in its
                                                                                decision to which invoices it was referring;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —      that the Commission’s decision is unlawful on account of
—     annul, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 230
                                                                                misinterpretation of the obligations undertaken by the
      EC, the Commission’s decision of 11 July 2000;
                                                                                recipient and of infringement of the Community rules on
                                                                                the proper working of the market, and also on the criteria
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                                      for selecting projects suitable for financing;


title: Case F-11/05: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 29 June 2006 — Chassagne v Commission (Officials — Remuneration — Annual travel expenses — Provisions applicable before 1 May 2004 to officials originating from a French Overseas Department — Manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               12.8.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/33

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 29 June 2006 — Chassagne v Commission
   (Case F-11/05) (1)

   (Officials - Remuneration - Annual travel expenses - Provisions applicable before 1 May 2004 to officials originating from a French Overseas Department - Manifestly inadmissible)
   (2006/C 190/62)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Olivier Chassagne (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and Y. Minatchy, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and H. Tserepa-Lacombe, Agents)
   Re:
   First, annulment of the decision of the Commission of the European Communities refusing the applicant the benefit of Article 8(1) to (3) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations relating to the rules on reimbursement of annual travel expenses, in the version in force before 1 May 2004, and secondly, compensation for the damage which the applicant considers to have suffered as a result of that refusal
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Each of the parties shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 115 of 14.5.2006 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under number T-123/05 and transferred to the European Civil Service Tribunal by order of 15.12.2005).


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 July 2005 in Case C-370/03: Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities (EAGGF — Financial treatment to be applied in the context of clearance of expenditure financed)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/10

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 21 July 2005
   in Case C-370/03: Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (EAGGF - Financial treatment to be applied in the context of clearance of expenditure financed)
   (2005/C 217/18)
   Language of the case: Greek
   In Case C-370/03: Hellenic Republic (Agents: G. Kanellopoulos and V. Kontolaimos) v Commission of the European Communities (Agent: M. Condou-Durande, assisted by N. Korogiannakis) — ACTION for annulment under Article 230 EC, brought on 27 August 2003 — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, S. von Bahr, U. Lõhmus and A. Ó Caiomh, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 21 July 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision 2003/481/EC of 27 June 2003 on the financial treatment to be applied, in the context of clearance of expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund Guarantee Section, in certain cases of irregularity by operators, in so far as it relates to the amount of GRD 14 272 278 (EUR 41 884.90) mentioned in Annex I thereto, headed ‘Amounts to be charged to the national budget’;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 251, 18.10.2003.