title: Joined Cases T-273/06 and T-297/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 July 2009 — ISD Polska and Others v Commission (State aid — Scheme for restructuring aid granted by the Republic of Poland to a steel producer — Decision declaring the aid to be in part incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery — Protocol No 8 on the restructuring of the Polish steel industry — Actions for annulment — Right of action — Period within which proceedings must be brought — Admissibility — Legitimate expectations — Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Rate of interest to be applied to the repayment of incompatible aid — Duty to cooperate closely with the Member State — Compound interest rate — Articles 9(4) and 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 794/2004)

text:
               15.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/17

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 July 2009 — ISD Polska and Others v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-273/06 and T-297/06) (1)

   (State aid - Scheme for restructuring aid granted by the Republic of Poland to a steel producer - Decision declaring the aid to be in part incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Protocol No 8 on the restructuring of the Polish steel industry - Actions for annulment - Right of action - Period within which proceedings must be brought - Admissibility - Legitimate expectations - Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Rate of interest to be applied to the repayment of incompatible aid - Duty to cooperate closely with the Member State - Compound interest rate - Articles 9(4) and 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 794/2004)
   2009/C 193/23
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants in Case T-273/06: ISD Polska sp. z o.o. (Warsaw Poland) and Industrial Union of Donbass Corp. (Donetsk Ukraine) (represented: initially by C. Rapin and E. Van den Haute, and subsequently by C. Rapin, E. Van den Haute and C. Pétermann, lawyers)

      Applicant in Case T-297/06: ISD Polska sp. z o.o. (formerly Majątek Hutniczy sp. z o.o.) (Warsaw) (represented: initially by C. Rapin and E. Van den Haute, and subsequently by C. Rapin, E. Van den Haute and C. Pétermann, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Giolito and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, Agents)

      Re:

   Partial annulment of Commission Decision 2006/937/EC of 5 July 2005 on State aid C 20/04 (ex NN 25/04) in favour of Huta Częstochowa S.A. (OJ 2006 L 366, p. 1) to the extent to which it declares some of that aid to be incompatible with the common market and orders the Republic of Poland to effect its recovery.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions;

               2.

               Orders ISD Polska sp. z o.o. and Industrial Union of Donbass Corp. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.


title: Case T-289/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 February 2008 — BUPA and Others v Commission (State aid — Risk equalisation scheme introduced by Ireland on the private medical insurance market — Aid system — Services of general economic interest — Article 86(2) EC — Commission decision not to raise objections — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Principles of necessity and proportionality)

text:
               29.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/25

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 February 2008 — BUPA and Others v Commission
   (Case T-289/03) (1)

   (State aid - Risk equalisation scheme introduced by Ireland on the private medical insurance market - Aid system - Services of general economic interest - Article 86(2) EC - Commission decision not to raise objections - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Principles of necessity and proportionality)
   (2008/C 79/48)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: British United Provident Association Ltd (BUPA) (London, United Kingdom); BUPA Insurance Ltd (London); and BUPA Ireland Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: N. Green QC, K. Bacon and J. Burke, Barristers, and B. Amory, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: initially N Khan and J. Flett, then N. Kahn and T. Scharf, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands represented by: N. Bel, Agent; Ireland (represented by: D. O'Hagan, Agent, with G. Hogan SC and E. Regan, Barrister); and Voluntary Health Insurance Board (Dublin) (represented by: D. Collins, G. FitzGerald and D. Clarke, Solicitors, and P. Gallagher SC)
   Re:
   Application by, inter alia, BUPA Ireland Ltd, a provider of private medical insurance services in Ireland, for annulment of the Commission's Decision C(2003)1322 final of 13 May 2003 not to raise objections under Article 4(2) and (3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [88 EC] (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1), concerning the establishment of a risk equalisation scheme (RES) in the Irish health insurance market (State aid N 46/2003 — Ireland).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders British United Provident Association Ltd (BUPA), BUPA Insurance Ltd and BUPA Ireland Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Commission and the Voluntary Health Insurance Board;

               3.

               Orders Ireland and the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 264, 1.11.2003.


title: Case T-34/06: Action brought on  24 January 2006  — Universal v Commission

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/51

         Action brought on 24 January 2006 — Universal v Commission
   (Case T-34/06)
   (2006/C 60/94)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Universal Corp. (Richmond, USA) [represented by: A. Riesenkampff, T. Reher, M. Holzhäuser, C. Swaak, M. Mollica, avocats]

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision C(2005) 4012 final, of 20 October 2005, relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) EC (Case COMP/C.38.281/B.2 — Raw Tobacco Italy) insofar as it is addressed to the applicant;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the contested Decision the Commission found that several companies, including the applicant and one of its indirect subsidiaries, infringed Article 81(1) EC by way of agreements and/or concerted practices in the Italian raw tobacco sector. On this basis, it imposed a fine on the applicant, jointly and severally with its subsidiary.
   In support of its application the applicant contends, firstly, that in the contested Decision the Commission adopted, without giving any explanation or objective justification, a diametrically opposed position to its own position in the Spanish raw tobacco case which involved the same parent/subsidiary relationship, the same time frame, the same commodity, the same buying prices and the same lack of involvement or knowledge by the applicant. On this basis the applicant considers that the Commission violated its obligation to state reasons, disregarded the principle of equal treatment and violated the applicant's legitimate expectations by imposing a fine on it for the infringement of its subsidiary.
   The applicant further argues that the Commission failed to prove to the requisite legal standard any decisive influence by the applicant on the commercial behaviour of its subsidiary. In this context, it submits that the Commission wrongly considered that requirements for reporting and for certain approvals confirm its exercise of decisive commercial influence over its subsidiary whereas this was not the case, due to the applicant's very decentralised structure and organisation.


title: Case C-215/15: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven kasatsionen sad — Bulgaria) — Vasilka Ivanova Gogova v Ilia Dimitrov Iliev (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Scope — Article 1(1)(b) — Attribution, exercise, delegation, restriction or termination of parental responsibility — Article 2 — Concept of parental responsibility — Dispute between parents on travel by their child and the issue of a passport to the child — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Article 12 — Conditions — Acceptance of the jurisdiction of the courts seised — Non-appearance of the defendant — Jurisdiction not contested by the defendant’s legal representative appointed by the courts seised of their own motion)

text:
               14.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 414/11

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven kasatsionen sad — Bulgaria) — Vasilka Ivanova Gogova v Ilia Dimitrov Iliev
   (Case C-215/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Scope - Article 1(1)(b) - Attribution, exercise, delegation, restriction or termination of parental responsibility - Article 2 - Concept of parental responsibility - Dispute between parents on travel by their child and the issue of a passport to the child - Prorogation of jurisdiction - Article 12 - Conditions - Acceptance of the jurisdiction of the courts seised - Non-appearance of the defendant - Jurisdiction not contested by the defendant’s legal representative appointed by the courts seised of their own motion))
   (2015/C 414/14)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Varhoven kasatsionen sad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Vasilka Ivanova Gogova

      Defendant: Ilia Dimitrov Iliev

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               An action in which one parent asks the court to remedy the lack of agreement of the other parent to their child travelling outside his Member State of residence and a passport being issued in the child’s name is within the material scope of 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, even though the decision in that action will have to be taken into account by the authorities of the Member State of which the child is a national in the administrative procedure for the issue of that passport.

               2.

               Article 12(3)(b) of Regulation No 2201/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that the jurisdiction of the courts seised of an application in matters of parental responsibility may not be regarded as having been ‘accepted expressly or otherwise in an unequivocal manner by all the parties to the proceedings’ within the meaning of that provision solely because the legal representative of the defendant, appointed by those courts of their own motion in view of the impossibility of serving the document instituting proceedings on the defendant, has not pleaded the lack of jurisdiction of those courts.

      (1)  OJ C 236, 20.7.2015.


title: Case T-47/16 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 25 August 2017 — Sigma Orionis v REA (Application for interim measures — Arbitration clause — Horizon 2020 Framework Program for Research and Innovation — Decision to suspend payments and terminate grant contracts following a financial audit — Amounts allegedly due by the REA in the context of the implementation of the grant contracts — Claim for damages — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Lack of urgency — Balancing of interests)

text:
               9.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 338/14

         Order of the President of the General Court of 25 August 2017 — Sigma Orionis v REA
   (Case T-47/16 R)
   ((Application for interim measures - Arbitration clause - Horizon 2020 Framework Program for Research and Innovation - Decision to suspend payments and terminate grant contracts following a financial audit - Amounts allegedly due by the REA in the context of the implementation of the grant contracts - Claim for damages - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Lack of urgency - Balancing of interests))
   (2017/C 338/13)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

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

      Defendant: Research Executive Agency (REA) (represented by: S. Payan-Lagrou and V. Canetti, acting as Agents, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU and asking for immediate payment by the REA of a sum under the ‘FET-Event’ grant agreement.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-481/11: Action brought on 6 September 2011 — Spain v Commission

text:
               29.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/25

         Action brought on 6 September 2011 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-481/11)
   2011/C 319/53
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the fifth indent of Point D of Part 2(VI) of Annex I to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors and,

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of hierarchy of norms

                           —

                           The applicant submits that the contested regulation is contrary to the provisions of Article 113(2)(a) of the Council Regulation of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a misuse of powers

                           —

                           It is alleged in this regard that the Commission, by adopting the contested measure, acted with the main purpose of achieving an end other than that stated, since it departed from the applicable standard adopted by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE).

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to state reasons

                           —

                           It is alleged in this regard that the contested measure has unclear reasoning, which justifies a decision contrary to that finally adopted.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of equal treatment

                           —

                           It is alleged in this regard that the contested measure makes the marketing of citrus fruit subject to conditions that are more stringent than for other fruit and vegetables, without justification.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality

                           —

                           It is alleged in this regard that the contested measure imposes a more stringent labelling condition on the basis of flawed reasoning that cannot justify the decision finally adopted.

      (1)  OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1/49; last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 513/2010 of 15 June 2010 (OJ L 150, 16.6.2010, p. 40) and Regulation (EU) No 1234/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2010 (OJ L 346, 30.12.2010, p. 11).


title: Case C-551/10 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 November 2012 — Éditions Odile Jacob SAS v European Commission, Lagardère SCA (Appeal — Concentrations of undertakings in the book publishing market — Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 — Nominee holding agreement — Ineffective grounds)

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/8

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 November 2012 — Éditions Odile Jacob SAS v European Commission, Lagardère SCA
   (Case C-551/10 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Concentrations of undertakings in the book publishing market - Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 - Nominee holding agreement - Ineffective grounds)
   2013/C 9/10
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Éditions Odile Jacob SAS (represented by: O. Fréget, M. Struys, M. Potel and L. Eskenazi, avocats)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet, O. Beynet and S. Noë, acting as Agents), Lagardère SCA (represented by: A. Winckler, F. de Bure and J. B. Pinçon, avocats)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of 13 September 2010 in Case T-279/04 Éditions Jacob v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed Odile Jacob’s action for annulment of Commission Decision 2004/422/EC of 7 January 2004 declaring a concentration compatible with the common market and the functioning of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Case COMP/M.2978 — Lagardère/Natexis/VUP) — Manifest error of assessment — Breach of the principles of legal certainty, protection of legitimate expectations and equal treatment

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Éditions Odile Jacob SAS to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 46, 12.2.2011.


title: Case T-527/13: Action brought on 30 September 2013 — Italy v Commission

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/66

         Action brought on 30 September 2013 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-527/13)
   2013/C 344/121
   Language of the procedure: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: S. Fiorentino, P. Grasso, lawyers, and G. Palmieri, Agent)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision C(2013) 4046 final of 17 July 2013, notified on 18 July 2013, on State Aid SA.33726 (11/C) [ex SA.33726 (11/NN)] granted by Italy (Deferral of payment of the milk levy in Italy);

               —

               in the alternative, annul the part of that decision (points (b),(c) and (d) of Article 2(4)) by which the obligation to recover aid is extended to cover the aid resulting from Council Decision No 2003/530/EC;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Italian Government contests Commission Decision C(2013) 4046 final of 17 July 2013, notified on 18 July 2013, relating to State Aid SA.33726 (11/C) [ex SA.33726 (11/NN)] granted by Italy (Deferral of payment of the milk levy in Italy).
   By that decision, the European Commission:

               —

               declared that the deferral of payment of the milk levy due by 31 December 2010, adopted by Italy in that very month (December 2010), constitutes – also on account of the procedure to be followed for its implementation – State aid incompatible with the internal market;

               —

               declared that that deferral of payment amounted to failure to respect the conditions laid down in Council Decision No 2003/530/EC, constituting in consequence State aid incompatible with the internal market;

               —

               directed Italy to arrange to have the incompatible aid, together with interest, refunded by the beneficiaries of the deferral of payment.

         In support of the action, the applicant puts forward two pleas:

               1.

               First plea: infringement of Article 3(7) of Commission Regulation No 1535/2007 of 20 December 2007 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid in the sector of agricultural production (OJ 2007 L 337, p. 35).

                           —

                           The applicant claims in that regard that the contested decision applied that provision on the basis of the erroneous assumption that the existing aid, authorised by Council Decision No 2003/530/EC of 16 July 2003, constituted the maximum amount that could be granted to milk producers and that, accordingly, any additional aid measure — even falling within the de minimis exception (and even entailing only an absolutely marginal amount) — would mean that, ipso jure, the aggregate amount of the aid would exceed the permissible level.

               2.

               Second plea: infringement of Article 3(2) of Commission Regulation No 1535/2007, Article 1(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1) and Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 2004 L 140, p. 1), and failure to state adequate reasons.

                           —

                           The applicant claims in that regard that the contested decision applied Article 3(2) of Commission Regulation No 1535/2007 — which concerns the aggregation of various forms of aid, each of which, considered in isolation, comes within the de minimis exception — to a case in which the de minimis aid was added to existing aid. Furthermore, the decision erred by characterising the contested measure as an alteration of existing aid, which is significant for the purposes of Article 1(c) of Council Regulation No 659/1999. The six-month deferral of the deadline for paying one of the annual instalments constituted a separate measure and, in any event, did not result in a substantial alteration of the existing aid. Moreover, it did not culminate in an increase exceeding 20 % of the existing aid scheme’s original budget and had no bearing on the assessment of the compatibility of that aid scheme. In any event, the Commission failed to provide adequate reasons as regards those points.


title: Case C-329/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Sezione Terza (Italy) lodged on 5 July 2010 — ENI SpA v Autorità Per l’Energia Elettrica e il Gas e Cassa Conguaglio Per il Settore Elettrico

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Sezione Terza (Italy) lodged on 5 July 2010 — ENI SpA v Autorità Per l’Energia Elettrica e il Gas e Cassa Conguaglio Per il Settore Elettrico
   (Case C-329/10)
   ()
   2010/C 346/40
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Sezione Terza

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: ENI SpA

      Defendant: Autorità Per l’Energia Elettrica e il Gas e Cassa Conguaglio Per il Settore Elettrico

      Question referred

   Do Articles 23, 43, 49 and 56 of the Treaty and Article 11(2) and (6) and Article 24 of Directive 54/03/EC (1) preclude national legislation which, without the European Commission having been notified, requires on a permanent basis certain electricity producers which are, in certain circumstances, essential for the purpose of meeting the requirements of the demand for dispatching services, to submit bids on the energy exchange markets, in accordance with programmes determined by the network operator in accordance with external rules, and which prevents producers from freely determining the remuneration for such bids by linking the remuneration to criteria that have not been pre-determined according to transparent, non-discriminatory and market-based procedures?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 176, p. 37


title: Case F-4/08: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 12 March 2009 — Hambura v Parliament (Staff case — Temporary staff — Recruitment — Selection procedure — Non-admission — Recruitment notice PE/95/S — Failure to use the application form in the OJ — Admissibility — Prior administrative procedure)

text:
               1.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/39

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 12 March 2009 — Hambura v Parliament
   (Case F-4/08) (1)

   (Staff case - Temporary staff - Recruitment - Selection procedure - Non-admission - Recruitment notice PE/95/S - Failure to use the application form in the Official Journal of the European Union - Admissibility - Prior administrative procedure)
   2009/C 102/57
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Johannes Hambura (Soultzbach, France) (represented by: S. Hambura, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: S. Seyr and K. Zejdová, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of the Personnel Directorate of 5 December 2007 not to accept the applicant’s application, annulment of competition PE/95/S, sector: doctor, and to recommence the competition process allowing the use of a downloaded application form.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Hambura to pay all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008, p. 50.


title: Case T-338/13: Action brought on 21 June 2013 — Energa Power Trading v Commission

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/37

         Action brought on 21 June 2013 — Energa Power Trading v Commission
   (Case T-338/13)
   2013/C 252/62
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Energa Power Trading Promitheias kai Emporias Energeias AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare and rule that the Commission has failed to fulfill its obligations under the Treaty, since, despite having been formally requested to do so, it failed to define its position on the complaint lodged on 9 December 2010, concerning State aid which the Greek authorities unlawfully granted to DEI; and

               —

               Order that the Commission bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging that the Commission has failed to act in relation to the alleged illegal State aid granted in favour of DEI.
   By omitting to take a position — positive or negative — on the applicant’s complaint alleging illegal state aid granted in favour of DEI despite the submission of a formal notice for after a period of more than 28 months (and at any rate more than 26 months), the Commission has failed to close the preliminary investigation within reasonable time. To the extent that the aforementioned delay may not justified by reference to any exceptional circumstances the Commission has failed to act despite its respective exclusive competence, thus contravening the relate provisions of the Treaty (namely, Articles 106, 107 and 265 TFEU) and Council Regulation No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty.


title: Case T-203/13 P: Order of the General Court of 27 November 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Action at first instance dismissed as manifestly inadmissible — Application lodged by fax within the time-limit for brining proceedings and signed by a seal reproducing the lawyer’s signature — Original application lodged out of time — Action out of time — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/33

         Order of the General Court of 27 November 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-203/13 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil service - Action at first instance dismissed as manifestly inadmissible - Application lodged by fax within the time-limit for brining proceedings and signed by a seal reproducing the lawyer’s signature - Original application lodged out of time - Action out of time - Appeal manifestly unfounded)
   2014/C 45/55
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

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

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Gattinara, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 28 January 2013 in Case F-92/12 Marcuccio v Commission, not published in the ECR, seeking to have that order set aside.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Luigi Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the appeal proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 156, 1.6.2013.


title: Case T-393/06: Action brought on 18 December 2006 — Makhteshim Agan Holding and others v Commission

text:
               27.1.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 20/36

         Action brought on 18 December 2006 — Makhteshim Agan Holding and others v Commission
   (Case T-393/06)
   (2007/C 20/56)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: Makhteshim Agan Holding BV (Amsterdam, The Nederlands), Makhteshim Agan Italia Srl (Bergamo, Italy) and Magan Italia Srl (Bergamo, Italy) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of Commission Decision D/531125, of 12 October 2006;

               —

               order the defendant to comply with its obligations under Community law and review and use all available data, including human data, to ensure the inclusion of azinphos-methyl in Annex I to the PPPD;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses in these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By means of their application, the applicants seek annulment of Commission Decision D/531125 set forth in a letter of 12 October 2006, addressed to the agency within the rapporteur Member State responsible for the review of the active substance azinphos-methyl under the framework of Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plants protection products on the market (hereinafter, the ‘PPPD’) (1), in which the defendant states it will not take a decision on the approval and inclusion of the active substance concerned in Annex I of the said directive and further indicates that in the absence of approval at Community level by the date laid down in Article 8, paragraph 2, of the PPPD, there would no longer be any legal basis for keeping the substance on the market.
   The applicants claim that the contested decision amounts to a de facto and de jure ban of azinphos-methyl, insofar as it unambiguously states that no further decision on the inclusion of the substance in Annex I of the PPPD will be taken and in that it aims to achieve an azinphos-methyl marketing ban through the defendant's inactivity until the expiration of the set time-limit for approval.
   The applicants further submit that the contested decision jeopardises their rights to a fair consideration of the substance at stake in the light of state-of-the-art scientific studies submitted by them. In addition, by depriving the applicants of their right to re-register and continue selling their products in the Member States, the defendant allegedly breached the principle of proportionality as well as their fundamental right to carry out their business activities thereby interfering with their property right.
   Moreover, the applicants contend that the contested decision is vitiated by substantial procedural flaws. Precisely, the defendant's lack of initiative in making a proposal regarding the inclusion of azinphos-methyl in Annex I to the PPPD, as well as the marketing ban it aims to achieve by its inactivity, violate Article 5, paragraph 2, of Council Decision 1999/468/EC (2) and Article 8, paragraph 2, of the PPPD.
   Finally, should the Court consider that the contested decision is not a challengeable act under Article 230, paragraph 4, EC, the applicants submit that their action should still be declared admissible under Article 232 EC, insofar as the defendant's inactivity constitutes an unlawful failure to act.

      (1)  OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1

      (2)  Council Decision 1999/468/EC laying out the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission, OJ (1999) L 184, p. 23


title: Case T-188/09: Action brought on 12 May 2009 — Galileo International Technology v OHIM — Residencias Universitarias (GALILEO)

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/53

         Action brought on 12 May 2009 — Galileo International Technology v OHIM — Residencias Universitarias (GALILEO)
   (Case T-188/09)
   2009/C 180/98
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Galileo International Technology LLC (Bridgetown, Barbados) (represented by: M. Blair and K. Gilbert, Solicitors)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Residencias Universitarias, SA (Valencia, Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 February 2009 in case R 471/2005-4; and

               —

               Order OHIM and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay their own costs and those incurred by the applicant

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark “GALILEO”, for goods and services in classes 9, 39, 41 and 42

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited: Spanish trade mark registrations of the figurative mark “GALILEO GALILEI” for services in classes 39, 41 and 42, respectively

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 (which became Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 207/2009) as the Board of Appeal committed a procedural error under Article 63(2) of Council Regulation 40/94 (which became Article 65(2) of Council Regulation 207/2009) by failing to remit the case back to the Opposition Division; Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal failed to carry out a proper assessment of the likelihood of confusion and incorrectly concluded that the applicant did not argue at all against the reasoning of the Opposition Division on this point; The Board of Appeal erred in its assessment of the similarity and the likelihood of confusion of the trade marks concerned and failed to provide proper reasons for its findings.


title: Case C-541/07: Action brought on 30 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/38

         Action brought on 30 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-541/07)
   (2008/C 22/67)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Patakia)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by prohibiting in Decree 12078/1343 of 3 March 2004 of the Minister for Transport, as interpreted on the basis of Circular 45007/4795 of 28 July 2004 issued by the Directorate for Road Safety and the Environment, window films which are manufactured and/or sold lawfully on the market of other Member States of the European Union from being placed on vehicle windows generally, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 and 30 of the EC Treaty;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               Following a complaint, the Commission examined the Greek legislation which prohibits the placing of window films on vehicle windscreens and on their windows generally.

               2.

               The Commission takes the view that that prohibition does not fall within the field of application of Directive 92/22/EEC, as amended by Directive 2001/92/EC, and must be examined in the context of Articles 28 and 30 in the absence of harmonisation at Community level.

               3.

               That prohibition constitutes a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on the free movement of goods that is contrary to Article 28 EC, given that it constitutes in practice an obstacle to trade in Greece in such films which are lawfully manufactured and in circulation in other Member States.

               4.

               The Commission also observes that the Greek authorities have not succeeded in adducing sufficient evidence as to the justification for the measure and as to the simultaneous observance of proportionality.

               5.

               More specifically, it has not been proved that criteria exist for establishing, on the carrying out of checks, whether the films in question meet certain minimum conditions, in accordance with the submissions of the Greek authorities.

               6.

               Consequently, the Commission considers that the legislation in question constitutes an infringement of Article 28 EC that cannot be justified on the basis of Article 30 EC or by overriding reasons relating to the public interest within the meaning of the Court of Justice's case-law.


title: Case T-323/09: Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2010 — Commission v Irish Electricity Generating (Arbitration clause — Contract concluded in the framework of a specific programme for research and technological development, including demonstration, in the field of non-nuclear energy (1994 to 1998) — Non-performance of the contract — Reimbursement of the sums advanced — Late-payment interest — Procedure by default)

text:
               5.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2010 — Commission v Irish Electricity Generating
   (Case T-323/09) (1)

   (Arbitration clause - Contract concluded in the framework of a specific programme for research and technological development, including demonstration, in the field of non-nuclear energy (1994 to 1998) - Non-performance of the contract - Reimbursement of the sums advanced - Late-payment interest - Procedure by default)
   2011/C 38/23
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët and F. Mirza, Agents, and by U. O’Dwyer and A. Martin, Solicitors)

      Defendant: Irish Electricity Generating Co. Ltd (Waterford, Ireland)

      Re:

   Application under an arbitration clause seeking an order that Irish Electricity Generating Co. Ltd repay the sum of EUR 180 664,70 corresponding to part of the advances paid to it by the Commission under contract No WE/178/97/IE/GB, together with late-payment interest

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Orders Irish Electricity Generating Co. Ltd to repay to the European Commission the sum of EUR 180 664,70, together with late-payment interest:

                           —

                           at the rate of 5,56 % per annum from 25 August 2003 to the date of the present judgment;

                           —

                           at the annual rate applied under Irish law, that is to say, currently section 26 of the Debtors (Ireland) Act, 1840, as amended, up to a rate of 5,56 % per annum from the date of the present judgment until full clearance of the debt;

               2.

               Orders Irish Electricity Generating Co. Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 256, 24.10.2009.


title: Case F-40/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 19 June 2013 — CF v EASA (Civil service — Former member of the temporary staff — Fixed-term contract — Dismissal during sick leave — Article 16 of the CEOS — Article 48(b)of the CEOS — Psychological harassment)

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/46

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 19 June 2013 — CF v EASA
   (Case F-40/12) (1)

   (Civil service - Former member of the temporary staff - Fixed-term contract - Dismissal during sick leave - Article 16 of the CEOS - Article 48(b)of the CEOS - Psychological harassment)
   2013/C 252/80
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: CF (Bierges, Belgium) (represented by: A. Schwend, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Aviation Safety Agency (represented by: F. Manuhutu, Agent and D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application to annul the decision to dismiss the applicant and application for compensation for damage claimed to be suffered because of that dismissal and alleged harassment.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of 24 May 2011 whereby the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment for the European Aviation Safety Agency terminated CF’s contract as a member of the temporary staff;

               2.

               Orders the European Aviation Safety Agency to pay CF the sum of EUR 88 189,76 by way of compensation for her non-material damage;

               3.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               4.

               Orders the European Aviation Safety Agency to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs incurred by CF;

               5.

               Orders CF to bear one quarter of its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 184, 23.6.2012, p.24


title: Case T-111/07: Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2010 — Agrofert Holding v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to a procedure concerning a merger between undertakings — Refusal to grant access)

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/35

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2010 — Agrofert Holding v Commission
   (Case T-111/07) (1)

   (Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to a procedure concerning a merger between undertakings - Refusal to grant access)
   2010/C 221/54
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Agrofert Holding a.s. (Pyšelská, Czech Republic) (represented by: R. Pokorný and D. Šalek, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: X. Lewis and P. Costa de Oliveira, and subsequently by P. Costa de Oliveira and V. Bottka, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented initially by A. Kruse and S. Johannesson, and subsequently by S. Johannesson, Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by J. Himmanen, A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, J. Heliskoski and M. Pere, Agents), Kingdom of Denmark (represented by B. Weis Fogh, Agent)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Polski Koncern Naftowy Orlen SA, (Płock, Poland), (represented by S. Sołtysiński, K. Michałowska and M. Olechowski, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of, first, the Commission’s decision of 2 August 2006 refusing the applicant access to documents concerning the notification and pre notification procedure in relation to the acquisition of Unipetrol by Polski Koncern Naftowy Orlen SA (COMP/M.3543) and, second, Commission Decision D(2007) 1360 of 13 February 2007 confirming that refusal

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that the head of claim seeking annulment of the reply of the European Commission of 2 August 2006 and that requesting the Court to order the Commission to provide the applicant with the documents requested are inadmissible;

               2.

               Annuls Commission Decision D(2007) 1360 of 13 February 2007 refusing access to documents in Case COMP/M.3543 concerning the merger between Polski Koncern Naftowy Orlen SA and Unipetrol, exchanged between the Commission and the notifying parties and between the Commission and third parties, and refusing access to the internal documents and legal advice drawn up in that case;

               3.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs;

               4.

               Orders the Kingdom of Sweden, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Denmark and Polski Koncern Naftowy Orlen to bear their own respective costs.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.


title: Case F-47/06: Action brought on  8 May 2006  — Aimi and Others v Commission

text:
               1.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 154/25

         Action brought on 8 May 2006 — Aimi and Others v Commission
   (Case F-47/06)
   (2006/C 154/59)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Naomi Aimi (Evere, Belgium) and Others (represented by: A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the individual decisions rejecting the applicants' requests that the appointing authority adopt transitional measures in order to ensure, in the context of the 2005 and subsequent promotion exercises, equal treatment and their acquired rights;

               —

               order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of their application, the applicants claim that in rejecting their requests that it adopt transitional measures with the aim of taking account of their individual situations resulting from the creation of supplementary grades, the defendant disregarded their right to reasonable career prospects in the same conditions as their colleagues in the same category and also their acquired rights, in so far as their career prospects were significantly altered.
   The applicants further plead an absence of relevant reasons, in that the defendant did not respond to the pleas and arguments set out in their requests and complaints.


title: Case C-520/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from House of Lords (United Kingdom) made on 20 December 2006 — Stringer and others v Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from House of Lords (United Kingdom) made on 20 December 2006 — Stringer and others v Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
   (Case C-520/06)
   (2007/C 56/33)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   House of Lords
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Stringer and others

      Defendant: Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
   Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC (1) mean that a worker on indefinite sick leave is entitled (i) to designate a future period as paid annual leave and (ii) to take paid annual leave, in either case during a period that would otherwise be sick leave?

               2.

               If a Member State exercises its discretion to replace the minimum period of paid annual leave with an allowance in lieu on termination of employment under Article 7(2) of Directive 2003/88/EEC, in circumstances in which a worker has been absent on sick leave for all or part of the leave year in which the employment relationship is terminated, does Article 7(2) impose any requirements or lay down any criteria as to whether the allowance is to be paid or how it is to be calculated?

      (1)  OJ L 299, p. 9.


title: Case C-606/16 P: Appeal brought on 24 November 2016 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 15 September 2016 in Case T-80/14: PT Musim Mas v Council

text:
               30.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/35

         Appeal brought on 24 November 2016 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 15 September 2016 in Case T-80/14: PT Musim Mas v Council
   (Case C-606/16 P)
   (2017/C 030/39)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: H. Marcos Fraile, Agent, N. Tuominen, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: PT Perindustrian dan Perdagangan Musim Semi Mas (PT Musim Mas), European Commission, European Biodiesel Board (EBB)

      Form of order sought

   The Appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016, notified to the Council on 16 September 2016, in Case T-80/14, PT Perindustrian dan Perdagangan Musim Semi Mas (PT Musim Mas) v Council of the European Union;

               —

               reject the application at first instance for the annulment of the Contested Regulation; and

               —

               order the Applicant to pay the Council's respective costs both at first instance and on appeal.

         Alternatively,

               —

               refer the cases back to the General Court for reconsideration;

               —

               reserve costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

                  First, the General Court applied the wrong legal test when assessing whether the Council had evidence to decide that domestic raw materials prices contained in the records of the relevant Indonesian exporters were sufficiently distorted to justify disregarding them and having recourse to the methodology provided by Article 2(5) of the Basic Regulation (1), second paragraph. In doing so, the General Court has imposed too high a burden of proof on the Institution.

               2.

                  Second, the General Court’s finding that the evidence adduced by the Institutions was not sufficient to show that there was an appreciable distortion of the prices of the main raw materials in Indonesia as a result of the DET system lacks proper reasoning.

               3.

                  Third, the operative part of the Contested Judgment annulling the anti-dumping duties in so far as they concern the Applicant is disproportionate to the only ground for annulment admitted by the General Court and gives undue effects to the finding of illegality.

               4.

               The Council will demonstrate that the Contested Judgment is vitiated by several errors of law affecting its validity. In addition, the Council submits that the facts underlying the Applicant’s second part of the second plea are sufficiently established so that the Court of Justice can decide on this plea and dismiss the application.

               5.

               The Council therefore respectfully requests that the Contested Judgment should be set aside and the application for annulment of the Contested Regulation by the Applicant at first instance, dismissed.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009, L 343, p. 51) (‘Basic Regulation’).


title: Cases T-433/11 and T-98/12: Order of the General Court of 10 June 2014  — Makhlouf v Council

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/66

         Order of the General Court of 10 June 2014 — Makhlouf v Council
   (Cases T-433/11 and T-98/12) (1)

   2014/C 253/90
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 290, 1.10.2011.


title: Case T-24/13: Action brought on 21 January 2013 — Cactus/OHIM — Del Rio Rodríguez (CACTUS OF PEACE CACTUS DE LA PAZ)

text:
               6.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 101/20

         Action brought on 21 January 2013 — Cactus/OHIM — Del Rio Rodríguez (CACTUS OF PEACE CACTUS DE LA PAZ)
   (Case T-24/13)
   2013/C 101/43
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Cactus SA (Bertrange, Luxembourg) (represented by: K. Manhaeve, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Isabel Del Rio Rodríguez (Malaga, Spain)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 19 October 2012;

               —

               Order the Defendant and — if applicable — Isabel Del Rio Rodriguez to jointly and severally pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘CACTUS OF PEACE CACTUS DE LA PAZ’, for goods and services in classes 31, 39 and 44 — Community trade mark application No 8 489 643

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 963 694 of the word mark ‘CACTUS’ for goods and services in classes 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 16, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 39, 41 and 42

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part and application rejected in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the appealed decision and rejection of the opposition in its entirety

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 76(1) and (2) and 75 of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-253/09: Action brought on 26 June 2009 — Wilo SE v OHIM (shape of a motor casing)

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/44

         Action brought on 26 June 2009 — Wilo SE v OHIM (shape of a motor casing)
   (Case T-253/09)
   2009/C 205/80
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Wilo SE (Dortmund, Germany) (represented by G. Braun)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 March 2009 in Case R 1184/2008-1;

               —

               Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: a three-dimensional mark representing the casing of a motor of a heating pump, for goods in Classes 7 and 11 (Application No 5 805 692)

      Decision of the Examiner: rejection of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (CE) No 207/2009 (1))as the mark applied for has the requisite distinctive character

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


title: Case F-19/06: Action brought on  20 February 2006  — Semeraro v Commission

text:
               6.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/30

         Action brought on 20 February 2006 — Semeraro v Commission
   (Case F-19/06)
   (2006/C 108/56)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Maria Magdalena Semeraro ((Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L.Vogel, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the appointing authority of 8 November 2005 rejecting the applicant's complaint of 12 August 2005 against the career development report (‘CDR’) given to her for 2004;

               —

               in so far as necessary, annul also that report;

               —

               order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, an official of the Commission promoted to Grade C*6 on 30 November 2004, was awarded, in the context of the assessment exercise for 2004, a number of merit points that was very much lower than in previous years.
   Since her complaint on that subject had been rejected, the applicant brought the present action in which she puts forward three pleas.
   The first plea alleges a breach of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations and Article 9(7) of the general provisions implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations. The applicant claims, in particular, that the appeal assessor simply maintained the CDR as it was, without answering the objections and observations of the Joint Appraisal Committee with facts specific to the individual case.
   The second plea alleges a breach of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, of Article 1(2) of the general implementing provisions, of the principle of proportionality and of the principle of non-discrimination, and a manifest error of assessment. First, the reduction in the merit points in respect of the 2004 exercise does not accord with the fact that the analytical assessments provided have remained the same as for previous exercises. Second, the justification put forward by the administration, that the reduction is explained by the fact of the applicant's promotion at the end of 2004, is of no relevance.
   The third plea alleges a breach of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations, of Article 10(3) of Annex XIII thereto, and of Article 9(7) of the general implementing provisions, and a manifest error of assessment. In particular, the appraiser, the counter-signing officer and the appeal assessor did not provide sufficient reasons when giving a negative answer to the question of the applicant's suitability to assume category B* duties.


title: Case T-485/08 P: Appeal brought on 13 November 2008 by Paul Lafili against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 4 September 2008 in Case F-22/07 Lafili v Commission

text:
               24.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/31

         Appeal brought on 13 November 2008 by Paul Lafili against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 4 September 2008 in Case F-22/07 Lafili v Commission
   (Case T-485/08 P)
   (2009/C 19/59)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Paul Lafili (Genk, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought by the appellant
   The appellant claims the Court should:

               —

               annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 4 September 2008 in Case F-22/07 in so far as it rejected the pleas in law alleging infringement of Articles 44 and 46 of the Staff Regulations and Article 7 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations and an infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations;

               —

               consequently, allow the appellant's claims at first instance and, therefore,

                           —

                           the annulment of the decision to classify the appellant in Grade AD 13, step 5, contained in a note of DG ADMIN of 11 May 2006 and in the appellant's salary slip of June 2006 and in his subsequent salary slips;

                           —

                           leading to:

                                       —

                                       the reinstatement, with effect from 1 May 2006, of the applicant in grade AD 13, step 2, retaining the multiplication factor 1.1172071;

                                       —

                                       the full restructuring of the appellant's career with retroactive effect from 1 May 2006 to the date of his classification in grade and step as thus corrected (including the valuation of his experience in his classification as thus corrected, his rights of advancement to a higher step and his pension rights), which includes the payment of default interest at the base rate fixed by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, applicable during the period concerned, increased by two points, on the total sum of the difference between the remuneration for his classification as set out in the classification decision and the classification to which he should have been entitled until the date on which the decision on his corrected classification is taken;

                           —

                           the order that the Commission is to pay all the costs;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all the costs at first instance and of the appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By this appeal, the appellant is seeking the annulment of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) of 4 September 2008, given in Case F-22/07 Lafili v Commission, by which the CST annulled the decision of the Head of Unit A6 ‘Career structure, evaluation and promotion’ in the ‘Personnel and Administration’ General-Directorate of the Commission of the European Communities of 11 May 2006, in so far as the judgment under appeal rejects the appellant's pleas in law alleging infringement of Articles 44 and 46 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities (‘the Staff Regulations’) and Article 7 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations and an infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations.
   In support of his appeal, the appellant raised a single plea alleging the infringement, at first instance, of Articles 44 and 46 of the Staff Regulations, of Article 7 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, the infringement of the principles of interpretation of Community law and of the obligation to state reasons, and a distortion of the evidence.


title: Case T-17/03: Action brought on 16 January 2003 by Schmitz-Gotha Fahrzeugwerke GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
24.5.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 124/21
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         of 6 March 2003
                                                                           —     annul Commission Decision of 30 October 2002 (C 31/
                                                                                2001 (ex NN 156/1999 and N 288/1998));
in Case T-226/00 DEP and T-227/00 DEP: Nan Ya Plastics
Corporation and Far Eastern Textiles Ltd v Council of the
                       European Union ( 1)                                 —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                        (Taxation of costs)
                         (2003/C 124/37)
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           In the contested decision the Commission found that the
In Cases T-226/00 DEP and T-227/00 DEP: Nan Ya Plastics                    applicant had received public funds from the Federal Republic
Corporation, established in Taipei, Taiwan (China), and Far                of Germany in the amount of DEM 6 636 000, which were
Eastern Textiles Ltd, established in Taipei, represented by P. De          regarded as State aid. The Commission ordered the Federal
Baere, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, v                Republic of Germany to recover from the applicant aid in
Council of the European Union (Agents: S. Marquardt and G.                 the amount of EUR 1 120 000 together with interest. The
Berrisch): Application for taxation of the costs to be paid by             Commission takes the view that the aid was not kept to a
the defendant to the applicants following the orders made by               minimum and, in support of that view, refers to the acquisition
the Court of First Instance on 19 September 2001 in Case                   by the applicant of a holding in a supply business.
T-226/00 Nan Ya Plastics v Council and Case T-227/00 Far
Eastern Textiles v Council, not published in the European
Court Reports, the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber,
Extended Composition), composed of: R. García-Valdecasas,
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Commission has abused its
President, P. Lindh, R.M. Moura Ramos, J.D. Cooke and H.
                                                                           discretion by ordering the recovery of aid.
Legal, Judges, Registrar: H. Jung, has made an order on 6 March
2003, the operative part of which is as follows:
The amount of costs to be paid by the Council to the applicants in         The applicant submits that the Commission’s assumption that
Cases T-226/00 and T-227/00 is fixed at EUR 43 000.                        the acquisition of the shareholding was merely beneficial to
                                                                           the success of the restructuring, but not necessary, is incorrect.
                                                                           The acquisition of that shareholding was an integral part of
( 1) OJ C 316 of 04.11.2000.
                                                                           the restructuring plan of the investors; only in that way, could
                                                                           they acquire in the short term know-how of the applicant’s
                                                                           business to ensure the success of the restructuring within a
                                                                           reasonable period.
Action brought on 16 January 2003 by Schmitz-Gotha                         Furthermore, the applicant claims that the Commission wrong-
Fahrzeugwerke GmbH against the Commission of the                           ly assumes that the profits from the acquisition of the
                     European Communities                                  shareholding were not taken into account in the investors’
                                                                           business plan. The profits were taken into account in the
                          (Case T-17/03)                                   investors’ plan as part of the expected growth in the applicant’s
                                                                           profits.
                         (2003/C 124/38)
                   (Language of the case: German)                          Finally, the applicant submits that even if the need to acquire
                                                                           the shareholding is denied, the order requiring repayment of
                                                                           the part sum of DEM 700 000 was an abuse of discretion,
                                                                           because liquid capital of the undertaking of that amount was
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  directly available in return for the purchase price.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 16 January 2003 by Schmitz-
Gotha Fahrzeugwerke GmbH, Gotha (Germany), represented
by M. Matzat, lawyer.


title: Case C-12/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 10 January 2017 — Maria Dicu v Ministerul Justiției, Consiliul Superior al Magistraturi, Curtea de Apel Suceava, Tribunalul Botoșani

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/33

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 10 January 2017 — Maria Dicu v Ministerul Justiției, Consiliul Superior al Magistraturi, Curtea de Apel Suceava, Tribunalul Botoșani
   (Case C-12/17)
   (2017/C 104/48)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Cluj

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Maria Dicu

      Defendants: Ministerul Justiției, Consiliul Superior al Magistraturi, Curtea de Apel Suceava, Tribunalul Botoșani

      Question referred

   Must Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC (1) be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law which, in determining the duration of a worker’s annual leave, does not consider the period of parental leave for a child under two a period of service completed?

      (1)  Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9).


title: Joined Cases T-427/04 and T-17/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 November 2009 — France v Commission (State aid — France Télécom’s business tax regime for the years 1994 to 2002 — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery — Advantage — Limitation period — Legitimate expectations — Legal certainty — Breach of essential procedural requirements — Collegiality — Rights of defence and procedural rights of other interested parties)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/46

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 November 2009 — France v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-427/04 and T-17/05) (1)

   (State aid - France Télécom’s business tax regime for the years 1994 to 2002 - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Advantage - Limitation period - Legitimate expectations - Legal certainty - Breach of essential procedural requirements - Collegiality - Rights of defence and procedural rights of other interested parties)
   2010/C 24/79
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: French Republic (represented initially by G. de Bergues, R. Abraham and S. Ramet, then by G. de Bergues, S. Ramet and E. Belliard and finally by G. de Bergues, E. Belliard and A.-L. Vendrolini, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Giolito and J. Buendia Sierra, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Commission Decision 2005/709/EC of 2 August 2004 concerning State aid paid by France to France Télécom (OJ 2005 L 269, p. 30).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders the Republic of France and France Télécom SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 19, 22.1.2005.


title: Case C-270/06: Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 11 September 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/22

         Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 11 September 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-270/06) (1)

   (2008/C 313/34)

      Language of the case: German

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

      (1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.


C 161/12              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      2.6.2001
       Removal from the register of Case C-237/00 (1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-344/99 (1)
                       (2001/C 161/22)                                                       (2001/C 161/25)
By order of 9 January 2001 the President of the Court of              By order of 12 March 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-237/00: Commission of the                 from the register of Case C-344/99: Italian Republic v Com-
European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.                     mission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.                                            (1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-120/00 (1)
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-359/00 (1)
                       (2001/C 161/23)
                                                                                (2001/C 161/26)
By order of 9 March 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from              By order of 12 March 2001 the President of the Court of
the register of Case C-120/00: Commission of the European             Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
Communities v French Republic.                                        from the register of Case C-359/00: (reference for a preliminary
                                                                      ruling from the Tribunal de Commerce, Foix and l’Ariège,
                                                                      France): Réunion des Assureurs Maladie v Jean-Marc Laboup.
(1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-182/95 (1)
                       (2001/C 161/24)                                       Removal from the register of Case C-21/00 (1)
By order of 12 March 2001 the President of the Court of                                      (2001/C 161/27)
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-182/95: (reference for a preliminary      By order of 13 March 2001 the President of the Court of
ruling from Finanzgericht Hamburg): T. Port GmbH & Co v               Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas.                                           from the register of Case C-21/00: (reference for a preliminary
                                                                      ruling from the Giudice di pace di Massa): Hamadeh Adnan v
(1) OJ C 208 of 12.8.1995.                                            Sociétà Fiat Sava SpA.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.


title: Case C-457/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands), lodged on 10 October 2012 — S and Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel; other party: G

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands), lodged on 10 October 2012 — S and Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel; other party: G
   (Case C-457/12)
   2013/C 26/34
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: S and Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel

      Other party: G

      Questions referred

               1.

               …
               Can a member, having third-country nationality, of the family of a Union citizen who lives in the Member State of which he is a national but who works in another Member State for an employer established in that other Member State derive, in circumstances such as those of the present case, a right of residence from Union law?

               2.

               …
               Can a member, having third-country nationality, of the family of a Union citizen who lives in the Member State of which he is a national but who, in the course of his work for an employer established in that same Member State, travels to and from another Member State derive, in circumstances such as those of the present case, a right of residence from Union law?


title: Case T-249/08: Action brought on 24 June 2008 — Coin v OHIM — Dynamiki Zoi (FITCOIN)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/63

         Action brought on 24 June 2008 — Coin v OHIM — Dynamiki Zoi (FITCOIN)
   (Case T-249/08)
   (2008/C 209/112)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Coin SpA (Mestre, Venezia, Italy) (represented by: P. Perani and P. Pozzi, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dynamiki Zoi Anonymi Etairia (Peristeri, Greece)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 April 2008 in case R 1429/2007-1;

               —

               Reject Community trade mark No 3 725 298 ‘FITCOIN’; and

               —

               Order the other parties to pay the costs, including those of the OHIM opposition and appeal proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘FITCOIN’ for goods and services in classes 16, 25, 28, 35, 36 and 41 — application No 3 725 298

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited: The Italian trade mark ‘coin’ registration No 160 126 for goods in class 25; the Italian trade mark ‘coin’ registration No 253 233 for goods and services in classes 16, 25, 28, 35, 36 and 41; the Italian trade mark ‘coin’ registration No 240 305 for goods and services in classes 16, 25, 28, 35, 36 and 41; the Italian trade mark ‘coin’ registration No 169 548 for goods and services in classes 16, 25, 28, 35, 36 and 41, extended to Benelux, France, Hungary, Austria and Portugal; the Italian trade mark ‘coin’ registration No 240 286 for goods and services in class 25, extended to Benelux, France, Hungary and Austria; Community trade mark ‘coin’ registration No 109 827 for goods and services in classes 16, 25, 28, 35; international trade mark ‘coin’ registration No R 381 015 for goods and services in classes 16, 25, 28, 35, 36 and 41, extended to Benelux, Germany, Spain, France, Hungary, Austria, Portugal and Slovenia.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8 of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the trade marks concerned are visually and phonetically similar and the goods and services covered by the trade marks concerned are identical; infringement of Article 8 of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the use of the trade mark applied for is likely to cause confusion.


title: Case C-486/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 6 de Alicante (Spain) lodged on 12 September 2016 — Bankia, S.A. v Alfredo Sánchez Martínez, Sandra Sánchez Triviño

text:
               28.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 441/9

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 6 de Alicante (Spain) lodged on 12 September 2016 — Bankia, S.A. v Alfredo Sánchez Martínez, Sandra Sánchez Triviño
      (Case C-486/16)
      (2016/C 441/12)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Referring court

      Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 6 de Alicante

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Bankia, S.A.

         Defendant: Alfredo Sánchez Martínez, Sandra Sánchez Triviño

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  First.- Is it contrary to Articles 4(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts to take into account, when deciding whether an early repayment term, like that in the contract at issue concluded between an operator and a consumer, is unfair, not only the circumstances attending the conclusion of the contract but also the seriousness of the breach by the consumer after the formation of the contract?

                  2.

                  Second.- Is it contrary to the principle of effectiveness laid down in Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts for an enforcement order to be made on the basis of an early repayment term declared unfair by a final judgment given in previous mortgage enforcement proceedings between the same parties and based on the same mortgage loan agreement, even if that earlier judgment is not recognised under national law as having the positive effect of substantive res judicata, but national law does provide that fresh enforcement proceedings may not be brought on the basis of the same enforceable instrument?

                  3.

                  Third.- In mortgage enforcement proceedings in which the court of first instance refused to make an enforcement order because the application was based on an early repayment term declared unfair in other, earlier mortgage enforcement proceedings, based on the same instrument and between the same parties, and in which the refusal to make an enforcement order was overturned by the appeal court which referred the case back so that an enforcement order could be made at first instance, is it contrary to the principle of effectiveness laid down in Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts to make the decision on appeal binding on the lower court or must national law be interpreted as meaning that the lower court is not bound by the decision on appeal when there is already an earlier final judgment annulling the early repayment term on which the enforcement order is based and, in that case, must the application for enforcement again be ruled inadmissible?

         (1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.


title: Joined Cases C-230/09 and C-231/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 May 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) — Hauptzollamt Koblenz v Kurt Etling, Thomas Etling (C-230/09), Hauptzollamt Oldenburg (C-231/09) v Theodor Aissen, Hermann Rohaan (Agriculture — Milk and dairy sector — Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 — Levy in the milk and dairy sector — Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 — Direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy — Transfer of individual reference quantities — Repercussions on the calculation of the levy — Repercussions on the calculation of the dairy premium)

text:
               2.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 May 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) — Hauptzollamt Koblenz v Kurt Etling, Thomas Etling (C-230/09), Hauptzollamt Oldenburg (C-231/09) v Theodor Aissen, Hermann Rohaan
   (Joined Cases C-230/09 and C-231/09) (1)

   (Agriculture - Milk and dairy sector - Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 - Levy in the milk and dairy sector - Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy - Transfer of individual reference quantities - Repercussions on the calculation of the levy - Repercussions on the calculation of the dairy premium)
   2011/C 194/03
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Hauptzollamt Koblenz (C-230/09), Hauptzollamt Oldenburg (C-231/09)

      Defendants: Kurt Etling, Thomas Etling (C-230/09), Theodor Aissen, Hermann Rohaan (C-231/09)

      Intervening party: Bundesministerium der Finanzen

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Article 5(k) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing a levy in the milk and milk products sector (OJ 2003 L 270, p. 123) — Reversion of the milk reference quantity in the course of the reference period following termination of an agricultural lease — Whether the quantity already delivered by the previous lessee during the reference period may be taken into account for the purpose of determining the reference quantity available to the lessor

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 10(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing a levy in the milk and milk products sector, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2217/2004 of 22 December 2004, must be interpreted as meaning that the reallocation of the unused part of the national reference quantity allocated to deliveries must be carried out in proportion to the individual reference quantity of each producer having overdelivered, namely that determined at 1 April of the relevant twelve-month period, or according to objective criteria to be set by the Member States. The concept of individual reference quantity used in that provision does not allow transfers of reference quantities during that period to be taken into account.

               2.

               National legislation implementing the option, provided for in Article 10(3) of Regulation No 1788/2003, as amended by Regulation No 2217/2004, of setting objective criteria according to which the reallocation of the unused part of the national reference quantity allocated to deliveries is to be carried out must comply, in particular with general principles of EU law and the objectives pursued by the common agricultural policy, especially those concerning the common organisation of the markets in the milk sector.

               3.

               Those objectives do not preclude national legislation, adopted in the context of the implementation of that option, which allows overdelivering producers, who have, in accordance with the provisions of Regulation No 1788/2003, as amended by Regulation No 2217/2004, received a transfer, during the relevant twelve-month period, of an individual reference quantity under which milk has already been delivered for that same period by the producer who previously held it, to participate in that reallocation by including some or all of that reference quantity. Member States must however ensure that such legislation does not give rise to transfers which, while formally complying with the conditions laid down by that regulation, are intended solely to allow certain overdelivering producers to obtain a more favourable position on that reallocation.

               4.

               The expression ‘individual reference quantity eligible for premium and available on the holding’ contained in Article 95(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 118/2005 of 26 January 2005, which corresponds to the expression ‘available reference quantity’ contained in Article 5(k) of Regulation No 1788/2003, as amended by Regulation No 2217/2004, must be interpreted as meaning that, where a producer has received a transfer, during the relevant twelve-month period, of a reference quantity under which milk has already been delivered by the transferor during the same period, that expression does not cover, as regards the transferee, the part of the transferred reference quantity under which milk has already been delivered exempt from the levy by the transferor.

      (1)  OJ C 220, 12.9.2009.


title: Case T-409/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 20 November 2006 — Latino v Commission

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/44

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 20 November 2006 — Latino v Commission
   (Case T-409/04) (1)

   (2006/C 331/98)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 300, 4.12.2004.


title: Case C-293/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam by order of that court of 14 June 2004 in the case of Beemsterboer Coldstore Services BV against Douanedistrict Arnhem

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/27

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam by order of that court of 14 June 2004 in the case of Beemsterboer Coldstore Services BV against Douanedistrict Arnhem
   (Case C-293/04)
   (2004/C 228/56)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Netherlands) of 14 June 2004 received at the Court Registry on 9 July 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Beemsterboer Coldstore Services BV against Douanedistrict Arnhem on the following questions:

               1.

               Is the new text of Article 220(2)(b) of the Community Customs Code (CCC) (1) applicable to a case in which the customs debt was incurred and post-clearance recovery undertaken before the provision entered into force?

               2.

               If question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Is a EUR.1 certificate which cannot be shown actually to be incorrect because the origin of the goods for which the certificate was issued could not be ascertained upon subsequent verification, the goods being denied preferential treatment solely for that reason, an ‘incorrect certificate’ within the meaning of the new text of Article 220(2)(b) of the CCC and, if such is not the case, can an interested party still usefully appeal against this provision?

               3.

               If question 2 is answered in the affirmative: Who bears the burden of proving that the certificate is based on an incorrect account of the facts provided by the exporter or alternatively who must prove that evidently the issuing authorities were aware or should have been aware that the goods did not satisfy the conditions laid down for entitlement to the preferential treatment?

               4.

               If question 1 is answered in the negative: Can an interested party usefully appeal against Article 220(2) of the CCC, introduction and indent (b), as this provision read prior to 19 December 2000, in a situation in which it cannot subsequently be ascertained whether, at the time of issue, the customs authorities had good grounds for issuing a EUR.1 certificate and were right to issue one?

      (1)   OJ L 311 of 12.12.2000, p. 17.


title: Case T-288/04: Action brought on 15 July 2004 by Kris Van Neyghem against the Committee of the Regions

text:
               9.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/26

         Action brought on 15 July 2004 by Kris Van Neyghem against the Committee of the Regions
   (Case T-288/04)
   (2004/C 251/47)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   An action against the Committee of the Regions was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 15 July 2004 by Kris Van Neyghem, residing in Tienen (Belgium), represented by Dirk Janssens.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Decision 87/03;

               —

               annul any decision connected with or resulting from Decision 87/03;

               —

               classify the applicant in Grade B 1, or at least no lower than Grade B 4, Step 4;

               —

               order the Committee of the Regions to pay all costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicant has been working as an official of the Committee of the Regions since 1 December 2002. He is challenging the decision of 26 March 2003 whereby he was definitively classified in Grade B 5, Step 4.
   In support of his application, the applicant argues that the contested decision is inadequately reasoned and that there has been a breach of Articles 5(3), 31 and 32 of the Staff Regulations, in conjunction with an infringement of the principle of equal treatment.


title: Case T-418/16: Action brought on 29 July 2016 — Galletas Gullon v EUIPO — O2 Holdings (shape of a package)

text:
               19.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/43

         Action brought on 29 July 2016 — Galletas Gullon v EUIPO — O2 Holdings (shape of a package)
   (Case T-418/16)
   (2016/C 343/58)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Galletas Gullon, SA (Aguilar de Campoo, Spain) (represented by: M. Escudero Pérez, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: O2 Holdings Ltd (Slough, United Kingdom)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: tridimensional mark (shape of a package) — EU trade mark No 3 417 847

      Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 May 2016 in Case R 1614/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO and the other party, should it intervene, to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009.