title: Case T-211/08: Action brought on 4 June 2008 — Putters International v Commission

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/31

         Action brought on 4 June 2008 — Putters International v Commission
   (Case T-211/08)
   (2008/C 197/54)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Putters International NV (Cargovil, Belgium) (represented by: K. Platteau, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul Article 1 of the Decision to the extent to which that provision states that the applicant breached Article 81(1) EC in that it and other undertakings directly and indirectly fixed the prices for international removal services in Belgium, shared part of the market and manipulated the procedure for the submission of tenders;

               —

               annul Article 2 of the Decision in so far as a fine of EUR 395 000 is thereby imposed on the applicant;

               —

               should the Court take the view that it is appropriate that a fine be imposed on the applicant, in the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction under Article 229 EC and Article 31 of Regulation No 1/2003, fix a fine which is significantly lower than that determined by the Commission;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 926 final of 11 March 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case COMP/38.543 — International removal services).
   First, the applicant submits that the Commission committed a manifest error of appraisal in finding that the applicant had participated in a complex and systematic cartel designed, directly and indirectly, to fix the prices of international removal services in Belgium, to share part of the market and to manipulate the procedure for the submission of tenders, even though the applicant was merely a party to practices relating to commissions and cover quotes, and even that on a very sporadic basis.
   Second, the applicant argues that there has been an infringement of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment by reason of the fact that the Commission, in its calculation of the basic amount of the fine, took into account the total turnover for international removal services, without regard for the number and nature of the breaches committed by the applicant and the impact which these had on the relevant market.
   Third, the applicant alleges an infringement of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment by reason of the fact that, in calculating the fine, the Commission, without regard for the parties' respective roles in the cartel and the nature of the practices in which they engaged, did not differentiate between the parties but applied the same percentage to all the parties in respect of the gravity of the breach and the extra amount intended to serve as a deterrent.
   Fourth, the applicant alleges an infringement of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment by reason of the fact that the Commission imposed the maximum authorised fine on a participant with such a limited role as the applicant.
   Fifth, and finally, the applicant submits that there has been an infringement by the Commission of the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and equal treatment, together with misappraisal, inasmuch as it failed to establish any mitigating circumstances in the applicant's case.


title: Case F-18/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 April 2014  — Lecolier v Commission

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/65

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 April 2014 — Lecolier v Commission
   (Case F-18/14)
   2014/C 421/100
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


title: Case T-471/08: Action brought on 23 October 2008 — Toland v Parliament

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/37

         Action brought on 23 October 2008 — Toland v Parliament
   (Case T-471/08)
   (2009/C 32/72)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Ciarán Toland (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: A. Burke, Solicitor, E. Regan, SC)

      Defendant: European Parliament
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul decision A(2008) 10636 of Vice-President Dianna Wallis MEP of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 11 August 2008 addressed to Ciaran Toland insofar as it refused the applicant access to Internal Audit Report No 06/02 concluded on 9 January 2008 of the Internal Audit Service of the European Parliament entitled ‘Audit of the Parliamentary Assistance Allowance’;

               —

               Order the European Parliament to grant the applicant access to Internal Audit Report No 06/02 concluded on 9 January 2008 of the Internal Audit Service of the European Parliament entitled ‘Audit of the Parliamentary Assistance Allowance’;

               —

               Order the European Parliament to pay the applicant's costs of these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   On 11 June 2008, the applicant applied to the European Parliament for access to the 2006 Annual Report of the European Parliament Internal Audit Service, including the 16 Audit reports referred to in paragraph 24 of the European Parliament Resolution of 22 April 2008. By letter of 23 June 2008, the applicant was granted partial access to one of the reports, the Internal Audit Report 07/01, and made a confirmatory application on the basis of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) for full access to the 16 Audit Reports. By letter of 11 August 2008, which came to the knowledge of the applicant on 20 August 2008, the Vice-President of The European Parliament replied to the application granting access to 13 of the requested Internal Audit Reports, partial access to 2 of the other reports, while refusing access to one of them.
   On the basis of its application made pursuant to Article 230 EC and in accordance to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, the applicant seeks partial annulment of Decision A(2008) 10636 of 11 August 2008, insofar as it rejected the applicant's request to obtain access to Report No 06/02 of the Internal Audit Service entitled ‘Audit of the Parliamentary Assistance Allowance’.
   The applicant submits that the contested decision is vitiated by manifest errors of law and of fact, is disproportionate and fails to state reasons, in that:

               (a)

               it advanced no grounds sustainable in law for refusal of access;

               (b)

               it abrogated to itself a discretion which it doesn't have in failing to have regard to the provisions of the legislation;

               (c)

               insofar as it advanced no legitimate grounds for refusal of access under Article 4(2) third indent or Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001;

               (d)

               it failed to consider whether there was an overriding public interest which might outweigh the grounds for refusal;

               (e)

               the Vice-President failed to find that the interests of democracy, openness and transparency are overriding public interests which outweigh the grounds for refusal;

               (f)

               it acknowledged that Internal Audit Report made recommendations for implementation of action plans within the regulatory and legislative process or failed to find that the interests of democracy, openness an transparency in the regulatory and legislative process are matters of citizen participation which constitute overriding public interest in disclosure.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).


title: Case C-335/12: Action brought on 13 July 2012 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

text:
               6.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/14

         Action brought on 13 July 2012 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-335/12)
   2012/C 303/27
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Caeiros, Agent)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic

      Form of order sought

   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, as a result of the refusal of the Portuguese authorities to make available a sum of EUR 785 078,50 corresponding to levies on surplus stocks of non-exported sugar, following the accession of Portugal to the European Community, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations resulting from Article 10 EC, Article 254 of the Act of Accession, (1) Article 7 of Decision 85/257/EEC, Euratom, (2) Articles 4, 7 and 8 of Regulation (EEC) No 579/86, (3) Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 (4) and Articles 2, 11 and 17 of Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89; (5)

               —

               order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   According to the information provided by the Portuguese authorities, the undertaking William Hinton & Sons did not provide proof of having exported the surplus sugar stocks in its possession. On 3 December 1990, the Portuguese authorities notified that undertaking that it had to pay an additional sum of EUR 785 078,50. The undertaking challenged that decision before the Supreme Tribunal Administrativo (Supreme Administrative Court; ‘STA’), which referred a number of questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. On 11 October 2001, the Court of Justice delivered an order in Case C-30/00 William Hinton & Sons, (6) in which it stated that those questions ‘arose in the context of a dispute between William Hinton & Sons Lda … and Fazenda Pública with regard to the post-clearance recovery of charges levied on surplus stocks of sugar held by William Hinton’. On 8 May 2002, the STA annulled the notice of assessment of the additional sum, because that sum was notified at a time when it was already time-barred.
   Earlier case-law of the Court of Justice, namely the judgments of 7 December 2004 in Case T-240/02 Koninklijke Coöperatie Cosun v Commission, and of 26 October 2006 in Case C-68/05 P Koninklijke Coöperatie Cosun v Commission, suggests that the sum of EUR 785 078,50 referred to above could not continue to be classed as a ‘levy’ as it was in the order of the Court of Justice in Case C-30/00, but may continue to be classed as ‘own resources’ of the Communities.
   Although that case-law concerns the levy of a sum under Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2670/81, (7) since a given quantity of C sugar was not exported outside of the Community, the fact remains that the chargeable event for the levying of that sum is essentially identical to the chargeable event for the levying of the sum provided for in Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation No 579/86, at issue in the present case. That provision states that a sum is levied on the quantities of sugar which exceed the carry-over stock and which have not been exported outside of the Community, since, in accordance with Article 5(2) of Regulation No 579/86, those quantities are regarded as having been disposed of on the internal market of the Community.
   Pursuant to Article 2 of Decision 85/257, revenue from levies and other duties within the framework of the common organisation of the markets in sugar constitutes own resources.
   It is apparent from Article 254 of the Act of Accession that the sum referred to above falls within the common organisation of the markets in sugar. That provision states that the carry-over stock which must be eliminated by and at the expense of the Portuguese Republic is that which in quantity exceeds or may be considered representative of a normal carry-over stock and that ‘the concept of normal carry-over stock shall be defined for each product on the basis of the criteria and objectives particular to each common organisation of the markets’ or, in the case of sugar, ‘the concept of normal carry-over stock’ should be defined on the basis of the criteria and objectives particular to the common organisation of the markets in sugar. Thus, the regulation at Community level of the elimination of sugar stocks forms part of the common organisation of the markets in sugar.
   Regulation No 3771/85 (8) laid down, on the basis of Article 258(3) of the Act of Accession, ‘the general rules for the application of Article 254 of the Act of Accession’, defined the notion of ‘products in free circulation in Portuguese territory’, determined that ‘detailed rules for (its) application’ were to be adopted ‘in accordance with the procedure laid down … in corresponding articles in other regulations on the common organisation of the agricultural markets’, and provided that ‘(t)he detailed rules … shall relate in particular to: … the procedures for disposing of surplus products’, and that the detailed rules ‘may make provision for: … the collection of a charge in cases where a party concerned does not comply with the procedures for disposing of surplus products’.
   Regulation No 579/86 which lays down detailed rules relating to stocks of products in the sugar sector in Spain and Portugal on 1 March 1986 was adopted by the Commission on the basis of Regulation No 3771/85 and on the basis of Regulation No 1785/81 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector. The fact that the regulation which establishes the common organisation in the markets in the sugar sector is one of the legal bases of Regulation No 579/86 shows that the rules laid down by the latter and, consequently, the amount cited above fall within the common organisation in the markets in the sugar sector.
   The sum of EUR 785 078,50, cited above, may be classed as ‘own resources’ of the Communities for the purposes of point (a) of the first paragraph of Article 2 of Decision 85/257, because it is revenue from ‘other duties provided for within the framework of the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector’ resulting from the special regime put in place by the Portuguese Republic when it became a Member State, namely, a sum which should have been levied by the Portuguese authorities pursuant to Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation No 579/86.
   Article 1 of Regulation No 3771/85 lays down ‘the general rules for the application of Article 254 of the Act of Accession’ and defines, in the second indent of Article 3(1)(b) that ‘products shall be considered as being in free circulation in Portuguese territory where: they are imported into Portugal, in respect of which import formalities have been completed and on which customs duties and equivalent charges have been collected in Portugal, without any total or partial drawback thereof’. The second indent of Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation No 3771/85 relates to ‘all products imported into Portugal’ including, thus also, those from other Member States.
   Sugar from Denmark thus could and should have been taken into consideration in the calculation of the sugar stocks in free circulation in Portuguese territory on 1 March 1986. The Portuguese authorities consider that, even if, in the circumstances of the present case, Denmark were to have been considered to be a third country, the quantity of sugar imported (796 821 Kg) as ‘Bilhete de Importação no 246’ in the calculation of those stocks should not be taken into consideration, since, in their view, the sugar at issue was not in free circulation on 1 March 1986.
   The Commission does not share that point of view because the tax court at second instance held, in its judgment of 26 March 1996, that there was factual evidence that that sugar had been cleared for customs purposes on 27 February 1986 and that it was authorised on that date for circulation and for consumption.
   Neither Decision 85/257 and the subsequent decisions which substituted it, nor Regulation No 1552/89, which lays down the conditions in which the Communities’ ‘own resources’ are made available to the Commission, stipulate that the making available of own resources to the Commission is to form part of the Community budget. Articles 371 and 372 of the Act of Accession aim to adapt the application of Decision 85/257 to the specific situation resulting from the accession of Portugal and do not prevent revenue from the sum provided for in Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation No 579/86, namely, in the present case, the sum of EUR 785 078,50, from being classed as own resources.
   The classification of a sum as own resources of the Communities results from Community legislation and, in particular, Decision 85/257; the classification given by the Member States is irrelevant.
   In accordance with settled case-law, it is not necessary to show that a loss of own resources was caused by error on the part of some national authority. It is sufficient that, following a final decision of the STA, it was considered that the debtor was not taxable for payment of duties and that that fact is directly related to the late action of the Portuguese authorities in 1990. The Court of Justice confirmed this position of the Commission in its judgment of 15 November 2005 in Case C-392/02 Commission v Denmark.
   The judgment of the STA of 8 May 2002 confirms that the Commission’s position is legally founded, that is, that the amount of the debt was not communicated to the debtor in good time, i.e. within three years, that the levy was thus not possible, and that, consequently, the own resources could not be made available to the Commission.

      (1)  Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties (OJ 1985 L 302, p. 23).

      (2)  Council Decision 85/257/EEC of 7 May 1985 on the Communities’ system of own resources (OJ 1985 L 128, p. 15).

      (3)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 579/86 of 28 February 1986 laying down detailed rules relating to stocks of products in the sugar sector in Spain and Portugal on 1 March 1986 (OJ 1986 L 57, p. 21).

      (4)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 of 24 July 1979 on the post-clearance recovery of import duties or export duties which have not been required of the person liable for payment on goods entered for a customs procedure involving the obligation to pay such duties (OJ 1979 L 197, p. 1).

      (5)  Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources (OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1).

      (6)  Case C-30/00 William Hinton & Sons (2001) ECR I-7511.

      (7)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 of 14 September 1981 laying down detailed implementing rules in respect of sugar production in excess of the quota (OJ 1981 L 262, p. 14).

      (8)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 3771/85 of 20 December 1985 on stocks of agricultural products in Portugal (OJ 1985 L 362, p. 21).


title: Case T-317/09: Order of the General Court of 24 November 2010 — Concord Power Nordal v Commission (Action for annulment — Internal market in natural gas — Article 22 of Directive 2003/55/EC — Letter from the Commission requesting a regulatory authority to amend its decision regarding the grant of an exemption — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/39

         Order of the General Court of 24 November 2010 — Concord Power Nordal v Commission
   (Case T-317/09) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Internal market in natural gas - Article 22 of Directive 2003/55/EC - Letter from the Commission requesting a regulatory authority to amend its decision regarding the grant of an exemption - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility)
   2011/C 30/71
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Concord Power Nordal GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: C. von Hammerstein, C.S. Schweer and C. Wünschmann, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Wilms, O. Beynet and B. Schima, agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: OPAL NEL Transport GmbH (Kassel, Germany) (represented by: U. Quack and O. Fleishchmann, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the Commission’s letter of 12 June 2009 addressed to the Bundesnetzagentur (German Regulatory Authority) on the basis of Article 22(4) of Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 57).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               It is not necessary to rule on the requests for confidential treatment made by Concord Power Nordal GmbH.

               2.

               The action is dismissed.

               3.

               Concord Power Nordal shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

               4.

               OPAL NEL Transport GmbH shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.


title: Case T-187/11 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 14 July 2011 — Trabelsi and Others v Council (Interim measures — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia — Freezing of funds — Application for suspension of operation and for interim measures — Lack of urgency)

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/22

         Order of the President of the General Court of 14 July 2011 — Trabelsi and Others v Council
   (Case T-187/11 R)
   (Interim measures - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia - Freezing of funds - Application for suspension of operation and for interim measures - Lack of urgency)
   2011/C 282/46
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Mohamed Trabelsi (Paris, France); Ines Lejri (Paris); Moncef Trabelsi (Paris); Selima Trabelsi (Paris); and Tarek Trabelsi (Paris) (represented initially by A. Metzker, and subsequently by A. Tekari, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro and G. Étienne, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for interim measures and for suspension of operation of Council Implementing Decision 2011/79/CFSP of 4 February 2011 implementing Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2011 L 31, p. 40).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case C-246/12 P: Appeal brought on 18 May 2012 by Ellinika Nafpigia AE against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 March 2012 in Case T-391/08 Ellinika Nafpigia v European Commission

text:
               7.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/9

         Appeal brought on 18 May 2012 by Ellinika Nafpigia AE against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 March 2012 in Case T-391/08 Ellinika Nafpigia v European Commission
   (Case C-246/12 P)
   2012/C 200/16
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: Ellinika Nafpigia AE (represented by: I. Drosos, lawyer. V. Karagiannis, lawyer)

      Other party to the appeal proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal of the General Court in Case Τ-391/08.

               —

               annul Articles 1(2), 2, 3, 5, 6, 8(2), 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18 and 19 of the initially contested Commission decision of 2 July 2008:‘On the measures C 16/2004 (ex NN 29/2004, CP 71/2002 and CP 133/2005) implemented by Greece in favour of Hellenic Shipyards [Ellinika Nafpigia A.E]’.

               —

               in the alternative, set aside the judgment under appeal in part to the extent that it applies to the measures Ε12b, Ε13a, Ε13b, Ε14, Ε16 and Ε17 in the initially contested decision and annul the initially contested decision to the same extent.

               —

               in the further alternative, set aside the judgment under appeal in part to the extent that it applies to the measure Ε7 in the initially contested decision and annul the initially contested decision to the same extent.

               —

               order the Commission to pay the appellant’s costs both in the proceedings before the General Court and before the Court of Justice.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   By the first ground of appeal the appellant claims that the judgment under appeal erred in its interpretation and application of Article 346 TFEU, which means that it must be set aside in its entirety on all counts and in respect of its operative part, or in particular respects as set out in the appeal. By the second ground of appeal the appellant claims that the judgment under appeal erred in its interpretation and application of Article 348 TFEU, which means that it must be set aside in its entirety on all counts and in respect of its operative part, or in particular respects as set out in the appeal. By the third ground of appeal the appellant claims that the judgment under appeal erroneously rejected its claims concerning the infringement of its procedural rights by the initially contested decision, an error which means that the judgment under appeal must be set aside to the extent set out in the appeal.


               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/44

         Removal from the Register of Case T-310/99 (1)

   (2004/C 228/102)

      (Language of the case: Dutch)

   By order of 11 May 2004, the President of the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-310/99, Strijbos en zoon B.V., supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.


title: Case T-237/10: Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2011 — Vuitton Malletier v OHIM — Friis Group International (Representation of a locking device) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2011 — Vuitton Malletier v OHIM — Friis Group International (Representation of a locking device)
   (Case T-237/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 32/45
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Louis Vuitton Malletier (Paris, France) (represented by: P.L. Roncaglia, G. Lazzeretti, M. Boletto and E. Gavuzzi, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Friis Group International ApS (Copenhagen, Denmark) (represented by: C. Type Jardorf, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 February 2010 (Case R 1590/2008-1) concerning invalidity proceedings between Friis Group International Aps and Louis Vuitton Malletier

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 February 2010 (Case R 1590/2008-1) in so far as it declared Community trade mark number 3 693 116 invalid for ‘Jewellery, including rings, keyrings, buckles and earrings, cuff links, bracelets, trinkets, brooches, necklaces, ties pins, ornaments, medallions; horological and chronometric instruments and apparatus, including watches, watchcases, alarm clocks; nutcrackers in precious metals, their alloys or coated therewith, candlesticks in precious metals, their alloys or coated therewith’ in Class 14 and ‘leather and imitations of leather’ and ‘umbrellas’ in Class 18;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders Louis Vuitton Malletier, Friis Group International ApS and OHIM to each bear the costs they have incurred in the course of the proceeding before the General Court.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 31.7.2010.


title: Case T-388/13: Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2015  — Costa Crociere v OHIM — Guerlain (SAMSARA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark SAMSARA — Earlier Community word mark SAMSARA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               13.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2015 — Costa Crociere v OHIM — Guerlain (SAMSARA)
   (Case T-388/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark SAMSARA - Earlier Community word mark SAMSARA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 118/35)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Costa Crociere SpA (Genoa, Italy) (represented by: A. Vanzetti, S. Bergia and G. Sironi, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: L. Rampini, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Guerlain SA (Levallois-Perret, France) (represented by: C. Costa and M. Baccarelli, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 May 2013 (Case R 2049/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Guerlain SA and Costa Crociere SpA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Costa Crociere SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 298, 12.10.2013.


title: Case T-351/07: Action brought on 13 September 2007 — SOMM v OHIM

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/30

         Action brought on 13 September 2007 — SOMM v OHIM
   (Case T-351/07)
   (2007/C 283/55)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: SOMM Srl (San Mauro T.se, Italy) (represented by M. Ferro, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 28 June 2007 in Case R 1653/2006-1 concerning Community trade mark application No 4 837 746;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Three-dimensional trade mark described as follows: ‘Three-dimensional whole constituted by a large number of tubular posts of metal, placed at a distance from and aligned with each other, tapering and substantially curved at the bend, each having a base line, fixed to the ground, essentially vertical and a line with open extremities slightly inclined towards the top, a large number of tubular parts of metal, placed at a distance from and parallel with each other, fixed on inclined lines of those posts, and a cover to provide shade fixed on said tubular parts, the whole forming a shaded shelter’; Application No 4 837 736 for goods in Classes 6 and 19.

      Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of the application for registration.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Error in determining the relevant public and the sector of reference and also the acquisition of distinctive character of the mark in question pursuant to Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.


title: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 April 2005 in Case C-61/03: Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — EAEC Treaty — Scope — Military installations — Health and safety — Decommissioning of a nuclear reactor — Disposal of radioactive waste)

text:
               28.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 132/3

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Grand Chamber)
   of 12 April 2005
   in Case C-61/03: Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1)

   (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - EAEC Treaty - Scope - Military installations - Health and safety - Decommissioning of a nuclear reactor - Disposal of radioactive waste)
   (2005/C 132/06)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-61/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: L. Ström and X. Lewis) v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agents: P. Ormond and C. Jackson and D. Wyatt, R. Plender and S. Tromans), supported by French Republic, (Agents: R. Abraham, G. de Bergues and E. Puisais) — action for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 141 EA, brought on 14 February 2003 — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas (Rapporteur), R. Silva de Lapuerta and A. Borg Barthet, Presidents of Chambers, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, P. Kūris, E. Juhász, G. Arestis and M. Ilešič, Judges; L. A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 April 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 101 of 26.04.2003.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 9 July 1997 in Case T-4/96: S v. Court of Justice of the European Communities (Officials - Occupational disease - Medical Committee - Basis for calculating the benefits provided for by Article 73 (2) of the Staff Regulations)

text:
16 . 8 . 97            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 252/27
3 . orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.
                                                                                of 9 July 1997
(') OJ No C 290 , 6 . 11 . 1992 .                                     in Case T-4/96: S v. Court of Justice of the European
                                                                                Communities ( ! )
                                                                      (Officials — Occupational disease — Medical Committee
                                                                      — Basis for calculating the benefits provided for by
                                                                                Article 73 (2) of the Staff Regulations)
                                                                                ( 97/C 252/59 )
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                           of 9 July 1997                                             (Language of the case: French)
in Case T-156/95 : Diego Echauz Brigaldi and Others v.
         Commission of the European Communities (')
                                                                      In Case T-4/96 : S v. Court of Justice of the European
(Officials — Decisions of the Commission refusing special             Communities ( Agent: Timothy Millett), application for,
    leave for elections and travelling time — Admissibility)          first, the annulment of the decision of the Court of Justice
                                                                      of 11 April 1995 , in so far as it adopted an invalidity rate
                           ( 97/C 252/58 )                            of 6 % for the purpose of calculating the lump sum
                                                                      provided for in Article 73 of the Staff Regulations of
                                                                      Officials of the European Communities; secondly,
                 (Language of the case: English)                      acknowledgement of the applicant's right to that lump
                                                                      sum calculated on the basis of an invalidity rate of 30% ;
                                                                      and, thirdly, compensatory interest — the Court of First
In Case T-156/95 : Diego Echauz Brigaldi, Jose Luis                   Instance ( Fourth Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts,
Buendía Sierra, Cesar Montoliu Garcia, Maria Jesus Ruiz               President, P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; A. Mair,
Monroy, Carmen Ochoa de Michelena, Victoria                           Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 July
Pagadigorria Wicke, Miguel Abellan Lopez, Inmaculada                   1997, in which it:
Gil Tardón, Antonio Garcia Velazquez, Maria Carmen
Labrador Rubio, Carmen Casado Salinas, Diego Gonzalez
Marin, Eva Maria Rasines Martin, Julio Vizcarra Soriano                1 . dismisses the application;
and Leopoldo Fabra Utray, officials of the Commission of
the European Communities, represented by Ramon
García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier, of the Burgos Bar, with an              2 . orders each party to bear its own costs.
address for service in Brussels at the Chambers of J. and
B. Cremades and Associates, 391 Avenue Louise, against
Commission of the European Communities ( Agents : Ana                  (') OJ No C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .
Maria Alves Vieira and Blanca Vila Costa ) — application
for annulment of the decisions of the Commission of
2 May 1995 refusing to grant the applicants special leave
for elections and travelling time in order to enable them to
exercise their right to vote in Spain, where they had
retained official residence and where they went to vote in
the elections to the European Parliament in June 1994,                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
and for an order that the Commission grant each official
the number of days' travelling time used by them in order                                        of 9 July 1997
to go to vote in Spain or pay them the amount                                 in Case T-92/96: Roberto Monaco v. European
corresponding to the number of days used — the Court of                                           Parliament (M
First Instance ( Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenarts,
President, P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio                (Officials — Appointment — Classification in grade —
Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a                     Infringement of the notice of competition and notice of
judgment on 9 July 1997, in which it:                                  vacancy — Principle of the protection of legitimate
                                                                       expectations — Article 31 (2) of the Staff Regulations —
                                                                        Principle of equality of treatment and non-discrimination)
 1 . dismisses the application;
                                                                                ( 97/C 252/60 )
 2 . orders the parties each to bear their own costs.                                  (Language of the case: French)
 O OJNoC 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .
                                                                       In Case T-92/96 : Roberto Monaco, an official of the
                                                                       European Parliament, residing at Capellen ( Luxembourg),
                                                                       represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 February 2003 in Case T-30/02: Wolfgang Leonhardt v European Parliament (Officials — Reports — Promotion — Amendment to the rules — Transitional measures)

text:
26.4.2003               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 101/33
President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 February 2003, in
which it:                                                                                of 27 September 2002
1.     Dismisses the action;                                               in Case T-211/02: Tideland Signal Limited v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities ( 1)
2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                           (Public procurement — Rejection of tender — Failure to
                                                                           exercise power to seek clarification of tender — Action for
                                                                                annulment — Expedited procedure)
( 1) OJ C 68 of 16.3.2002.
                                                                                (2003/C 101/60)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           In Case T-211/02: Tideland Signal Limited, of which the
                                                                           registered office is in Redhill, Surrey (United Kingdom),
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               represented by C Thomas and C Kennedy-Loest, Solicitors,
                                                                           against Commission of the European Communities (Agent: J
                                                                           Forman) — application for annulment of the Commission
                       of 11 February 2003                                 decision of 17 June 2002 rejecting the applicant’s tender
                                                                           in procurement procedure EuropeAid/112336/C/S/WW —
                                                                           TACIS — (Re-tender) — the Court of First Instance (First
in Case T-30/02: Wolfgang Leonhardt v European Parlia-                     Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, N.J. Forwood
                               ment ( 1)                                   and H. Legal, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the
                                                                           Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 September 2002, in
                                                                           which it:
(Officials — Reports — Promotion — Amendment to the
                 rules — Transitional measures)
                                                                           1.     Annuls the Commission decision of 17 June 2002 rejecting the
                                                                                tender submitted by Tideland Signal Limited for Lot 1 in the
                          (2003/C 101/59)                                         tender procedure for EuropeAid/112336/C/S/WW — TACIS
                                                                                — (Re-tender);
                    (Language of the case: French)                         2.     Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 219 of 14.9.2002.
In Case T-30/02: Wolfgang Leonhardt, an official of the
European Parliament, residing in La Hulpe (Belgium), rep-
resented by H. Tagaras, avocat, against European Parliament
(Agents: H. von Hertzen and D. Moore) — application for
annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 11 June 2001
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
resetting at zero the tally of promotion points held by the
applicant on 1 January 2000 — the Court of First Instance (First
Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, R.M. Moura                                       of 13 December 2002
Ramos and H. Legal, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 February 2003,               in Case T-81/01: Marc Oscar Henri Verdoodt and Ingrid
the operative part of which is as follows:                                 Edmondus Malvina Rademakers-Verdoodt v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities ( 1)
1.     The Parliament’s decision of 11 June 2001 resetting at zero         (Action for annulment — Action becoming devoid of purpose
       the tally of promotion points held by Mr Leonhardt on                         — No need to adjudicate — Award of costs)
       1 January 2000 is annulled.
                                                                                (2003/C 101/61)
2.     The Parliament shall bear the costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
( 1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.
                                                                           In Case T-81/01: Marc Oscar Henri Verdoodt and Ingrid
                                                                           Edmondus Malvina Rademakers-Verdoodt, living in Schoten


title: Case T-121/01: Action brought on 31 May 2001 by Laurent Piau against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 227/30               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                    11.8.2001
Action brought on 4 June 2001 by Carlo De Nicola against                   Lastly, the applicant also pleads that Article 39 of the Staff
                 the European Investment Bank                              Regulations is illegal, inasmuch as it allows a person to be
                                                                           relieved of his duties, and even provides for payment of that
                         (Case T-120/01)                                   person’s salary to be stopped, for up to three months, without
                                                                           requiring the facts in issue to be communicated forthwith and
                                                                           at the same time.
                         (2001/C 227/57)
                                                                           (1) OJ C 150 of 19.5.2001, p. 20.
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the European Investment Bank was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 4 June 2001 by Carlo De Nicola, represented by Luigi Isola,
avvocato.
                                                                           Action brought on 31 May 2001 by Laurent Piau against
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                         Commission of the European Communities
—     annul the letter of 6 March 2001 bearing reference
      RH/Ress/2001-483/TP and its enclosure;                                                        (Case T-121/01)
—     annul the letter of 22 May 2001;
                                                                                (2001/C 227/58)
—     annul Article 39 of the Staff Regulations;
—     annul all acts connected with or ensuing from the                                       (Language of the case: French)
      contested measures, or on which those measures are
      based;
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
—     rule and declare that the Code of Conduct is not applicable          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      to the applicant;                                                    European Communities on 31 May 2001 by Laurent Piau,
                                                                           residing in Nantes, France, represented by Marguerite Faucon-
—     order the European Investment Bank to pay compen-                    net and Pierre Thielen, Avocats, with an address for service in
      sation for the physical, material and non-material damage            Luxembourg.
      suffered, in an amount to be determined during the
      course of the proceedings;                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                —     Declare that the Commission failed to adopt the necessary
                                                                                measures within a reasonable time following the appli-
                                                                                cant’s complaint on the basis of Article 3 of Regulation
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  No 17;
                                                                           —     Declare that the Commission is obliged to take the
In the present case, the applicant — who is also the applicant                   necessary measures within one month against the party
in Joined Cases T-7/98, T-208/98 and T-109/99 De Nicola v                        complained against in the applicant’s complaint pursuant
European Investment Bank (EIB) — is contesting various                           to Regulation No 17;
measures which he regards as having been adopted with a
view to obstructing compliance with the judgment delivered                 —     Order the defendant to pay the costs.
on 23 February 2001 in the abovementioned cases (1).
In support of his claims, the applicant pleads:                            Pleas in law and main arguments
—     infringement of the Staff Regulations and the Code of
      Conduct, if and in so far as the latter is applicable,               The applicant states that on 23 March 1998 he lodged a
      inasmuch as the letter of 6 March 2001 introduces a new              complaint with the Commission of the European Communi-
      type of penalty which is not provided for. He claims, in             ties, arguing that the rules applied by Fédération International
      addition, that the enclosure to that letter lays down new            de Football Association (FIFA) to the activity of player’s agent
      rules which are different from and contrary to those                 were contrary to Community law, in particular Articles 49 EC
      provided for in the employment contract, in breach of                and 81 EC (COMP/37.124 Piau/FIFA). The Commission made
      the Charter of Human Rights and the principles of proper             a thorough investigation and on 19 October 1999 sent FIFA a
      conduct and contractual good faith.                                  statement of complaints. On 24 February 2000 the parties
                                                                           presented their views orally. On 31 January 2001 the applicant,
—     failure, as regards the letter from the President of the EIB         since he had not received any statement of position, called on
      — which suspended the applicant from all duties with                 the Commission to respond. To this day, almost three years
      immediate effect and prohibited him from entering his                after the complaint was made, the Commission has not taken
      office — to comply with the obligation to communicate                a clear, explicit position on the problem submitted to it by the
      in advance the facts in issue.                                       applicant.
 ---pagebreak--- 11.8.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 227/31
The applicant considers that the Commission’s inaction is                                              — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)
contrary to the Treaty and to Regulation No 17, since it is                                                of Regulation No 40/94;
allowing an infringement of Article 81(1) of the Treaty to                                             — Failure to take account of the
continue, although it has all the evidence available to adopt                                              services actually being offered;
the necessary measures.
                                                                                — Failure to take account of the
                                                                                existing registrations of the
                                                                                sign in Germany and France.
                                                                         (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
                                                                             Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
Action brought on 4 June 2001 by Best Buy Concepts Inc.
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
              Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                         (Case T-122/01)
                                                                         Action brought on 1 June 2001 by Pietro del Vaglio
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
                         (2001/C 227/59)
                                                                                (Case T-124/01)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (2001/C 227/60)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                                      (Language of the case: French)
4 June 2001 by Best Buy Concepts Inc., Minnesota (U.S.A.),
represented by Sabine Rojahn, Rechtsanwältin, with an address            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
for service in Luxembourg.                                               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 1 June 2001 by Pietro del Vaglio
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              domiciled in London, represented by Georges Vandersanden,
                                                                         Laure Levi and Dugois Dominique, Lawyers.
—     set aside the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the
      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
      21 March 2001 in Case R 44/2000-3;
                                                                         —     Annul the Commission’s Decision of 5 April 2000
—     order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.                 refusing to apply the United Kingdom weighting to the
                                                                               applicant’s pension as from 8 May 1999 and, so far as
                                                                               necessary, annul the decision of the Commission of
                                                                               23 February 2001 dismissing the applicant’s claim of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                18 July 2000;
                                                                         —     Order the defendant to apply the United Kingdom
Trade mark for which           The pictorial mark ‘BEST BUY’ —                 weighting with retroactive effect from 8 May 1999;
Community registration         Application No 001166164
                                                                         —     Order the defendant to pay damage provisionally assessed
sought:
                                                                               ex aequo et bono at 10 000 Euros and to pay interest at
                                                                               8 % per annum on the remainder of the pension owed as
Goods or services:             Services in Classes 35, 37 and 42               from 8 May 1999;
                               (including management con-
                               sultancy, installation of car stereo      —     Order the defendant to pay the costs.
                               systems and products for the pri-
                               vate office, and specialist advice
                               on the fitting-out of retail busi-
                               nesses)                                   Pleas in law and main arguments
Decision disputed before       Refusal of registration by the            The applicant claims infringement of Article 82 of the Staff
the Board of Appeal:           examiner                                  Regulations. The applicant claims that the Commission did
                                                                         not properly evaluate the documentation he provided to prove
Pleas in law:                  — Infringement of Article 7(1)(c)         his change of country of residence. The Commission should,
                                   of Regulation No 40/94 (1);           inter alia, have taken into consideration the particular situation


title: Case T-181/15: Action brought on 13 April 2015 — Sopra Steria Group v Parlement

text:
               10.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/28

         Action brought on 13 April 2015 — Sopra Steria Group v Parlement
   (Case T-181/15)
   (2015/C 262/38)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sopra Steria Group SA (Annecy-le-Vieux, France) (represented by: A. Verlinden, R. Martens and J. Joossen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Parliament of unknown date to launch the negotiated procedure without publication of a contract notice for NPE-15.8;

               —

               annul any decision that the European Parliament may have taken with regard to the further course of this negotiated procedure without publication notice NPE-15.8;

               —

               declare that the contract(s) that are possibly closed based on the negotiated procedure without publication of a contract notice for NPE-15.8, is (are) null and void;

               —

               order that the European Parliament has to bear the costs of the proceedings, including the expenses for legal counsel incurred by the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 102 of the Financial Regulation, of Article 103 of the Financial Regulation, of Article 104.2 of the Financial Regulation and of Article 134.1 (c) of the Rules of Application, thus invalidating the Decision of unknown date, to launch the negotiated procedure without prior publication of a contract notice.
   According to the applicants, the European Parliament wrongfully and illegally used the negotiated procedure without prior publication of a contract notice, whereby it should have been stated that this procedure was an exceptional procedure of which the use had to be legally justified (also given the obligation of the European Parliament to ensure that all public procurement contracts are be put out to tender on the broadest possible basis, cfr. article 102.2 of the Financial Regulation). Such justification, so the applicants claim, was not given by the European Parliament, nor were there any reasons of extreme urgency brought about by unforeseeable events not attributable to the European Parliament present (as required for the application of article 134.1 (c) of the Rules of Application).


title: Case C-434/11: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Alba, Romania) — Corpul Național al Polițiștilor v Ministerul Administrației și Internelor (MAI), Inspectoratul General al Poliției Române (IGPR), Inspectoratul de Poliție al Județului Alba (IPJ) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Admissibility of national legislation providing for salary reductions in relation to various categories of public officials — Failure to implement European Union law — Court clearly lacking jurisdiction)

text:
               10.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/13

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Alba, Romania) — Corpul Național al Polițiștilor v Ministerul Administrației și Internelor (MAI), Inspectoratul General al Poliției Române (IGPR), Inspectoratul de Poliție al Județului Alba (IPJ)
   (Case C-434/11) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Admissibility of national legislation providing for salary reductions in relation to various categories of public officials - Failure to implement European Union law - Court clearly lacking jurisdiction)
   2012/C 73/22
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Tribunalul Alba

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Corpul Național al Polițiștilor

      Defendants: Ministerul Administrației și Internelor (MAI), Inspectoratul General al Poliției Române (IGPR), Inspectoratul de Poliție al Județului Alba (IPJ)

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunalul Alba — Interpretation of Article 17(1), 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Admissibility of national legislation providing for salary reductions in relation to various categories of public officials — Infringement of the right to property and the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination

      Operative part of the order

   The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly lacks jurisdiction to reply to the question referred by the Tribunalul Alba, Romania, by decision of 28 July 2011.

      (1)  OJ C 331, 12.11.2011.


title: Case T-415/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  19 October 2005  — Cofradía de pescadores de  San Pedro  de Bermeo and Others v Council (Fisheries — Conservation of the resources of the sea — Relative stability of the fishing activities of each Member State — Fishing quota exchanges — Transfer to the French Republic of part of the fishing quota for anchovy allocated to the Portuguese Republic — Annulment of the provisions authorising that transfer — Reduction, for the Kingdom of Spain, of the effective fishing possibilities — Non-contractual liability of the Community — Rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Actual damage)

text:
               24.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/20

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 October 2005 — Cofradía de pescadores de ‘San Pedro’ de Bermeo and Others v Council
   (Case T-415/03) (1)

   (Fisheries - Conservation of the resources of the sea - Relative stability of the fishing activities of each Member State - Fishing quota exchanges - Transfer to the French Republic of part of the fishing quota for anchovy allocated to the Portuguese Republic - Annulment of the provisions authorising that transfer - Reduction, for the Kingdom of Spain, of the effective fishing possibilities - Non-contractual liability of the Community - Rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Actual damage)
   (2005/C 330/49)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Cofradía de pescadores de ‘San Pedro’ de Bermeo (Bermeo, Spain) (and the other applicants whose names appear in the Annex to the judgment, represented by: E. Garayar Gutiérrez, G. Martínez-Villaseñor, A. García Castillo and M. Troncoso Ferrer, lawyers)

      Defendant(s): Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Balta and F. Florindo Gijón, Agents)

      Intervener(s) in support of the defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: initially T. van Rijn and S. Pardo Quintillán, and subsequently T. van Rijn and F. Jimeno Fernández, Agents) and French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and A. Colomb, Agents)
   Application for
   damages to compensate for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicants following the Council's authorisation of the transfer to the French Republic of part of the quota for anchovy allocated to the Portuguese Republic.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the application;

               2)

               Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and those of the Council;

               3)

               Orders the French Republic and the Commission to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 47, 21.2.2004.


title: Action brought on 16 July 1997 by Agnès Hubert against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-212/97)

text:
18 . 10 . 97          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 318/23
Action brought on 16 July 1997 by Agnes Hubert against               Action brought on 18 July 1997 by Eurocoton and others
        the Commission of the European Communities                             against the Council of the European Union
                       ( Case T-212/97)                                                     ( Case T-213/97)
                         ( 97/C 318/45 )                                                      ( 97/C 318/46 )
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                    An action against the Council of the European Union was
Instance of the European Communities on 16 July 1997                 brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
by Agnes Hubert, resident in Brussels, represented by                Communities on 18 July 1997 by Eurocoton, a Belgian
Marc-Albert Lucas of the Liege Bar, with an address for              association de fait representing the Community producers
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyne Korn,               of unbleached cotton fabrics, and 13 Community
21 Rue de Nassau .
                                                                     producers of those fabrics, represented by Clive Stanbrook
                                                                     QC and Professor Alan Dashwood, Barristers of the Inner
The applicant claims that the Court should :                         Temple, London, with an address for service in
                                                                     Luxembourg at the offices of Arsene Kronshagen, Avocat,
— annul the decision of the Director-General of DG V                 12, Boulevard de la Foire .
     definitively adopting her staff report for the period
     1993 to 1995 , notified to her on 16 April 1997,
                                                                     The applicants claim that the Court should:
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                     — declare void the Council's decision to reject the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       Commission's proposal for a Regulation 1 . imposing
                                                                          definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of
In support of her action for annulment, the applicant                     unbleached cotton fabric from India, Indonesia,
contends primarily that the contested report is vitiated by               Pakistan, Turkey, China and Egypt and 2 . collecting
infringements of formal and procedural requirements,                      the provisional duties imposed by Regulation ( EC )
namely:                                                                   No 2208/96 of 18 November 1996,
— breach of the principles of good administration and of
     legal certainty inasmuch as the report was in fact              — order that the Council make good any damage caused
     drawn up after the date which appears on it,                         to the applicants by its unlawful rejection of the
                                                                          Commission's proposal,
— failure to consult her previous immediate superior in
     due time and in accordance with the procedure laid                   and
     down,
— infringement of the obligation to give reasons for an              — order the Council to pay the costs.
     adverse change in the analytical assessment, laid down
     by the second paragraph of Article 5 of the General
     Provisions for implementing Article 43 of the Staff             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     Regulations of 27 July 1979,
                                                                     The Council had no power ultimately to reject the
— breach of the requirement that the report is to relate             Commission's proposal, and in so doing it infringed
     exclusively to the reference period, laid down by the           Articles 6 ( 9 ) and 9 (4 ) of Council Regulation ( EC)
     first paragraph of Article 5 of the said general                No 384/96 ( OJ L 56, 6 . 3 . 1996, p. 1 ). Since the adoption
     provisions.                                                     of mandatory time limits for the conclusion of anti
                                                                     dumping investigations the Council must adopt a proposal
She relies in the alternative on illegalities regarding the          from the Commission before the expiry of the 15-month
content of the report:                                               deadline. All that the Council could do was require that
                                                                     the proposal be amended as to its modalities, while
— infringement of the obligation to make the analytical              remaining within the limits of the findings of fact made by
                                                                     the Commission .
     assessment independently from the general assessment
     and on the basis of the applicable assessment
     definitions,
                                                                     In the alternative, if ( which is not admitted ) the Council
                                                                     did have the power to reject the Commission's proposal
— manifest errors of fact,                                           outright, it did so in this case in wilful disregard of the
                                                                     facts found by the Commission or on the basis of a
— misuse of powers.                                                  manifest error in its assessment of those facts . Moreover,
                                                                     its rejection amounted to a denial of the procedural rights
                                                                     and legitimate expectations of the applicants. Last of all,


title: Case C-444/06: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 89/665/EEC — Public supply and works contracts — Review procedures for the award of public contracts)

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/12

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-444/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 89/665/EEC - Public supply and works contracts - Review procedures for the award of public contracts)
   (2008/C 128/18)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: X. Lewis, acting as Agent, and C. Fernandez Vicién and I. Moreno-Tapia Rivas, abogados)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: F. Díez Moreno, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Article 2(1)(a) and (b) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33) — National legislation not in conformity with the directive
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to lay down a mandatory period for the contracting authority to notify the decision on the award of the contract to all the tenderers and by failing to provide for a mandatory waiting period between the award of the contract and its conclusion, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1)(a) and (b) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33), as amended by Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay two thirds of all the costs. The Commission of the European Communities is ordered to pay the other third.

      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamburg by order of that court of 29 March 1996 in the dispute between Mrs Sultan Bulut and Deutsche Bundespost (Case C-121/96)

text:
No C 158/ 10            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       1 . 6 . 96
Appeal brought on 15 April 1996 by Susan Ryan-Sheridan                   gericht ( Higher Labour Court) Hamburg — Third Chamber
against the judgment delivered on 15 February 1996 by the                — of 29 March 1996 , which was received at the Court
Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                      Registry on 15 April 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the
European Communities in Case T-589/93 between Susan                      dispute between Mrs Sultan Bulut and Deutsche Bundespost
Ryan-Sheridan and European Foundation for the                            on the following questions :
        Improvement of Living and Working Conditions
                          Case C-1 19/96 P                               1 . Is Article 1 ( 1 ) of Directive 77/ 178/EEC ( ') to be
                                                                             interpreted as meaning that there is also a transfer of
                             ( 96/C 158/22 )
                                                                             part of a business to another employer within the
                                                                             meaning of that provision in the case where an
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 15 February                      undertaking gradually transfers the cleaning of its
1 996 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of                 business premises, hitherto carried out by its own
the European Communities in Case T-589/93 between                            employees , which was so organized that each of those
Susan Ryan-Sheridan and European Foundation for the                          employees was allocated a specific area of its business
Improvement of Living and Working Conditions was                             premises to clean, in such a way that each time a cleaner
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                          retires or is for other reasons no longer able , either
Communities on 15 April 1996 by Susan Ryan-Sheridan,                         temporarily or permanently, to perform her cleaning
represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liège Bar, with an                  work, her cleaning area is handed over to an outside
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                         undertaking for the purposes of cleaning ?
Evelyne Korn , Rue de Nassau .
                                                                             Does the reply to that question depend on whether the
The appellant claims that the Court should :                                 gradual transfer to an outside undertaking of entire
— annul the judgment being appealed against ('),                             business premises or at least of a portion of business
                                                                             premises consisting of several cleaning areas is
— itself give judgment in the dispute and annul the                          uniformly made to one and the same undertaking ?
      decisions contested by way of the action which she
      brought before the Court of First Instance, on the basis           2 . If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative : is the
      of the pleas and evidence which she submitted to                       first sentence of Article 4 ( 1 ) of Directive 77/87/EEC to
      it ( 2 ),                                                              be interpreted as meaning that notice of termination
                                                                             with an offer of new contractual terms for the purpose
— order the defendant to pay to her Bfr 500 000 by way of                    of reducing the working time of a cleaner is not
      damages,                                                               permissible under that provision if it has been served on
                                                                             the ground that employment to the previous extent is no
— order the defendant to pay the costs of both proceedings,                  longer possible because of an organizational decision,
      including the costs of the procedure for interim relief.               and if the cleaner could, had it not been for the decision
                                                                             to award the work to an outside firm within the meaning
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              of the first question, continue to be employed for the
                                                                             number of hours worked previously by having work
— misuse of powers or at least lack of procedural                            allocated to her to the full extent or additionally which
      impartiality of the Recruitment Committee ,                            in itself, because of the decision to transfer all cleaning
      abuse of process;                                                      areas that fall free, is no longer to be carried out by the
                                                                             undertaking's own employees ?
— invalidity of the internal notice,
      breach of the principle of equal treatment;
                                                                         (') OJ No L 61 , 1977, p . 26 .
— manifest error of assessment,
      breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of
      officials .
(') OJ No C 95 , 30 . 3 . 1996 , p . 14 .
( 2 ) OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 , p . 18 .
                                                                         Action brought on 17 April 1996 by the Commission of the
                                                                            European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
                                                                                ( Case C-124/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 158/24 )
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesarbeits
gericht Hamburg by order of that court of 29 March 1996 in
the dispute between Mrs Sultan Bulut and Deutsche                        An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
                               Bundespost                                the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                         17 April 1 996 by the Commission of the European
                           ( Case C-121 /96 )
                                                                         Communities , represented by Enrico Traversa and
                             ( 96/C 158/23 )                             Francisco Enrique Gonzalez Diaz, of its Legal Service, acting
                                                                         as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   office of Carlos Gômez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
European Communities by order of the Landesarbeits                      Kirchberg.


title: Case T-259/01: Action brought on 16 October 2001 by Nutrinveste — Comércio Internacional, S.A. against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 17/18                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      19.1.2002
Grounds of claim:              Incorrect      interpretation     of      In support of his claims, the applicant relies on the following
                               Article 7 of Regulation 40/94 (1)         pleas:
                               and unjust refusal of evidence
                               filed by the Applicant after the
                               filing of the Application.                —     infringement of Article 1(1) of Annex III to the Staff
                                                                               Regulations and of Article 12 of the Conditions of
                                                                               Employment of Other Servants of the European Com-
                                                                               munities.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
    Community trade mark (OJ L 11, p. 1).
                                                                         —     disregard for the interests of the service.
                                                                         —     the existence, in the present case, of a manifest error of
                                                                               assessment.
                                                                         —     breach of the principle of non-discrimination.
Action brought on 10 October 2001 by Norman Pyres
    against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         The applicant states in that regard that it is for the institution
                                                                         to justify on objective grounds the condition relating to age
                         (Case T-256/01)                                 which it sets in its recruitment notices, such justification to be
                                                                         objective and reasonable, to be in pursuit of a legitimate
                                                                         interest and to observe the requirements of proportionality.
                          (2002/C 17/30)
                   (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               Action brought on 16 October 2001 by Nutrinveste —
European Communities on 10 October 2001 by Noramn                        Comércio Internacional, S.A. against Commission of the
Pyres, residing in Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersan-                               European Communities
den and Laure Levi, lawyers.
                                                                                (Case T-259/01)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (2002/C 17/31)
—     annul the decision of 1 December 2000 of the Selection
      Board in competition COM/R/A/14/2000, the decision of
      4 December 2000 of the Selection Board in competition                               (Language of the case: Portuguese)
      COM/R/A/10/2000 and the decision of 7 December 2000
      of the Selection Board in competition COM/R/A/07/2000
      refusing to allow the applicant to take part in the selection
      procedure;
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on
                                                                         16 October 2001 by Nutrinveste — Comércio Internacional,
                                                                         S.A., established in Algés, Portugal, represented by the lawyers
                                                                         Jorge Monteiro dos Santos, Ana Cristina Vasconcelos, Jorge de
                                                                         Mendia, Sandra Sousa de Almeida and António Texeira de
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Almeida, of Lisbon.
The applicant opposes the decision of the appointing authority           The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
to exclude him from the selection procedure for COM/
R/A/07/2000, COM/R/A/10/2000 and COM/R/A/14/2000,
organised by the Research Directorate General, on the ground             —     Order the European Commission to pay to the applicant
that he did not meet the condition as to age-limit prescribed                  the sum of EUR 61 222 for goods duly delivered but not
therein.                                                                       yet paid for.
 ---pagebreak--- 19.1.2002             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 17/19
Pleas in law and main arguments                                       Socotec International Inspection examined the goods at the
                                                                      warehouses in the country of destination in accordance with
                                                                      Article 16(1) of Regulation No 2200/87, and discovered a
On 8 January 1998 Nutrinveste concluded with the Com-
                                                                      number of irregularities.
mission a contract for the supply of 1 800 tonnes of sunflower
oil.
                                                                      On the basis of the report drawn up by the above firm, the
                                                                      European Commission took the view that Nutrinveste had not
The goods were to be supplied as part of an aid programme             fully complied with the supply contract, not having supplied
carried out under the undermentioned regulations:                     the quantity that it had undertaken to supply, and the
                                                                      Commission therefore reduced the sum payable by EUR
—     Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2200/87 (1) of 8 July            83 320. It also applied a penalty for late delivery and associated
      1987;                                                           irregularities in the sum of EUR 7 916.
—     Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2608/97 (2) of
      22 December 1997.                                               Also, the insurance company paid by way of compensation
                                                                      the sum of PTE 6 116 746 (EUR 30 510.5).
The goods were intended for a number of operations forming
part of the 1995 and 1996 aid programmes. They were                   As a result, Nutrinveste incurred a loss of EUR 61 226
intended for Angola and the shipment was on a ‘free-at-               (53 310 in respect of the unpaid part of the price and 7 916 for
destination’ basis, under Articles 1 and 15 of Regulation No          the penalty imposed on it).
2200/87.
                                                                      Nutrinveste contends that it performed the contract in its
                                                                      entirety and that the Commission has refused to pay part of
Being required to make arrangements for transport and                 the price of the goods at issue without having shown that the
insurance of the goods as far as their destination, Nutrinveste       applicant was responsible for the irregularities and without
concluded a contract of carriage with Orey — Comércio e               having giving reasons for its position.
Navegação, Lda.
                                                                      Finally, in the event of its being considered that, having regard
Before being shipped, the goods were inspected by Socotec             to the place of performance and the rules governing risks, the
International Inspection, to which the European Commission            European Commission does not have to prove the applicant’s
entrusted that task, on the basis of Articles 10 and 16 of            liability for the irregularities in order to justify its refusal to
Regulation No 2200/87, a provisional certificate of conformity        pay, the applicant contends that, in the circumstances of this
having been issued to the effect that no irregularity had been        case, the apportionment of the risk under the contract placed
found regarding quantities.                                           an excessive burden upon it.
The vessels arrived on the scheduled dates but clearance              (1) OJ 1987 L 204, p. 1.
through customs took a long time for various reasons.                 (2) OJ 1997 L 351, p. 44.


title: Case C-374/13 P: Appeal brought on 1 July 2013 by Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones, SL against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 25 April 2013 in Case T-284/11: Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones, SL v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/23

         Appeal brought on 1 July 2013 by Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones, SL against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 25 April 2013 in Case T-284/11: Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones, SL v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-374/13 P)
   2013/C 252/38
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones, SL (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, abogado)

      Otherparties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the decision of the General Court of 25 April 2013 in case T-284/11, granting in consequence the registration of the Community Trademark Application no7 112 113‘METROINVEST’ to distinguish services in class 36.

               —

               Order the other parties to bear the costs of the procedure.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Appellant raises a single plea alleging the:

               —

                     Infringement of the Art. 8.1 b) of Regulation no 207/2009

                   (1)

         However this plea consists of four parts, which are the following:

               —

               Error on the part of the General Court and on the part of OHIM in assessing the comparison of the signs.

               —

               The General Court has not taken into account the applicable case law regarding the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion.

               —

               Lack of coherence with other Office resolutions in which the same parts, and related trademarks are involved.

               —

               Pacific coexistence between other trademarks, which include the word METRO in different classes, and also in class 36.

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


title: Case C-536/13: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania)) — ‘Gazprom’ OAO (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Scope — Arbitration — Not included — Recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards — Order issued by an arbitral tribunal having its seat in a Member State — Order that proceedings not be brought or continued before a court of another Member State — Power of the courts of a Member State to refuse to recognise the arbitral award — New York Convention)

text:
               20.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/8

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania)) — ‘Gazprom’ OAO
   (Case C-536/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Scope - Arbitration - Not included - Recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards - Order issued by an arbitral tribunal having its seat in a Member State - Order that proceedings not be brought or continued before a court of another Member State - Power of the courts of a Member State to refuse to recognise the arbitral award - New York Convention))
   (2015/C 236/10)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

      Party to the main proceedings

      Applicant:‘Gazprom’ OAO

      Interested party: Lietuvos Respublika

      Operative part of the judgment

   Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as not precluding a court of a Member State from recognising and enforcing, or from refusing to recognise and enforce, an arbitral award prohibiting a party from bringing certain claims before a court of that Member State, since that regulation does not govern the recognition and enforcement, in a Member State, of an arbitral award issued by an arbitral tribunal in another Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 377, 21.12.2013.