title: ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 29 March 1996 in Case T-24/96 R: U. v. European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training

text:
22. 6 . 96          EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 180/29
Chamber), R. Garcia-Valdecasas and J. Azizi, Judges; H.                            ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 May 1996 , in                     OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
which it :                                                                               of 29 March 1996
                                                                     in Case T-24/96 R: U. v. European Centre for the
1 . Dismisses the application.                                                  Development of Vocational Training
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/77 )
2 . Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
H OJ No C 331 , 26 . 11 . 1994 .
                                                                     In Case T-24/96 R: U, an official of the European Centre for
                                                                     the Development of Vocational Training, residing in Berlin,
                                                                     represented by Frank Montag, Rechtsanwalt, Brussels, with
                                                                     an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                     Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue , v. European Centre for the
                                                                     Development of Occupational Training (Agent: Bertrand
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Wägenbaur ) — application, first, for suspension of
                                                                     operation of the defendant's decision transferring the
                        of 21 May 1996                               applicant to Thessaloniki and, second, for an order that the
in Case T-153/95 , Raymond Kaps v. Court of Justice of the           applicant's posting in the Commission's office in Berlin be
                  European Communities (*)                           maintained for the time being — the President of the Court
(Officials — Competition — Selection board — Oral test —             of First Instance made an order on 29 March 199 6 , the
Decision ofselection board not to enter the applicant on the         operative part of which is as follows :
reserve list — Scope of the duty to state reasons — Scope of
                         judicial review)
                          ( 961C 180/76 )                            1 . The suspension granted by the order of the President of
                                                                         the Court of First Instance of 29 February 1996 is
                                                                         renewed up to and including 12 April 1996. Until that
                (Language of the case: French)                           date, the applicant's posting in Berlin is to continue;
In Case T-153/95 : Raymond Kaps, an official of the Court            2 . The remainder ofthe application for interim measures is
of Justice of the European Communities, residing in                      dismissed:
Schifflange, represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Thierry
Demaseure, Véronique Leclercq and Ariane Tornel, all of
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg          3.  The costs are reserved.
at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 Rue Glesener,
against the Court of Justice of the European Communities
( Agent: Timothy Millett ) — application for the annulment
of the selection board's decisions in the internal competition
by tests No CJ 51 /93 awarding the applicant marks for his
written and oral tests which did not qualify him for entry on
the reserve list and, in so far as necessary, the annulment of
the defendant's decision not to enter the applicant on the
reserve list of Competition No CJ 51/93 and of the decision
of the complaints committee of 15 May 1995 rejecting the             Action brought on 22 March 1996 by Eyckeler & Malt AG
applicant's complaint — the Court of First Instance ( Fifth            against the Commission of the European Communities
Chamber ), composed of R. Schintgen ( President of the                                     ( Case T-42/96 )
Chamber ), R. Garcia-Valdecasas and J. Azizi , Judges; B.                                    ( 96/C 180/78 )
Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
a judgment on 21 May 1996 , in which it:
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
1 . Dismisses the application.
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
2 . Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                     Instance of the European Communities on 22 March 1 996
                                                                     by Eyckeler & Malt AG, of Hilden ( Federal Republic of
C ) OJ No C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 .                                    Germany ), represented by Dietrich Ehle and Volker Schiller,
                                                                     Rechtsanwälte , Cologne, with an address for service in
                                                                     Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Lucius, 6 Rue Michel
                                                                     Welter .


title: Case C-158/03: Action brought on 7 April 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

text:
7.6.2003                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 135/17
That national of a non-Member State may not be required to                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
show any independent reason for entering into and residing in
the territory. His right, as a matter of Community law, is                    1.    Declare that, by including in the invitation to bid in
derived from the right enjoyed by the Community national in                         various tender procedures organised by the Instituto
such a way that to impose on that person prior formalities                          Nacional de la Salud para la prestación de servicios de
concerning entry into national territory constitutes not only a                     terapias respiratorias domiciliarias criteria for admission,
restriction on his (derived) right but also a restriction on the                    assessment and selection which require bidders to have,
principal right of the Community national.                                          at the time of submitting the bid, certain installations on
                                                                                Spanish territory, or within a radius of 1 000 kilometres
                                                                                thereof, and, prior to that, public information offices in
The Commission at the same time emphasises that, in con-                            specific locations, or that they should at the time be
formity with the general system of the Community rules on                           providing the same kind of service, the Kingdom of Spain
the issue of residence permits and, with particular regard to                       has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 43 and 49
Article 5 of Directive 64/221, the Member State must adopt                          EC;
the decision concerning the residence permit as soon as
possible and in any event not later than six months of the date               2.    Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
of the application, it being understood that this maximum
period of six months is to be taken into account only in
cases where examination of the application is interrupted on
grounds of public policy.
                                                                              Pleas in law and main arguments
( 1) Directive 68/360 of 15 October 1968 on the abolition of
     restrictions on movement and residence within the Community              The Commission takes the view that the invitations to bid
     for workers of Member State and their families (OJ, English Special      relating to the tender procedures which are the subject of these
     Edition 1968 (I), p. 485).                                               proceedings are discriminatory inasmuch as they are not
( 2) Directive 73/148/EEC of 21 May 1973 on the abolition of                  justified by any overriding reason relating to the public interest
     restrictions on movement and residence within the Community
     for nationals of Member States with regard to establishment and
                                                                              nor do they observe the principle of proportionality.
     the provision of services (OJ 1973 L 172, p. 14).
( 3) Council Directive 90/365 of 28 June 1990 on the right of
     residence for employees and self-employed persons who have
     ceased their occupational activity (OJ 1990 L 180 p. 28).
( 4) Directive 64/221/EEC of the Council of 25 February 1964 on the
     coordination of special measures concerning the movement and
     residence of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of
     public policy, public security or public health (OJ English Special
     Edition (1963-1964) I, p. 117).
                                                                              Appeal brought on 7 April 2003 by Jan Pflugradt against
                                                                              the order of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                              Communities (Fifth Chamber) of 11 February 2003 in
                                                                                Case T-83/02, Jan Pflugradt v European Central Bank
                                                                                (Case C-159/03 P)
                                                                                (2003/C 135/25)
Action brought on 7 April 2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
                           (Case C-158/03)                                    An appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                              the European Communities (Fifth Chamber) of 11 February
                                                                              2003 in Case T-83/02, Jan Pflugradt v European Central Bank,
                           (2003/C 135/24)                                    was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                              Communities on 7 April 2003 by Jan Pflugradt, represented
                                                                              by Dr Norbert Pflüger, 44 Kaiserstrasse, D-60329 Frankfurt
                                                                              am Main, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 April
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,                           The appellant claims that the Court, at the same time as it sets
represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana and Klaus Wiedner, of                  aside the order appealed against, should:
its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service
in Luxembourg.                                                                1.    Declare the action admissible;


title: Case C-267/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales) Chancery Division, Patents Court by order of that court of 17 February 2005 in Oakley Inc. v 1) Animal Ltd 2) H. Young Holdings plc 3) H. Young (Operations) Ltd, Intervener: Secretary of State for Industry

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales) Chancery Division, Patents Court by order of that court of 17 February 2005 in Oakley Inc. v 1) Animal Ltd 2) H. Young Holdings plc 3) H. Young (Operations) Ltd, Intervener: Secretary of State for Industry
   (Case C-267/05)
   (2005/C 229/10)
   Language of the case: English
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the High Court of Justice (England and Wales) Chancery Division, Patents Court of 17 February 2005, received at the Court Registry on 27 June 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Oakley Inc. and 1) Animal Ltd 2) H. Young Holdings plc 3) H. Young (Operations) Ltd, Intervener: Secretary of State for Industry, on the following question:
   ‘With regard to Directive 98/71/EC of the European Parliament and Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection of designs (1), could a national measure adopted by a Member State, after the date mentioned in Article 19, to the extent that the said measure purported to exercise the derogation mentioned in Article 11.8 nevertheless be partly valid according to Community law? Or did the opportunity which was available to a Member State to adopt the derogation conferred by Article 11.8 by a national measure permanently and wholly cease to exist after the date mentioned in Article 19?’

      (1)  OJ L 289, 28.10.1998, p. 28


title: Case T-391/15: Action brought on 17 July 2015 — Aldi v OHIM — Società Cooperativa Agricola Cantina Sociale Tollo (ALDIANO)

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/66

         Action brought on 17 July 2015 — Aldi v OHIM — Società Cooperativa Agricola Cantina Sociale Tollo (ALDIANO)
   (Case T-391/15)
   (2015/C 302/82)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen and N. Bertram, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Società Cooperativa Agricola Cantina Sociale Tollo (Tollo, Italy)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘ALDIANO’ — Application No 10 942 274

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 May 2015 in Case R 1612/2014-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-465/11 RENV: Order of the General Court of 25 July 2016 — Moravia Gas Storage v Commission

text:
               17.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/29

         Order of the General Court of 25 July 2016 — Moravia Gas Storage v Commission
   (Case T-465/11 RENV) (1)

   (2016/C 383/38)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 305, 15.10.2011.


title: Case C-115/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Genova — Prima sezione civile by order of that Court of 10 March 2003 in the civil proceedings brought by Eco Eridania S.r.l. against Ministero dell'Ambiente and Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

text:
10.5.2003               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 112/17
Pleas in law and main arguments                                             Action brought on 17 March 2003 by the Commission of
                                                                            the European Communities against the Federal Republic
                                                                                of Germany
France was required to transpose and apply the provision
referred to in the application with effect from 1 January 2000.                                       (Case C-118/03)
It appears from the replies submitted of the French authorities
that, with the exception of numbers which are free of                                                 (2003/C 112/29)
charge (‘freephone numbers’) and of shared-cost numbers, the
remaining non-geographic numbers are not covered by the
measures which have been established.
                                                                            An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                            brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
( 1) Directive 97/33/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council       ties on 17 March 2003 by the Commission of the European
     of 30 June 1997 on interconnection in Telecommunications with          Communities, represented by Ulrich Wölker, legal advisor, and
     regard to ensuring universal service and interoperability through      Hans Støvlbæk, of its legal service, with an address for service
     application of the principles of Open Network Provision (ONP)          in Luxembourg.
     — OJ L 199, 26.7.1997, p. 32.
( 2) OJ L 268, 3.10.1998, p. 37.
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            1.    Declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                                and administrative provisions necessary to implement
                                                                                Commission Directive 2000/37/EC ( 1) of 5 June 2000
                                                                                amending Chapter VIa ‘Pharmacovigilance’ of Council
                                                                                Directive 81/851/EEC on the approximation of the laws
                                                                                of the Member States relating to veterinary medicinal
                                                                                products or by failing to inform the Commission of those
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di                            provisions, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to
Genova — Prima sezione civile by order of that Court of                           fulfil its obligations under that directive;
10 March 2003 in the civil proceedings brought by
Eco Eridania S.r.l. against Ministero dell’Ambiente and
                                                                            2.    Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
              Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri
                          (Case C-115/03)
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
                          (2003/C 112/28)                                   The period for implementing the directive expired on 5 Decem-
                                                                            ber 2001.
                                                                            (1 ) OJ L 139, 10.6.2000, p. 25.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Genova
— Prima sezione civile (Genoa District Court, First Civil
Chamber) of 10 March 2003, received at the Court Registry
on 17 March 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the civil
proceedings brought by Eco Eridania S.r.l. against Ministero
dell’Ambiente and Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri on the
following question:                                                         Action brought on 18 March 2003 by the Commission of
                                                                             the European Communities against the French Republic
Does the obligation under Article 4 of Directive 91/689/                                              (Case C-119/03)
EEC ( 1) apply to all producers of hazardous waste (including
dental surgeons’ practices) or merely to producers of hazardous
                                                                                (2003/C 112/30)
waste whose business is organised in the form of an undertak-
ing or institution?
                                                                            An action against the French Republic was brought before the
( 1) OJ L 377 of 31.12.1991, p. 20.                                         Court of Justice of the European Communities on 18 March
                                                                            2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                            represented by G. Rozet, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                            service in Luxembourg.


title: Case T-2/15: Action brought on 2 January 2015  — Ipatau v Council

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/52

         Action brought on 2 January 2015 — Ipatau v Council
   (Case T-2/15)
   (2015/C 065/71)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Vadzim Ipatau (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: M. Michalauskas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul Council Decision 2014/750/CFSP of 30 October 2014 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1159/2014 of 30 October 2014 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-693/13 Mikhalchanka v Council
       (1).

      (1)  OJ 2014 C 93, p. 25.


title: Case C-59/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (France) lodged on 15 February 2008 — Copad SA v 1. Christian Dior couture SA, 2. Vincent Gladel, acting as receiver of Société industrielle de lingerie (SIL), 3. Société industrielle de lingerie (SIL)

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (France) lodged on 15 February 2008 — Copad SA v 1. Christian Dior couture SA, 2. Vincent Gladel, acting as receiver of Société industrielle de lingerie (SIL), 3. Société industrielle de lingerie (SIL)
   (Case C-59/08)
   (2008/C 92/37)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Cour de Cassation (France)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Claimant: Copad SA

      Defendants: 1. Christian Dior couture SA, 2. Vincent Gladel, acting as receiver of Société industrielle de lingerie (SIL), 3. Société industrielle de lingerie (SIL)
   Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 8(2) of First Council Directive No 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (1) be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a trade mark can invoke the rights conferred by that trade mark against a licensee who contravenes a provision in the licensing contract prohibiting, on grounds of the trade mark's prestige, sale to discount stores?

               2.

               Must Article 7(1) of that directive be interpreted as meaning that a licensee who puts goods bearing a trade mark on the market in the European Economic Area in disregard of a provision of the licensing contract prohibiting, on grounds of the trade mark's prestige, sale to discount stores, does so without the consent of the trade mark proprietor?

               3.

               If not, can the proprietor invoke such a provision to oppose further commercialisation of the goods, on the basis of Article 7(2) of that directive?

      (1)  OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1.


title: Case F-98/08: Action brought on 11 December 2008 — Nijs v Court of Auditors

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/76

         Action brought on 11 December 2008 — Nijs v Court of Auditors
   (Case F-98/08)
   (2009/C 44/137)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Bart Nijs (Aalst, Belgium) (represented by: F. Rollinger, lawyer)

      Defendant: Court of Auditors of the European Communities
   Subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   First, annulment of the decision not to promote the applicant in 2008 and, second, an order that the defendant make good the material and non-material loss suffered by the applicant.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision not to promote the applicant in 2008, published in Staff Note No 32/2008 of 5 May 2008, and the acts preparatory to that decision, in particular the decisions of 19 and 29 February 2008 which were the subject of the Staff Notes Nos 10-2008 and 17-2008 adopting the lists of those eligible for promotion at 1 January 2008, inasmuch as they concern the applicant;

               —

               Declare expressly that the subsequent decisions and preparatory acts mentioned above are void;

               —

               Order the defendant to make good the material loss amounting to the loss of income which the applicant suffered in relation to the higher salary which he would have received had the period mentioned above not intervened to hindered his career, along with the non-material loss additional to the similar compensation claimed in other disputes, of EUR 10 000;

               —

               Order the Court of Auditors of the European Communities to pay the costs.


title: Case C-443/07 P: Appeal brought on 28 September 2007 by Clara Centeno Mediavilla, Delphine Fumey, Eva Gerhards, Iona M.S. Hamilton, Raymond Hill, Jean Huby, Patrick Klein, Domenico Lombardi, Thomas Miller, Miltiadis Moraitis, Ansa Norman Palmer, Nicola Robinson, François-Xavier Rouxel, Marta Silva Mendes, Peter van den Hul, Fritz Von Nordheim Nielsen, and Michaël Zouridakis against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 11 July 2007 in Case T-58/05 Centeno Mediavilla and Others v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/20

         Appeal brought on 28 September 2007 by Clara Centeno Mediavilla, Delphine Fumey, Eva Gerhards, Iona M.S. Hamilton, Raymond Hill, Jean Huby, Patrick Klein, Domenico Lombardi, Thomas Miller, Miltiadis Moraitis, Ansa Norman Palmer, Nicola Robinson, François-Xavier Rouxel, Marta Silva Mendes, Peter van den Hul, Fritz Von Nordheim Nielsen, and Michaël Zouridakis against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 11 July 2007 in Case T-58/05 Centeno Mediavilla and Others v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-443/07 P)
   (2008/C 22/39)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellants: Isabel Clara Centeno Mediavilla, Delphine Fumey, Eva Gerhards, Iona M.S. Hamilton, Raymond Hill, Jean Huby, Patrick Klein, Domenico Lombardi, Thomas Millar, Miltiadis Moraitis, Ansa Norman Palmer, Nicola Robinson, François-Xavier Rouxel, Marta Silva Mendes, Peter van den Hul, Fritz Von Nordheim Nielsen, and Michaël Zouridakis (represented by: G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, avocats)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities, Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 11 July 2007 in Case T-58/05;

               —

               consequently, deliver judgment in accordance with the form of order sought at first instance and, therefore,

                           —

                           annul the grade classification granted to the appellants in the decisions relating to their recruitment in so far as that classification is based on Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the new Staff Regulations;

                           —

                           restructure the appellants' career (including valuation of their experience in the grade as thus corrected, their rights to advancement to a higher step and their pension rights), on the basis of the grade at which they would have been appointed on the basis of the competition notice in pursuance of which they were placed on the list of suitable candidates, either to the grade mentioned on that competition notice or to the grade corresponding to its equivalent according to the classification in the new Staff Regulations (and the appropriate step in accordance with the rules applicable before 1 May 2004), as from the date of the decision to appoint them;

                           —

                           award the appellants interest for late payment on the basis of the rate set by the European Central Bank on all sums corresponding to the difference between the salary corresponding to their classification in the decision to appoint them and the classification to which they ought to have been entitled, until the date on which the decision to classify them in their proper grade is taken;

               —

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

         Grounds of appeal and main arguments
   After stating, at the outset, that the Court of First Instance treated all the appellants in the same way in the contested judgment without taking into account the particular situation of each of them, and that it based its decision on the presumption, which they dispute, that the legality of their grade classification can be assessed only as from the date of their appointment, the appellants raise two grounds in support of their appeal.
   By their first ground of appeal the appellants allege that the Court of First Instance was wrong in concluding that Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations is lawful. In that regard, they claim, first, that the Court of First Instance infringed Article 10 of the old Staff Regulations in so far as it assimilated the substitution of grades which took place in the present case to a ‘specific’ adaptation of the transitional provisions leading towards the new career structure, justifying the fact that the Staff Regulations Committee was not re-consulted, even though the consequences, in particular financial, of that substitution of grades for the situation of the persons concerned are considerable and amply justified consultation of that committee.
   In support of that same ground of appeal, the appellants claim, second, an infringement of the principle of vested rights. Contrary to what was held by the Court of First Instance, the relevant question in the present case was not whether there was a vested right in being appointed, but a vested right in being classed in a certain grade in the event of appointment. Although it is not disputed that a competition notice and inclusion in a list of suitable candidates do not grant entitlement to recruitment, that notice and that inclusion do, however, create a right for the participants in the competition and, a fortiori, for those on the list of laureates, to be treated in accordance with the competition notice. That right constitutes the consideration for the obligation on the part of the appointing authority to respect the framework which it laid down for itself in the competition notice and which corresponds to the requirements of the posts to be filled and the interests of the service.
   The appellants claim, third, that the Court of First Instance infringed the principle of equal treatment in making a distinction between the laureates of the competition who were appointed before 1 May 2004 and those who were appointed after that date since, in any case, the hypothetical nature of the appointment of the laureates of a competition does not infringe their right to rely, in the event of actual recruitment, on the classification criteria laid down in the competition notice and applicable, therefore, to the recruitment of all the laureates of that competition. In addition, the Court in no way carried out an examination of the possible justification for the difference in treatment made between the two categories of officials at issue.
   The appellants claim, fourth, that the Court of First Instance infringed the principle of legitimate expectations and misinterpreted the evidence. The documents submitted to that court contain a large amount of information capable of substantiating the claim that the appellants actually received specific assurances that they would be recruited at the grade stipulated in the competition notice.
   Finally, the appellants claim that the Court of First Instance misconstrued the scope of Articles 5, 7 and 31 of the Staff Regulations and, in that regard, also infringed the duty of the Community judicature to give reasons.
   By their second ground of appeal, the appellants contest the judgment under appeal further in that it dismissed the actions brought against the decisions concerning their appointment on the ground that, although the defendant infringed its duty to provide pre-contract information, that inadequacy cannot, in itself, render the contested decisions unlawful. They claim, in that regard, the concurrent infringement of the principles of sound administration, transparency, legitimate expectations, good faith, equal treatment and equivalence between job and grade and the duty of care.


title: Case T-482/07: Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Nynäs Petroleum and Nynas Petróleo v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Spanish market for penetration bitumen — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Annual market-sharing and price-fixing arrangements — Evidence of participation in the cartel — Calculation of the amount of the fine)

text:
               16.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 336/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Nynäs Petroleum and Nynas Petróleo v Commission
   (Case T-482/07) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Spanish market for penetration bitumen - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Annual market-sharing and price-fixing arrangements - Evidence of participation in the cartel - Calculation of the amount of the fine)
   2013/C 336/26
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Nynäs Petroleum AB (Stockholm, Sweden); and Nynas Petróleo, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: D. Beard QC, and M. Dean, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by X. Lewis and F. Castillo de la Torre, subsequently by F. Castillo de la Torre and J. Bourke, and lastly by F. Castillo de la Torre and C. Urraca Caviedes, Agents)

      Re:

   Application, principally, for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2007) 4441 final of 3 October 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/38.710 — Bitumen (Spain)) or, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Nynas Petróleo, SA in Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2007) 4441 final of 3 October 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/38.710 — Bitumen (Spain)) at EUR 10 406 000, and the amount of the fine imposed on Nynäs Petroleum, AB in Article 2 of that decision at EUR 10 164 000;

               2.

               Dismisses the remaining heads of claim in the application;

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 51, 23.2.2008.


title: Action brought on 6 September 1996 by Automobiles Peugeot SA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-136/96)

text:
No C 318/22          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   26 . 10 . 96
and of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality           In the applicant's opinion, that explanation does not
referred to in the 12th recital in the preamble to the              disclose the considerations of fact and law on which the
contested Directive . The applicant further claims that the         Commission based its decision . Specifically, the
principle patere legem quam ipse fecisti has been infringed,        Commission failed to consider the significance of the fact
in that the Commission itself, in its communication of              that the information it decided to divulge constituted
14 December 1993 concerning the application of the                  ' business secrets '.
Protocol on social policy, recognized the applicant as a
representative organization .
                                                                    Action brought on 9 September 1996 by Valio Ltd against
Action brought on 6 September 1996 by Automobiles                          the Commission of the European Communities
Peugeot SA against the Commission of the European
                         Communities                                                       ( Case T-l 37/96
                      ( Case T-136/96 )                                                      ( 96/C 318/40 )
                        ( 96/C 318/39
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
An action against the Commission of the European                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   Instance of the European Communities on 9 September
Instance of the European Communities on 6 September                 1996 by Valio Ltd , represented by Francis Herbert and
1996 by Automobiles Peugeot SA, established at Paris,               Daniel M. Tomasevic , of the Brussels Bar, of Loeff Claesy
represented by Xavier de Roux, of the Paris Bar, with an            Verbeke with an adress for service in Luxembourg at the
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                Chambers of Carlos Zeyen , 67 rue Ermesinde, L-1050
Jacques Loesch, 1 1 rue Goethe .                                    Luxembourg .
The applicant claims that the Court should :                        The applicant claims that the Court should :
— annul the Commission's decision of 19 July 1996
    concerning complaints 35.988 , 35.989 , 35.990 and              — annul the decision contained in a letter adressed by the
    35.991 ,                                                             Commission to the Finnish Permanent Representative to
                                                                        the European Unions ( BI.4 D(96 ) SP/cd/501 ) in so far as
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                               it concerns the 'Voilevi ' and 'Voimariini ' trade marks;
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support                  — alternatively, if the Court finds that the Decision does
                                                                        not infringe Regulation ( EC ) No 2991 /94 , declare,
The applicant, a company which markets Peugeot vehicles                 upholding the applicant's plea of illegality , that
in Europe, challenges the decision taken by the Commission,             Regulation ( EC ) No 2991 /94 is inapplicable to the
as part of the investigation of four complaints questioning             applicant to the extent that it would prohibit the further
the conformity with Community competition rules of the                  use of its trademarks 'Voimariini ' and 'Voilevi ' for the
standard exclusive distribution agreement for those                     spreadable fats concerned,
vehicles , to communicate to the companies which had
submitted the complaints certain information obtained               — order the Commission to pay the costs .
from the applicant.
That decision was taken in spite of the applicant's                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
indications that most of the information was subject to
protection as business secrets, in that it set out the              Valio is a Finnish company in the food sector which
conditions of membership of the Peugeot network and                 manufactures and markets products which are fat mixtures
described the functioning of that network .                         used as spreads, all of which are traded on the Finnish
                                                                    market under the 'Voimariini ' and 'Voilevi ' trade marks
The applicant claims that the case-law as stated in the             registered by Valio in 1980 and 1979 , and which have been
judgment in Case 53/85 AKZO Chemie v. Commission                    used by Valio since then . 'Voi ' in Finnish means butter . The
1986 [ECR ] 1965 has not been observed . It submits that            trade marks 'Voimariini ' and 'Voilevi ' do not have any
while the Commission is the sole judge of the confidentiality       specific meaning.
of the documents supplied to it in an investigation, the
corollary of such a discretion is a strict obligation to state      Under Regulation ( EC ) No 2991 /94 , which sets standards
reasons . According to the applicant, the contested decision        for spreadable fats, 'Voimariini ' is to be labelled under the
is not supported by an adequate statement of reasons . The          sales description ' blend ' while 'Voilevi ' is to be labelled
only explanation given by the Commission does no more               under the sales description ' half-fat blend '.
than assert the need to communicate the information in
question in order to be able to assess what action to take on       By letter dated 21 June 1996 addressed to the Finnish
the complaints, in full knowledge of the facts , after              Representation to the European Union , the Commission
obtaining the observations of those concerned .                     stated that the exclusive use of the sales description ' butter',


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 May 2003 in Case C-384/01: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a State to fulfil obligations — Sixth VAT Directive — Article 12(3)(a) and (b) — Supplies of gas and electricity delivered by the public networks — Standing charge for supply networks — Reduced rate)

text:
21.6.2003                EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 146/11
      reunification of Germany, is henceforth incorporated in one of                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      the pre-existing länder of the Federal Republic of Germany
      under a treaty concluded after that date.
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
( 1) OJ C 275 of 29.9.2001.
                                                                                of 8 May 2003
                                                                               in Case C-384/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v French Republic ( 1)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                               (Failure of a State to fulfil obligations — Sixth VAT
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                     Directive — Article 12(3)(a) and (b) — Supplies of gas and
                                                                               electricity delivered by the public networks — Standing
                           of 3 April 2003                                               charge for supply networks — Reduced rate)
in Case C-277/01 P: European Parliament v Ignacio Samp-
                                  er (1)                                                                 (2003/C 146/19)
(Appeals — Officials — Reconstruction of career — Con-
                 sideration of comparative merits)                                                 (Language of the case: French)
                           (2003/C 146/18)
                                                                               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                     (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                               In Case C-384/01, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                               (Agents: E. Traversa and C. Giolito) v French Republic (Agents:
                                                                               G. de Bergues and P. Boussaroque): Application for a declar-
In Case C-277/01 P, European Parliament (Agents: H. von
                                                                               ation that, by applying a reduced rate of value added tax to the
Hertzen and D. Moore): Appeal against the judgment of the
                                                                               fixed part of the prices for gas and electricity supplied by the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth
                                                                               public networks, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
Chamber) of 3 May 2001 in Case T-99/00 Samper v Parliament
                                                                               obligations under Article 12(3)(a) and (b) of Sixth Council
[2001] ECR-SC I-A-111 and II-507, seeking to have that
                                                                               Directive 77/388/EC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation
judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings being:
                                                                               of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
Ignacio Samper employee of the European Parliament, resident
                                                                               Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assess-
in Madrid (Spain), (represented by E. Boigelot), the Court
                                                                               ment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), as amended by Council Directive
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the
                                                                               96/95/EC of 20 December 1996 amending, with regard to the
Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. La Pergola, P. Jann and
                                                                               level of the standard rate of value added tax, Directive 77/388/
S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate
                                                                               EEC (OJ 1996 L 338, p. 89), the Court (Fifth Chamber),
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 April
                                                                               composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber,
2003, in which it has ruled:
                                                                               D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, P. Jann and
                                                                               A. Rosas, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass,
1.    Annuls the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 3 May              Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 May 2003, in which it:
      2001 in Case T-99/00 Samper v Parliament;
2.    Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance for it to give       1.    Dismisses the application;
      judgment on the claims by Mr Samper for annulment of
      the decision of the European Parliament of 9 June 1999
      reconstructing his career, in so far as it sets at 1 January 1998        2.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay
      the date for his promotion to Grade A 4 to take effect;                        the costs.
3.    Reserves the costs.
                                                                               (1 ) OJ C 348 of 8.12.2001.
( 1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.


title: Case T-80/09 P: Appeal brought on 23 February 2009 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 9 December 2008 in Case F-52/05, Q v Commission

text:
               1.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/28

         Appeal brought on 23 February 2009 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 9 December 2008 in Case F-52/05, Q v Commission
   (Case T-80/09 P)
   2009/C 102/43
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by V. Joris and B. Eggers, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Q (Brussels, Belgium)

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 9 December 2008 in Case F-52/05 in so far as it upholds the second plea alleging the unlawfulness of the implicit rejection of a distancing measure and the claims for compensation in connection with the distancing measure and disregard for the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials;

               —

               dismiss the action brought by Q before the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-52/05 in so far as it was upheld by that tribunal;

               —

               make the appropriate order as to the costs of the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal and of the appeal;

               —

               in the alternative,

                           —

                           annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 9 December 2008 in Case F-52/05;

                           —

                           refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

                           —

                           reserve the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present appeal, the Commission seeks the annulment of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (the Tribunal) of 9 December 2008 given in Case F-52/05 Q v Commission by which the Tribunal annulled the Commission’s decision rejecting the request for assistance made by Q concerning alleged psychological harassment, in so far as provisional distancing measures had not been taken, and ordered the Commission to pay to Q the sum of EUR 18 000 in damages.
   In support of its appeal, the Commission relies on two grounds of appeal alleging:

               —

               that the Tribunal erred in law in holding that ‘a degree of failing in the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials’ constituted unlawful conduct giving rise to non-contractual liability on the part of the Community in so far as (i) the infringement of the duty to have regard for the welfare of the official in this case is not sufficiently serious to give rise to non-contractual liability on the part of the Community and (ii) the Tribunal held that there had been infringement of that duty to have regard for the welfare of the official in this case even though there had been no psychological harassment within the meaning of Article 12a of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities;

               —

               that the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the implicit refusal of a distancing measure gives rise to tortious liability on the part of the Commission in so far as the Tribunal failed to establish that there had been a sufficiently serious infringement of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals.


title: Case C-214/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Vorarlberg by order of that Court of 6 June 2002 in the appeal brought by Gerhard Lintschinger

text:
C 180/16              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       27.7.2002
2.    Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
                                                                         Verwaltungssenat des Landes Vorarlberg by order of that
                                                                         Court of 6 June 2002 in the appeal brought by Gerhard
                                                                                Lintschinger
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Case C-214/02)
The Land legislatures in Salzburg, Steiermark, Niederösterreich
and Kärnten have decided to limit the effects of a review
procedure following the conclusion of a contract to awarding
damages within the meaning of Article 2(6) of Directives 89/                                      (2002/C 180/27)
665/EEC and 92/13/EEC. With the award, to be considered as
a private law declaration of intent, by the contracting authority
to the successful tenderer, the contract is closed and, according
to the provisions of the Land procurement laws — in
conformity with Article 2(6) of both directives — no longer
open to challenge by the Land bodies responsible for review
procedures.
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-
The Land procurement laws which the Commission is challeng-              tungssenat des Landes Vorarlberg (Independent Administrative
ing do not, however, contain a definition of the ‘award                  Chamber of the Land Vorarlberg) of 6 June 2002, received at
decision’. They therefore also do not lay down any specific              the Court Registry on 10 June 2002, for a preliminary ruling
form for the decision by the contracting authority to award a            in the appeal brought by Gerhard Lintschinger on the following
particular tenderer the contract. Nor are uniform rules laid             questions:
down as to whether, and how, tenderers can obtain knowledge
of such award decisions. The award decision is rather an
internal decision by the contracting authority, of which
tenderers cannot acquire any knowledge. The award decision               1.    Does Article 2(1)(b) of Council Directive 79/112/EEC (1)
becomes public knowledge only once the contract is con-                        of 18 December 1978 on the approximation of the
cluded.                                                                        laws of the Member States relating to the labelling,
                                                                               presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to
                                                                               the ultimate consumer (now consolidated in European
                                                                               Parliament and Council Directive 2000/13/EC of
The Austrian system is therefore not in compliance with the                    20 March 2000 — OJ 2000 L 109, p. 29), under which
directive inasmuch as, through that nomination as well as                      — subject to Community provisions applicable to natural
through the coincidence of the award decision and the                          mineral waters and to foodstuffs for particular nutritional
conclusion of the contract, the tenderer is deprived of any                    uses — the labelling and methods used may not attribute
chance to contest the award decision and effectively to prevent                to any foodstuff the property of preventing, treating or
an unlawful award decision by applying at the same time for a                  curing a human disease, or suggest that it possesses such
provisional order. That is contrary to the effective review                    properties, preclude national legislation which makes it
procedures required by the directives, under which it must be                  an offence when marketing foodstuffs:
possible to apply for a provisional order at least until the
conclusion of the contract.
                                                                               (a)   to refer to physiological or pharmacological effects,
                                                                                in particular those which preserve youthfulness,
As a consequence of the Court’s judgment in Case C-81/                               inhibit signs of ageing, promote slimming or main-
98 Alcatel (3), the Austrian Federal Chancellery prepared a                          tain health, or to create the impression of any such
memorandum intended to ensure an approach to contract                                effect;
awards in compliance with that judgment until statutory
regulations have been issued. However, a non-binding memor-
andum does not establish an unequivocal legal framework
such as the Republic of Austria is required to create.                         (b) to refer to case-histories, recommendations made by
                                                                                doctors or medical experts’ reports;
(1) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33.
(2) OJ 1992 L 76, p. 14.                                                       (c)   to use health-related, pictorial or stylised represen-
(3) OJ 2000 C 34, p. 6.                                                              tations of organs of the human body, pictures
                                                                                of members of the health-care professions or of
                                                                                sanatoria or other pictures or illustrations referring
                                                                                to health-care activities?
 ---pagebreak--- 27.7.2002                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 180/17
2.    Do Directive 79/112/EEC or Articles 28 and 30 EC                    The obligation on the part of the United Kingdom to take
      preclude a national provision which, on the placing into            measures in order to comply with the directive for the entirety
      circulation of foodstuffs, permits health-related infor-            of its territory is not disputed.
      mation such as that described in Question (1) to be
      affixed thereto only after prior authorisation by the
      competent federal minister, whereby a condition of
      authorisation is that the health-related information is             Since the United Kingdom has not informed the Commission
      consistent with protecting the consumer from being                  of the provisions adopted to comply with the directive with
      misled?                                                             regard to Gibraltar, and since the Commission is in possession
                                                                          of no other information enabling it to conclude that the United
                                                                          Kingdom has adopted the necessary provisions, it is compelled
(1) OJ L 33, p. 1.                                                        to assume that the United Kingdom has not yet adopted such
                                                                          provisions and has thus failed to fulfil its obligations under the
                                                                          directive.
                                                                          (1) OJ L 159 of 29.6.1996, p. 1.
Action brought on 12 June 2002 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the United Kingdom
             of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
                           (Case C-218/02)
                           (2002/C 180/28)
                                                                          Action brought on 14 June 2002 by the Commission of
                                                                           the European Communities against the French Republic
An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of
the European Communities on 12 June 2002 by the Com-                                                (Case C-221/02)
mission of the European Communities, represented by Thomas
Cusack, acting as agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.                                                                                (2002/C 180/29)
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
(1) declare that by failing to adopt for Gibraltar all the laws,
      regulations or administrative provisions necessary to               An action against the French Republic was brought before the
      comply with Council Directive 96/29/Euratom (1) of                  Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 June
      13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for the              2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
      protection of the health of workers and the general public          represented by D. Martin and M. França, acting as Agent, with
      against the dangers arising from ionizing radiation in its          an address for service in Luxembourg.
      whole territory, or in any event by failing to communicate
      them to the Commission, the United Kingdom has failed
      fully to fulfil its obligations under that Directive.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
(2) order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.
                                                                          —     Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
                                                                                within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
                                                                                administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 Directive 98/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the
                                                                                Council of 16 February 1998 amending Directive 87/
                                                                                102/EEC for the approximation of the laws, regulations
According to Article 192(1) of the Treaty, Member States shall                  and administrative provisions of the Member States
take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,                   concerning consumer credit (1), or, in any event, by failing
to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty               to communicate such provisions to the Commission, the
or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the                       French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Community.                                                                      that directive;


title: Case T-29/11: Action brought on 14 January 2011 — Technische Universität Dresden v Commission

text:
               12.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/23

         Action brought on 14 January 2011 — Technische Universität Dresden v Commission
   (Case T-29/11)
   2011/C 80/46
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Technische Universität Dresden (Dresden, Germany) (represented by: G. Brüggen, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Commission of 4 November 2010, debit note No 3241011712, concerning the repayment of a sum in the amount of EUR 55 377,62;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant relies on the following in support of its action:

               1.

               Infringement of Community law due to an erroneous assessment of the facts and failure to assess the facts
               The applicant submits that there was an erroneous assessment of the facts and failure to assess the facts as regards the eligibility of certain personnel expenses, subsistence expenses and travel costs. It also submits that there was an erroneous assessment of the facts and failure to assess the facts in connection with various services.

               2.

               Infringement of Community law due to serious errors of reasoning
               The applicant submits in this connection that there is a failure to state reasons in the debit note, erroneous reasoning as regards the granting and withdrawal of subsistence expenses and travel costs and a failure to state the reasons for the increase in the ineligible sum regarding the category of ‘various services’.


title: Case T-216/02: Action brought on 17 July 2002 by Fieldturf Inc. against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs)

text:
28.9.2002                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 233/29
applicant submits that in doing so, the Commission has                     Action brought on 17 July 2002 by Fieldturf Inc. against
disregarded several procedural rules set forth in Council                  the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
Directive 76/768/EEC (2), as last amended by Commission                                       (Trademarks and Designs)
Directive 2000/41/EC ( 3), which the contested Directive pur-
ports to implement.
                                                                                (Case T-216/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 233/52)
It alleges that the procedural safeguards set out in the
Cosmetics Directive and in the Commission Decision estab-
lishing the Scientific Committee on Cosmetic Products and                                     (Language of the case: English)
Non Food Products intended for Consumers (4) have been
violated. By not adequately informing the applicant of the
ongoing deliberations and the status of the Committee’s
opinion on acrylamide, by disrespecting procedural safeguards
aimed at preserving the impartiality of the decision-making,               An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
by using scientific standards that are at odds with prevailing             Market (Trademarks and Designs) was brought before the
EU decisions, by manifestly misinterpreting the data submitted             Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
by the applicant and by not adequately allowing the applicant              17 July 2002 by Fieldturf Inc. Montreal (Canada), represented
to state its case and express its view on studies co-authored by           by Dr Patrick Baronikians at Schwarz Kurtze Schniewind
it, the Commission has violated the applicant’s rights of                  Kelwing Wicke in Munich, Germany
defence in a way which affects the validity of the contested
Directive. Furthermore, the defendant omitted to notify the
applicant of the Directive, so that the legislative process is
affected by a procedural deficiency which necessarily affects its          The applicant claims that the Court should:
validity.
                                                                           —     annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of
                                                                                the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                                                                                (Trademarks and Designs) of 15 May 2002 (Case R 462/
                                                                                2001-1) concerning the registration of the trademark
The applicant submits that the contested Directive improperly                    ‘LOOKS LIKE GRASS... FEELS LIKE GRASS... PLAYS LIKE
includes polyacrylamides in Annex III to the Cosmetics                           GRASS’ and direct that the claimed mark will be registered
Directive based on a calculation of cancer potency which is at                   for all the goods and service applied for;
odds with the more specific and prevailing review of acrylami-
de under the EU chemicals legislation. The contested Directive             —     order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
also infringes a series of well established principles of Com-                   Market (Trademarks and Designs) to pay the costs of the
munity law, e.g. the duty to state reasons, the principle                        applicant.
of proportionality, the principle of uniform application of
Community law and the principle of equal treatment. Finally,
the Commission did not consider all interests at stake and
ignored the recent scientific findings.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
( 1) OJ L 102, p. 19.                                                      The trade mark con-           The word mark ‘LOOKS LIKE
( 2) Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approxi-          cerned:                       GRASS... FEELS LIKE GRASS...
     mation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic                                        PLAYS LIKE GRASS’ — appli-
     products (OJ L 262, p. 169).                                                                        cation No 1712918
( 3) Commission Directive 2000/41/EC of 19 June 2000 postponing
     for a second time the date after which animal tests are prohibited
     for ingredients or combinations of ingredients of cosmetic            Goods or service con-         Goods and services in Classes 27
     products (OJ L 145, p 25).                                            cerned:                       and 37 (i.a. synthetic surfaces for
( 4) Commission Decision 97/579/EC of 23 July 1997 setting up                                            athletic activities)
     Scientific Committees in the field of consumer health and food
     safety (OJ L 237, p. 18).
                                                                           Decision         contested    Refusal of registration by the
                                                                           before the Board of           examiner
                                                                           Appeal:
                                                                           Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the appeal
                                                                           Appeal:
 ---pagebreak--- C 233/30               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      28.9.2002
Grounds of claim:              —      The trademark applied for            Pleas in law and main arguments
                                      satisfies   the      minimum
                                      requirements for a distinc-
                                      tive character (Article 7(1)(b)      In the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of the
                                      of Regulation (EC) No 40/            jury’s decision of 31 July 2001 in competition COM/A/6/01
                                      94 (1)).                             in so far as the applicant was thereby refused admission to that
                                                                           competition on the ground that she exceeded the age limit set
                               —      The contested decision is            in the notice of competition.
                                      contrary to jurisprudence of
                                      the Court.
                                                                           In support of her claim, the applicant alleges:
( 1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20.12.1993 on the Com-            —     that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment
     munity trade mark (OJ L 11, p. 1).                                          in that, in her appeal, the applicant was not seeking a
                                                                                declaration that one of the conditions stipulated in the
                                                                                notice of competition, namely the condition regarding
                                                                                age, was illegal, but a declaration that the jury’s decision
                                                                                refusing her admission to the competition was illegal;
                                                                           —     infringement of the principle of equality, enshrined
                                                                                in Article 13 of the EC Treaty, which prohibits all
                                                                                discrimination based on age;
Action brought on 23 July 2002 by Olga Lutz Herrera                        —     infringement of Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental
   against the Commission of the European Communities                            Rights of the European Union and Article 14 of the
                                                                                European Convention on Human Rights.
                         (Case T-219/02)
                         (2002/C 233/53)
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                         Action brought on 23 July 2002 by Heron Robotunits
                                                                           GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                                Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                                           (Case T-222/02)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 23 July 2002 by Olga Lutz Herrera,                                          (2002/C 233/54)
residing in Brussels, represented by D. Ramón Garcia-Gallardo,
Gil Fournier and D. Javier Guillén Carra, lawyers.
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
—     annul the Commission’s decision refusing the applicant’s             Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
      application to take part in competition COM/A/6/01;                  Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                           23 July 2002 by Heron Robotunits GmbH, of Lustenau
—     overturn the dismissal of the administrative appeal against          (Austria), represented by M. Bergermann, Lawyer.
      the refusal of the applicant’s application to take part in
      the said competition;
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     order such other relief as the Court may think appropriate           —     annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
      so that the Commission fulfils its obligations under                       Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
      Article 233 EC and, specifically, conducts a fresh examin-                 Marks and Designs) of 6 May 2002 (Ref: R 1095-2000-
      ation of appeal No 486/01;                                                 1);
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                —     order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 November 2003 in Case C-497/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d'arrondissement de Luxembourg): Zita Modes Sàrl v Administration de l'enregistrement et des domaines (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 5(8) — Transfer of a totality of assets — Continuation by the transferee in the same branch of business as the transferor — Legal authorisation to pursue the activity)

text:
24.1.2004                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                    C 21/5
      Directive 90/219, and by failing to transpose the provisions of               of the assessment of the most economically advantageous tender
      that directive in respect of certain contained use by the Ministry            for a contract for the supply of electricity, an award criterion
      of Defence, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations          with a weighting of 45 % which requires that the electricity
      under that directive;                                                         supplied be produced from renewable energy sources. The fact
                                                                                that that criterion does not necessarily serve to achieve the
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the action;                                        objective pursued is irrelevant in that regard.
3.    Orders each party to bear its own costs.                                      On the other hand, that legislation does preclude such a
                                                                                criterion where
(1) OJ C 369 of 22.12.2001.
                                                                                —      It is not accompanied by requirements which permit the
                                                                                accuracy of the information contained in the tenders to be
                                                                                effectively verified,
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                —      it requires tenderers to state how much electricity they can
                           (Sixth Chamber)                                                 supply from renewable energy sources to a non-defined
                                                                                group of consumers, and allocates the maximum number
                        of 4 December 2003                                                 of points to whichever tenderer states the highest amount,
                                                                                where the supply volume is taken into account only to the
in Case C-448/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                                  extent that it exceeds the volume of consumption expected
the Bundesvergabeamt): EVN AG, Wienstrom GmbH v                                            in the context of the procurement.
Republik Österreich, third parties: Stadtwerke Klagenfurt
             AG and Kärntner Elektrizitäts-AG (1)                                   It is for the national court to determine whether, despite the
                                                                                contracting authority’s failure to stipulate a specific supply
(Directive 93/36/EEC — Public supply contracts — Concept                            period, the award criterion was sufficiently clearly formulated to
of the most economically advantageous tender — Award                                satisfy the requirements of equal treatment and transparency of
criterion giving preference to electricity produced from                            procedures for awarding public contracts.
renewable energy sources — Directive 89/665/EEC — Public
procurement review proceedings — Unlawful decisions —                         2.    The Community legislation on public procurement requires the
Possibility of annulment only in the case of material influ-                        contracting authority to cancel an invitation to tender if it
ence on the outcome of the tender procedure — Illegality of                         transpires in review proceedings under Article 1 of Directive
an award criterion — Obligation to cancel the invitation to                         89/665 that a decision relating to one of the award criteria
                                 tender)                                            laid down by that authority is unlawful and it is therefore
                                                                                annulled by the review body.
                            (2004/C 21/09)
                                                                              (1) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.
                    (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
In Case C-448/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Bundesvergabeamt (Austria) for a preliminary ruling                                          of 27 November 2003
in the proceedings pending before that body between EVN
AG, Wienstrom GmbH and Republik Österreich, third parties:                    in Case C-497/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
Stadtwerke Klagenfurt AG and Kärntner Elektrizitäts-AG, on                    the Tribunal d’arrondissement de Luxembourg): Zita
the interpretation of Article 26 of Council Directive 93/36/                  Modes Sàrl v Administration de l’enregistrement et des
EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award                                                     domaines (1)
of public supply contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 1) and of
Articles 1 and 2(1)(b) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of
                                                                              (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 5(8) — Transfer of a
21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regu-
                                                                              totality of assets — Continuation by the transferee in
lations and administrative provisions relating to the application
                                                                              the same branch of business as the transferor — Legal
of review procedures to the award of public supply and public
                                                                                authorisation to pursue the activity)
works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33), as amended by
Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordi-
nation of procedures for the award of public service contracts                                              (2004/C 21/10)
(OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed
of: V. Skouris (Rapporteur), acting for the President of the                                         (Language of the case: French)
Sixth Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and
N. Colneric, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H. A. Rühl,                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment                                    in the European Court Reports)
on 4 December 2003, in which it has ruled:
1.    The Community legislation on public procurement does not                In Case C-497/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
      preclude a contracting authority from applying, in the context          EC by the Tribunal d’arrondissement de Luxembourg (Luxem-
 ---pagebreak--- C 21/6                   EN                              Official Journal of the European Union                                             24.1.2004
bourg) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
before that court between Zita Modes Sàrl and Administration
de l’enregistrement et des domaines, on the interpretation of
Article 5(8) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May                                                (Fifth Chamber)
1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States
relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added                                                of 4 December 2003
tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), as
amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995
amending Directive 77/388/EEC and introducing new simplifi-                      in Case C-92/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
cation measures with regard to value added tax — scope of                        the Arbeidsrechtbank van het Arrondissement Tonge-
certain exemptions and practical arrangements for                                ren): Nina Kristiansen v Rijksdienst voor Arbeidsvoor-
implementing them (OJ 1995 L 102, p. 18), the Court (Fifth                                                      ziening (1)
Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, acting for the President of
the Fifth Chamber, D. A. O. Edward and S. von Bahr                               (Social security — National system of unemployment ben-
(Rapporteur), Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass,                  efits laying down a rule against overlapping of benefits as
Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 November 2003, in                          regards certain income — Unemployment benefits for former
which it has ruled:                                                              members of the temporary staff of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties — Freedom of movement for workers — National
                                                                                scheme of unemployment insurance — Classification of post-
                                                                                graduate occupation — Occupation of trainee fellowship
1.    Article 5(8) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May               student — Different classification in other Member States
      1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States                                   of the EEA — Discrimination)
      relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added
      tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council                                                (2004/C 21/11)
      Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995 amending Directive 77/
      388/EEC and introducing new simplification measures with
      regard to value added tax — scope of certain exemptions                                         (Language of the case: Dutch)
      and practical arrangements for implementing them, must be
      interpreted as meaning that when a Member State has made
      use of the option in the first sentence of that paragraph to               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
      consider that for the purposes of value added tax no supply of                                 in the European Court Reports)
      goods has taken place in the event of a transfer of a totality of
      assets, that no-supply rule applies — without prejudice to use
      of the possibility of restricting its application in the circum-
      stances laid down in the second sentence of the same paragraph             In Case C-92/02, Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
      — to any transfer of a business or an independent part of an               by the Arbeidsrechtbank van het Arrondissement Tongeren
      undertaking, including tangible elements and, as the case                  (Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
      may be, intangible elements which, together, constitute an                 before that court between Nina Kristiansen and Rijksdienst
      undertaking or a part of an undertaking capable of carrying on             voor Arbeisdvoorziening, on the interpretation of Regulation
      an independent economic activity. The transferee must however              (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the
      intend to operate the business or the part of the undertaking              application of social security schemes to employed persons, to
      transferred and not simply to immediately liquidate the activity           self-employed persons and to members of their families
      concerned and sell the stock, if any.                                      moving within the Community, as amended and updated by
                                                                                Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ
                                                                                1997 L 28, p. 1), and of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the
                                                                                Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for
2.    When a Member State has made use of the option in the first                workers within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition
      sentence of Article 5(8) of Sixth Directive 77/388, as amended             1968 (II), p. 475), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
      by Directive 95/7, to consider that for the purposes of value              C. W. A. Timmermans, acting for the President of the Fifth
      added tax no supply of goods has taken place in the event of a             Chamber, D. A. O. Edward and A. La Pergola (Rapporteur),
      transfer of a totality of assets, the restriction by a Member State        Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
      of the application of that no-supply rule to transfers of a totality       given a judgment on 4 December 2003, in which it has ruled:
      of assets where the transferee holds the authorisation for pursuit
      of the economic activity which that totality enables to be carried
      on infringes that provision.                                               1.    The second subparagraph of Article 28a(1) of the Conditions
                                                                                of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities
                                                                                means that the relationship between the Community system of
                                                                                unemployment benefits and those of the Member States is a
                                                                                complementary one, which cannot be disregarded by a Member
(1) OJ C 44 of 16.2.2002.                                                              State in the application of its system of unemployment benefits
                                                                                and, specifically, of a rule against the overlapping of benefits
                                                                                under that system, to a former member of the temporary
                                                                                staff who resides in that Member State and is entitled to
                                                                                unemployment benefits paid under the Conditions of Employ-
                                                                                ment of Other Servants of the European Communities.


title: Case C-448/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 19 August 2015 — Belgische Staat v Comm. VA Wereldhave Belgium and Others

text:
               3.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 363/23

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 19 August 2015 — Belgische Staat v Comm. VA Wereldhave Belgium and Others
   (Case C-448/15)
   (2015/C 363/29)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van beroep te Brussel

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Belgische Staat

      Respondents: Comm. VA Wereldhave Belgium, NV Wereldhave International, NV Wereldhave

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Council Directive 90/435/EEC (1) of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States to be construed as precluding a national rule that does not waive Belgian advance tax on income from investments in respect of dividend payments made by a Belgian subsidiary to a parent company established in the Netherlands that fulfils the condition of a minimum participating interest and the holding of such an interest, on the ground that the Netherlands parent company is a fiscal investment institution that is required to distribute all its profits to its shareholders and, subject to that proviso, is eligible for the zero rate of corporation tax?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the negative, are Articles 49 (ex Article 43 TEC) and 63 (ex Article 56 TEC) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (in the version in force since the amendment and numbering by the Treaty of Lisbon) to be construed as precluding a national rule that does not waive Belgian advance tax on income from investments in respect of dividend payments made by a Belgian subsidiary to a parent company established in the Netherlands that fulfils the condition of a minimum participating interest and the holding of such an interest, on the ground that the Netherlands parent company is a fiscal investment institution that is required to pay all its profits to its shareholders and, subject to that proviso, is eligible for the zero rate of corporation tax?

      (1)  OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6.


title: Case T-541/13: Action brought on 9 October 2013 — Abertis Telecom and Retevisión I v Commission

text:
               30.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/22

         Action brought on 9 October 2013 — Abertis Telecom and Retevisión I v Commission
   (Case T-541/13)
   2013/C 352/41
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Abertis Telecom, SA (Barcelona, Spain) and Retevisión I, SA (Barcelona) (represented by: L. Cases Pallarés, J. Buendía Sierra, N. Ruiz García, A. Lamadrid de Pablo, M. Muñoz de Juan and M. Reverter Baquer, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision and, in particular, Article 1 thereof, in so far as it declares there to be State aid incompatible with the internal market;

               —

               consequently, annul the recovery orders set out in Articles 3 and 4 of the contested decision;

               —

               order, by way of a measure of organisation of procedure, the Commission to produce the cost report submitted by ASTRA; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The contested decision in the present case is the same as that in Case T-462/13 Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco and Itelazpi v Commission.
   The applicants raise the same pleas in support of their action as those raised in the aforecited case.