title: Case F-2/10: Action brought on 7 January 2010 — Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/53

         Action brought on 7 January 2010 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-2/10)
   2010/C 63/94
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the decisions rejecting the applicant’s requests for 100 % reimbursement of certain medical expenses.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision, in whatever form, by which the request of 17 March 2009 was rejected;

               —

               annul, quatenus opus est, the note of 9 June 2009;

               —

               annul, quatenum opus est, the decision, in whatever form, rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 15 September 2009 against the decision rejecting the request of 17 March 2009;

               —

               annul, quatenus opus est, the note of 22 September 2009;

               —

               order the Commission to pay to the applicant the difference between the amount paid by him in respect of medical expenses incurred between 1 December 2000 and 17 March 2007 inclusive, in relation to which numerous claims for reimbursement were made in the period between 1 December 2000 and 17 March 2009, and the amount reimbursed to him to date under the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme, or such amount as the Tribunal may consider just and equitable in that connection, together with interest on the difference between such amounts or on such amount as the Tribunal may consider just and equitable, from the first day of the fifth month after the date on which the addressee of the request of 17 March 2009 was in a position to inspect it, at the rate of 10 % per annum, with annual capitalisation, or at such rate with capitalisation and from such date as the Tribunal may consider appropriate.

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-411/07: Action brought on 19 November 2007 — Aer Lingus Group v Commission

text:
               12.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 8/24

         Action brought on 19 November 2007 — Aer Lingus Group v Commission
   (Case T-411/07)
   (2008/C 8/43)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Aer Lingus Group plc (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: A. Burnside, Solicitor, B. van de Walle de Ghelcke, lawyer, T. Snels, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decision adopted by the European Commission on 11 October 2007;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By means of this application, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 4600 of 11 October 2007 by which the Commission rejected the applicant's request to initiate proceedings under Article 8(4) and to adopt interim measures under Article 8(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (the ‘EC Merger Regulation’), following Commission Decision C(2007) 3104 of 27 June 2007 (‘the Prohibition Decision’) declaring a concentration incompatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.4439 — Ryanair — Aer Lingus).
   The applicant submits that the Commission has both misconstrued and misapplied Articles 8(4) and 8(5) of the EC Merger Regulation by stating that it did not have the power to require Ryanair, following the Prohibition Decision, to divest its minority stake in Aer Lingus, or to take other measures to restore the status quo ante, or to take interim measures in the meantime.
   The applicant claims in particular that, since the Commission explicitly treated this minority stake and Ryanair's associated public offer for Aer Lingus as forming integral parts of the same single concentration, it follows that the prohibited concentration has been partially implemented. Moreover, the applicant contends that Articles 8(4) and 8(5) of the EC Merger Regulation empower the Commission in these circumstances to act to address the adverse effects on competition arising from this minority shareholding linking two companies which have been held to be each other's closest competitors on air transport routes to and from Ireland.
   The applicant further claims that the Commission has acted in breach of Article 21(3) of the EC Merger Regulation by failing to assert its exclusive jurisdiction and instead leaving open the possibility on intervention by Member States.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 2 June 2005 in Case C-136/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Georg Dörr v Sicherheitsdirektion für das Bundesland Kärnten and Ibrahim Ünal v Sicherheitsdirektion für das Bundesland Vorarlberg (Free movement of persons — Public policy — Directive 64/221/EEC — Articles 8 and 9 — Refusal of residence permit and deportation order on criminal grounds — Appeal only on the legality of the measure ending the right of residence of the claimant — Appeal having no suspensory effect — Right of the claimant to submit observations on appropriateness before a body liable to give an opinion — EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Free movement of workers — Articles 6(1) and 14(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council)

text:
               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/5

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 2 June 2005
   in Case C-136/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Georg Dörr v Sicherheitsdirektion für das Bundesland Kärnten and Ibrahim Ünal v Sicherheitsdirektion für das Bundesland Vorarlberg (1)

   (Free movement of persons - Public policy - Directive 64/221/EEC - Articles 8 and 9 - Refusal of residence permit and deportation order on criminal grounds - Appeal only on the legality of the measure ending the right of residence of the claimant - Appeal having no suspensory effect - Right of the claimant to submit observations on appropriateness before a body liable to give an opinion - EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Free movement of workers - Articles 6(1) and 14(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council)
   (2005/C 182/09)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-136/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Higher Administrative Court) (Austria), made by decision of 18 March 2003, received at the Court on 26 March 2003, in the proceedings Georg Dörr v Sicherheitsdirektion für das Bundesland Kärnten and Ibrahim Ünal v Sicherheitsdirektion für das Bundesland Vorarlberg — the Court (Third Chamber) composed of A. Rosas (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, A. Borg Barthet, S. von Bahr, J. Malenovský and U. Lõhmus, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 2 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               Article 9(1) of Council Directive 64/221/EEC of 25 February 1964 on the coordination of special measures concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health is to be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which appeals brought against a decision to expel a national of another Member State from the territory of that first Member State have no suspensory effect and, at the time of examination of such appeal, the decision to expel can be the subject only of an assessment as to its legality, inasmuch as no competent authority within the meaning of that provision has been established.

               2.

               The procedural guarantees set out in Articles 8 and 9 of Directive 64/221 apply to Turkish nationals whose legal status is defined by Article 6 or Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association.

      (1)  OJ C 135, 7.6.2003.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 November 2000 in Case T-261/99: Jean Dehon v European Parliament (Officials — Promotion — Notice of vacancy — Examination of comparative merits — Equal opportunities)

text:
C 134/20               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        5.5.2001
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                v European Parliament (Agents: H. von Hertzen and J. Sant’An-
                                                                           na) — application for annulment, first, of the decision of the
                      of 14 December 2000                                  European Parliament rejecting the application by the applicant
                                                                           for the post of Deputy Head of the French Translation Division,
in Case T-213/99: Luc Verheyden v Commission of the                        as referred to in Vacancy Notice No 8503, and, second, of the
                   European Communities (1)                                decision appointing Ms W. to that post — the Court of First
                                                                           Instance (First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President,
(Officials — Action for annulment — Measures and instruc-                  and M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal
tions falling within the ambit of discipline in the workplace              Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
— Measure adversely affecting an official — Action for                     15 November 2000, in which it:
                  damages — Inadmissibility)
                                                                           1.    Annuls the decision of the European Parliament rejecting the
                          (2001/C 134/42)                                        application by the applicant and appointing Ms W. to the post
                                                                                of Deputy Head of the French Translation Division, as referred
                                                                                to in Vacancy Notice No 8503;
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           2.    Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs.
In Case T-213/99: Luc Verheyden, an official of the Com-
mission of the European Communities, residing at Angera
(Italy), represented by E. Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an          (1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
L. Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim, v Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: C. Berardis-Kayser and A. Dal
Ferro) — application, first, for annulment of the note dated
10 November 1998 from the head of the Logistics unit in
the Infrastructure Directorate for the Ispra site and of the
administration’s refusal dated 16 November 1998 to withdraw
that note, and, second, for compensation for the non-material
damage allegedly suffered — the Court of First Instance (Fifth                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Chamber), composed of: P. Lindh, President, and R. Garcı́a-
Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 December                                    of 31 January 2001
2000, in which it:
                                                                           in Case T-331/99: Mitsubishi HiTec Paper Bielefeld GmbH
1.    Dismisses the action as inadmissible;                                v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
                                                                                marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)
2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                           (Community trade mark — Word mark Giroform — Absol-
(1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
                                                                           ute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of
                                                                                Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Descriptive character)
                                                                                (2001/C 134/44)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                     of 15 November 2000
                                                                           In Case T-331/99: Mitsubishi HiTec Paper Bielefeld GmbH,
  in Case T-261/99: Jean Dehon v European Parliament (1)                   formerly Stora Carbonless Paper GmbH, established in Bielefeld
                                                                           (Germany), represented by U. Ulrich, Rechtsanwalt, Düsseldorf,
(Officials — Promotion — Notice of vacancy — Examin-                       with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Office de
     ation of comparative merits — Equal opportunities)                    Brevets Ernest T. Freylinger, 234 Route d’Arlon, against Office
                                                                           for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and
                          (2001/C 134/43)                                  Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: E. Joly, P. von Kapff, and A. von
                                                                           Mühlendahl) — application for annulment of the decision of
                                                                           the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
                   (Language of the case: French)                          the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs) of 8 September
                                                                           1999 in Case R 175/1999-3 refusing registration of the word
In Case T-261/99: Jean Dehon, an official of the European                  ‘Giroform’ as a Community trade mark — the Court of First
Parliament, residing at Hagen (Luxembourg), represented by                 Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili, President,
J.-N. Louis, G.-F. Parmentier and V. Peere, of the Brussels Bar,           R.M. Moura Ramos and P. Mengozzi, Judges; G. Herzig,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of                Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
Société de Gestion Fiduciaire SARL, 13 Avenue du Bois,                     31 January 2001, in which it:


title: Case T-356/00: Action brought on 24 November 2000 by Daimler Chrysler AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
C 28/28                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    27.1.2001
In support of his application the applicant alleges that:                The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     there is nothing in the Act of 20 September 1976 or in             —     annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the
      the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament                        Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
      permitting the Member States to terminate, for national                  Marks and Designs) of 12 September 2000 in Case
      reasons, the term of office of an MEP, other than in cases               R 142/2000-3,
      of incompatibilities arising during the term of office,
      which is not the case here;                                        —     order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                                                                               (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.
—     such a measure is all the more contrary to the principles
      of Community law inasmuch as it is the result of an
      entirely national decision, which cannot by itself be the          Pleas in law and main arguments
      basis for a Community decision;
                                                                         Mark:                         Word mark ‘TELE AID’ — Appli-
—     there is a general legal principle based on the generally                                        cation No 469 957
      applicable rules of law of the Member States which means
      that termination must be decided by the parliamentary              Goods or services:            Goods and services in Classes 12,
      assembly concerned itself;                                                                       9, 37, 38, 39 and 42 (including
                                                                                motor vehicles, motor vehicle
—     the substantive procedural rules have been disregarded in                                        repair, equipment for the trans-
      the present case inasmuch as the Legal Affairs Committee                                         mission of speech and data, emer-
      was not convened and the applicant was not given a                                               gency call systems for motor
      hearing by that committee;                                                                       vehicles, breakdown assistance,
                                                                                rescue services)
—     in the contested measure, the President of the European            Decision        contested     Refusal by the examiner to register
      Parliament purportedly spoke on behalf of the Parliament           beforethe     Board of
      when she did not have the authority to do so.                      Appeal:
                                                                         Pleas in law:                 — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)
Finally, the applicant alleges breach of the principles of                                                 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
parliamentary immunity and legal certainty.
                                                                                — Infringement of Article 7(1)(c)
                                                                                of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
Action brought on 24 November 2000 by Daimler Chrys-                     Action brought on 24 November 2000 by Daimler Chrys-
ler AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the                       ler AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the
         Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                                Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                        (Case T-355/00)                                                          (Case T-356/00)
                         (2001/C 28/51)                                                           (2001/C 28/52)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal           Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the                  Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                   24 November 2000 by Daimler Chrysler AG, of Stuttgart
24 November 2000 by Daimler Chrysler AG, Stuttgart,                      (Germany), represented by Stefan Völker, Rechtsanwalt, of
Germany, represented by Stefan Völker of Gleiss Lutz Hootz               Messrs Gleiss Lutz Hootz Hirsch, Rechtsanwälte, Stuttgart,
Hirsch, Stuttgart, Germany.                                              Germany.
 ---pagebreak--- 27.1.2001             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 28/29
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the            —     Set aside the decision of 12 September 2000 by the Third
      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade                  Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
      Marks and Designs) of 12 September 2000 in appeal                       the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) in Case
      No R 477/1999-3;                                                        R 569/1999-3;
—     order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market         —     Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
      (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.                             (Trademarks and Designs) to pay the costs of the present
                                                                              proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
The trade mark con-           Verbal mark ‘CARCARD’ — appli-
cerned:                       cation No 115 014
                                                                        Trade mark concerned:         Verbal trade mark ‘TRUCKCARD’,
                                                                                Application No 113 274
Goods or services con-        Goods and services in Classes 9,
cerned:                       36, 37, 38, 39, 42 (including
                              data media for vehicles, leasing of       Goods or service:             Goods and services in Classes 9,
                              motor vehicles and accounting in                                        36, 37, 38, 39, 42 (inter alia, data
                              that regard, arranging the pro-                                         carrier for vehicle data, leasing
                              vision of services in the field of                                      of motor vehicles and calculation
                              traffic and transport logistics,                                        thereof, provision of services in
                              emergency assistance, repairs and                                       the areas of traffic and transport
                              towing-away services)                                                   logistics, emergency, repair and
                                                                                vehicle-removal services)
Decision        contested     Refusal of registration by the
before the Board of           examiner                                  Decision        challenged    Refusal of registration by the
Appeal:                                                                 before the Board of           examiner
                                                                        Appeal:
Grounds of claim:             — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)
                                  of Regulation (EC) No 40/94           Pleas in law:                 — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)
                                                                                of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
                              — Infringement of Article 7(1)(c)
                                  of Regulation (EC) No 40/94                                         — Infringement of Article 7(1)(c)
                                                                                of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
Action brought on 24 November 2000 by Daimler Chrys-
ler AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the                      Action brought on 29 November 2000 by Alsace Inter-
          Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs)                      national Car Service (A.I.C.S.) against European Parlia-
                                                                                ment
                        (Case T-358/00)
                                                                                (Case T-365/00)
                         (2001/C 28/53)
                                                                                (2001/C 28/54)
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trademarks and Designs) was brought before the                  An action against the European Parliament was brought before
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                  the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
24 November 2000 by Daimler Chrysler AG, Stuttgart (Germ-               29 November 2000 by Alsace International Car Service
any), represented by Stefan Völker, Rechtsanwalt, of Gleiss             (A.I.C.S.), whose registered office is at Strasbourg (France),
Lutz Hootz Hirsch, Stuttgart, Germany.                                  represented by Jean Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar.


title: Case T-345/07: Order of the General Court of 23 March 2010 — Banque Postale v Commission

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/51

         Order of the General Court of 23 March 2010 — Banque Postale v Commission
   (Case T-345/07) (1)

   2010/C 148/83

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007


title: Case C-206/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 30 April 2012 — Essent Belgium NV v Vlaamse Reguleringsinstantie voor de Elektriciteits- en Gasmarkt (VREG)

text:
               28.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 227/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 30 April 2012 — Essent Belgium NV v Vlaamse Reguleringsinstantie voor de Elektriciteits- en Gasmarkt (VREG)
   (Case C-206/12)
   2012/C 227/14
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Applicant: Essent Belgium NV
   Defendant: Vlaamse Reguleringsinstantie voor de Elektriciteits- en Gasmarkt (VREG)
   Other Party:

               Vlaamse Gewest

               Vlaamse Gemeenschap

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is a national rule, such as that embodied in the Flemish Decreet van 17 juli 2000 houdende de organisatie van de elektriciteitsmarkt (Decree of 17 July 2000 on the organisation of the market in electricity), as implemented by the Besluit (Decision) of the Flemish Government of 5 March 2004, as amended by the Besluit of the Flemish Government of 25 February 2005 on the promotion of the generation of electricity from renewable energy sources, where

                           —

                           an obligation is imposed on the suppliers of electricity to final customers connected to the distribution network or the transmission network, to submit a certain number of green certificates annually to the Regulatory Authority (Article 23 of the aforementioned Decreet);

                           —

                           an administrative fine is imposed by the Vlaamse Reguleringsinstantie voor de Elektriciteits- en Gasmarkt (VREG) on the suppliers of electricity to final customers connected to the distribution network or the transmission network when the supplier has not submitted a sufficient number of green certificates to fulfil a quota obligation which has been imposed in respect of green certificates (Article 37(2) of the aforementioned Decreet);

                           —

                           it is expressly provided that guarantees of origin from other countries may be submitted under certain conditions in order to fulfil the quota obligation (Article 15c(2) of the Besluit of the Flemish Government of 5 March 2004, as applicable in this case);

                           —

                           the Regulatory Authority cannot or will not take into account any guarantees of origin originating from Norway and Denmark/Sweden, and that being in the absence of implementing measures on the part of the Flemish Government, which has acknowledged the equality or equivalence of those certificates (Article 25 of the aforementioned Decreet and Article 15c(2) of the Besluit of 5 March 2004), without that equality or equivalence being investigated by the Regulatory Authority in concrete terms;

                           —

                           in fact, during the whole time that the Decreet of 17 July 2000 was in force, only certificates for the production of green energy generated in the Flemish Region were taken into account when ascertaining whether the quota obligation had been fulfilled, whereas for the suppliers of electricity to final customers connected to the distribution network or transmission network there was no possibility whatsoever of demonstrating that the guarantees of origin from other Member States of the European Union met the condition of the existence of equal or equivalent guarantees regarding the granting of such certificates,

                     compatible with Article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 11 of the EEA Agreement and/or Article 36 of that Treaty and Article 13 of the EEA Agreement?

               2.

               Is a national rule as referred to in subquestion 1 above compatible with Article 5 of the then Directive 2001/77/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market?

               3.

               Is a national rule as referred to in subquestion 1 above compatible with the principle of equal treatment and the prohibition of discrimination as embodied inter alia in Article 18 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 3 of the then Directive 2003/54/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 283, p. 33.

      (2)  OJ 2003 L 176, p. 37.


title: Case T-474/15: Action brought on 17 August 2015 — GGP Italy v Commission

text:
               5.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/34

         Action brought on 17 August 2015 — GGP Italy v Commission
   (Case T-474/15)
   (2015/C 328/31)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Global Garden Products Italy SpA (GGP Italy) (Castelfranco Veneto, Italy) (represented by: A. Villani, L. D’Amario and M. Caccialanza, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/902, made on 10 June 2015 and published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 12 June 2015;

               —

               adopt any further measures deemed appropriate;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action is for the annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/902 of 10 June 2015 (OJ 2015 L 147, p. 22), in which the Commission held that a restrictive measure adopted by Latvia, pursuant to Article 11 of Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, concerning a lawnmower produced by the applicant, was justified.
   In support of its action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 20 of Directive 2006/42/EC, which states that any restrictive measure taken pursuant to that directive must ‘state the exact grounds on which it is based’ and ‘be notified as soon as possible to the party concerned, who shall at the same time be informed of the legal remedies available to him under the laws in force in the Member State concerned and of the time limits to which such remedies are subject’.

                           —

                           In that regard, the applicant complains that, since it was never notified of the restrictive measure adopted against it by the Latvian authorities, the contested decision regarded as justified a measure seriously prejudicial to its rights of the defence, as it was adopted at the end of a procedure which was not properly carried out and which was vitiated by serious irregularities, in particular formal ones.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the rules of Directive 2006/42/EC governing obligations to comply with essential safety requirements (Article 5(1)), the free movement of machinery (Article 6(1)), the presumption of conformity with harmonised standards (Article 7) and the safeguard procedure which may be adopted by each Member State (Article 11).

                           —

                           In that regard, the applicant asserts that the Commission wrongly regarded the restrictive measure adopted by Latvia as justified. The Latvian authorities contested the alleged non-compliance of the Stiga Collector 35 EL C350 297 352 654/S13 lawnmower with the health and safety requirements listed in Annex I to Directive 2006/42/EC by reason of the fact that that machine did not comply with harmonised standard EN 60335-2-77:2010. However, at the time when the machine in question was produced and marketed by the applicant, the more developed standard EN 60335-2-77:2010 had not yet become binding as the only standard capable of giving rise to a presumption of compliance with health and safety requirements, insofar as, during the transition period established by the standard itself, the previous standard EN 60335-2-77:2006 (with which the machine in question was compliant) also remained applicable.


title: Case T-587/14: Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — Crosfield Italia v ECHA (REACH — Fee for registration of a substance — Reduction granted to micro-, small-and medium-sized enterprises — Error in declaration relating to the size of the enterprise — Recommendation 2003/361/EC — Decision imposing an administrative charge — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               24.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — Crosfield Italia v ECHA
   (Case T-587/14) (1)

   ((REACH - Fee for registration of a substance - Reduction granted to micro-, small-and medium-sized enterprises - Error in declaration relating to the size of the enterprise - Recommendation 2003/361/EC - Decision imposing an administrative charge - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2016/C 392/33)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Crosfield Italia Srl (Verona, Italy) (represented by: M. Baldassarri, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (represented initially by M. Heikkilä, E. Bigi, J.-P. Trnka and E. Maurage, and subsequently by M. Heikkilä, J.-P. Trnka and E. Maurage, Agents, and by C. Garcia Molyneux, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application, first, under Article 263 TFEU, for annulment of Decision SME(2013) 4672 of the ECHA of 28 May 2014, which states that the applicant does not fulfil the conditions to receive a reduction of the fee for small enterprises and imposing an administrative charge on it and, second, under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the invoices issued by the ECHA following adoption of Decision SME(2013) 4672.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Decision SME(2013) 4672 of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) of 28 May 2014;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 361, 13.10.2014.


title: Case C-149/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Wrocławia-Śródmieścia we Wrocławiu (Poland) lodged on 14 March 2016 — Halina Socha, Dorota Olejnik, Anna Skomra v Szpital Specjalistyczny im. A. Falkiewicza we Wrocławiu

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Wrocławia-Śródmieścia we Wrocławiu (Poland) lodged on 14 March 2016 — Halina Socha, Dorota Olejnik, Anna Skomra v Szpital Specjalistyczny im. A. Falkiewicza we Wrocławiu
   (Case C-149/16)
   (2016/C 222/03)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Rejonowy dla Wrocławia-Śródmieścia we Wrocławiu

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Halina Socha, Dorota Olejnik, Anna Skomra

      Defendant: Szpital Specjalistyczny im. A. Falkiewicza we Wrocławiu

      Question referred

   Must Articles 1(1) and 2 of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (1) in conjunction with the principle of the effectiveness of [EU] law, be interpreted as meaning that an employer who on account of a difficult financial situation issues notices of amendment of pay and working conditions (notice of amendment) in relation to employment contracts only governing conditions of remuneration is required to apply the procedure arising from that directive, and also to consult on those notices with company trade union organisations, even though national law — Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Law laying down special rules on terminating employment relationships with employees for reasons unrelated to the employees (Ustawa o szczególnych zasadach rozwiązywania z pracownikami stosunków pracy z przyczyn niedotyczących pracowników) of 13 March 2003 (Dziennik Ustaw of 2003, No 90, item 844, as amended) — contains no rules on notices of amendment of employment contract conditions?

      (1)  OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16.


title: Case T-525/17: Action brought on 7 August 2017 — Taberna Ángel Sierra and Others v SRB

text:
               23.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 357/22

         Action brought on 7 August 2017 — Taberna Ángel Sierra and Others v SRB
   (Case T-525/17)
   (2017/C 357/29)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Taberna Ángel Sierra, SL (Madrid, Spain) and 67 other applicants (represented by: P. Rúa Sobrino, lawyer)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the contested decision;

               —

               Declare Articles 18 and 29 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 illegal and inapplicable;

               —

               Order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action concerns Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 allowing the resolution of the Banco Popular Español, S.A.
   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.


title: Case T-59/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 July 2014  — Isotis v Commission (Arbitration clause — Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities, contributing to the creation of the European Research Area and to innovation (2002 to 2006) — Access-eGOV, EU4ALL, eABILITIES, Emerge, Enable, Ask-It contracts — eTEN Programme relating to trans-European telecommunications networks — Navigabile and Euridice contracts — Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme — T-Seniority contract — Payment of the final balance — Counterclaim — Reimbursement of sums advanced — Liquidated damages)

text:
               1.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 July 2014 — Isotis v Commission
   (Case T-59/11) (1)

   ((Arbitration clause - Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities, contributing to the creation of the European Research Area and to innovation (2002 to 2006) - Access-eGOV, EU4ALL, eABILITIES, Emerge, Enable, Ask-It contracts - eTEN Programme relating to trans-European telecommunications networks - Navigabile and Euridice contracts - Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme - T-Seniority contract - Payment of the final balance - Counterclaim - Reimbursement of sums advanced - Liquidated damages))
   2014/C 292/33
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Koinonia Tis Pliroforias Anoichti Stis Eidikes Anagkes — Isotis (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and V. Savov, acting as Agents, and S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Re:

   Applications, based on Article 272 TFEU, seeking, on the one hand, first, to have declared unfounded the Commission’s application for reimbursement of subsidies paid to the applicant under contracts No 027020 ‘Access to e Government Services Employing Semantic Technologies’, No 035242 ‘A virtual platform to enhance and organise the coordination among centres for accessibility resources and support’, No 511298 ‘Ambient Intelligence System of Agents for Knowledge-based and Integrated Services for Mobility Impaired Users’, No 034778 ‘European Unified Approach for Accessible Lifelong Learning’, No 045056 ‘Emergency Monitoring and Prevention’, No 045563 ‘A wearable system supporting services to enable elderly people to live well, independently and at ease’, No 029255 ‘NavigAbile: e-inclusion for communication disabilities’, No 517506 ‘European Recommended Materials for Distance Learning Courses for Educators’ and No 224988 ‘T-Seniority: Expanding the benefits of information society to older people through digital TV channels’, concluded between the European Commission and the applicant, and, secondly, seeking an order that the Commission pay the final balance of subsidies under contracts No 511298 ‘Ambient Intelligence System of Agents for Knowledge-based and Integrated Services for Mobility Impaired Users’ and No 034778 ‘European Unified Approach for Accessible Lifelong Learning’ and, on the other hand, a counterclaim seeking an order that the applicant reimburse the subsidies wrongfully paid in the context of all of those contracts and liquidated damages.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action brought by Koinonia Tis Pliroforias Anoichti Stis Eidikes Anagkes — Isotis;

               2.

               Orders Koinonia Tis Pliroforias Anoichti Stis Eidikes Anagkes — Isotis to pay the sum of EUR 9 99  213.45, plus interest calculated as from 15 June 2011, at the European Central Bank (ECB) rate increased by 3.5 points, corresponding to the reimbursement of financial contributions from which it benefited, under contracts No 027020 Access to e-Government Services Employing Semantic Technologies’, No 035242 ‘A virtual platform to enhance and organize the coordination among centres for accessibility resources and support’, No 511298 ‘Ambient Intelligence System of Agents for Knowledge-based and Integrated Services for Mobility Impaired Users’, No 034778 ‘European Unified Approach for Accessible Lifelong Learning’, No 045056 ‘Emergency Monitoring and Prevention », No 045563 ‘A wearable system supporting services to enable elderly people to live well, independently and at ease’, No 029255 ‘NavigAbile: e-inclusion for communication disabilities’, No 517506 ‘European Recommended Materials for Distance Learning Courses for Educators’ and No 224988 ‘T-Seniority: Expanding the benefits of information society to older people through digital TV channels’;

               3.

               Orders Koinonia Tis Pliroforias Anoichti Stis Eidikes Anagkes — Isotis to pay the sum of EUR 70  471.47, plus interest calculated at the European Central Bank (ECB) rate increased by 3.5 points as from 5 August 2011, corresponding to liquidated damages under contracts No 027020 ‘Access to e-Government Services Employing Semantic Technologies’, No 035242 ‘A virtual platform to enhance and organize the coordination among centres for accessibility resources and support’, No 511298 ‘Ambient Intelligence System of Agents for Knowledge-based and Integrated Services for Mobility Impaired Users’, No 034778 ‘European Unified Approach for Accessible Lifelong Learning’, No 045056 ‘Emergency Monitoring and Prevention’, No 045563 ‘A wearable system supporting services to enable elderly people to live well, independently and at ease’;

               4.

               Orders Koinonia Tis Pliroforias Anoichti Stis Eidikes Anagkes — Isotis to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 19.3.2011.


title: Case T-47/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 September 2008 — ratiopharm v OHIM (BioGeneriX) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark BioGeneriX — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/38

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 September 2008 — ratiopharm v OHIM (BioGeneriX)
   (Case T-47/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark BioGeneriX - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2008/C 285/69)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: ratiopharm GmbH (Ulm, Germany) (represented first by Rechtsanwalt S. Völker, and then by S. Völker and A. Schabenberger, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 December 2006 (Case R 1047/2004-4) concerning an application for registration of the word mark BioGenerix as a Community trade mark
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders ratiopharm GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 11 July 2002 in Case C-294/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Deutsche Paracelsus Schulen für Naturheilverfahren GmbH v Kurt Gräbner (Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Scope of Directive 92/51/EEC — National legislation reserving medical practice, including the activities which Heilpraktikers are permitted to pursue in Germany, to qualified doctors — National legislation restricting medical training to certain institutions and prohibiting advertising for such training)

text:
28.9.2002                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 233/9
      in the situation where an exporter completes an application for        education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC
      export refunds in good faith on the basis of incorrect information     (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 25), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed
      supplied by the manufacturer of the exported goods, and he             of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, D. A. O. Edward and
      could not have discovered the inaccuracy of the information or         A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate
      could have done so only by means of checks at the factory where        General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
      the goods were manufactured. Fault on the part of a co-                has given a judgment on 11 July 2002, in which it has ruled:
      contractor is an ordinary commercial risk and cannot be
      regarded as unforeseeable in the context of commercial trans-
      actions, the exporter having various means at his disposal to
      protect himself against such an eventuality.
                                                                             1.    No provision of Community law, as it presently stands,
                                                                                precludes a Member State from restricting the exercise of an
( 1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.                                                        activity such as that of a Heilpraktiker within the meaning of
                                                                                the German legislation to holders of a doctor’s qualification.
                                                                             2.    Articles 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
                                                                                Articles 43 EC and 49 EC) do not preclude
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                            —     a Member State which prohibits in its territory the exercise
                                                                                of the activity of a Heilpraktiker within the meaning of
                                                                                the German legislation by persons other than those with
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                               a doctor’s qualification from likewise prohibiting the
                                                                                organisation in its territory of training in that activity by
                                                                                unauthorised institutions, provided that that prohibition
                             11 July 2002                                                is applied in such a way that it covers only training of a
                                                                                kind liable to create confusion in the minds of the public
                                                                                as to whether the profession of Heilpraktiker may lawfully
in Case C-294/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                                be exercised in the territory of the Member State in which
the Oberster Gerichtshof): Deutsche Paracelsus Schulen                                   the training is to take place;
      für Naturheilverfahren GmbH v Kurt Gräbner (1)
(Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services                            —     a Member State which prohibits in its territory the exercise
— Scope of Directive 92/51/EEC — National legislation                                    of the activity of a Heilpraktiker by persons other than
reserving medical practice, including the activities which                               those with a doctor’s qualification and prohibits training
Heilpraktikers are permitted to pursue in Germany, to                                    in that activity from likewise prohibiting the advertising
qualified doctors — National legislation restricting medical                             of such training offered in its territory if that advertising
training to certain institutions and prohibiting advertising                             concerns training of a kind which is prohibited in that
                          for such training)                                             Member State in accordance with the Treaty.
                           (2002/C 233/13)                                         However, Article 59 of the Treaty precludes a Member State
                                                                                which prohibits in its territory the exercise of the profession of
                                                                                Heilpraktiker and training in the activity of a Heilpraktiker
                    (Language of the case: German)                                 from likewise prohibiting the advertising of such training offered
                                                                                in a different Member State, if that advertising states where the
                                                                                training is to take place and mentions the fact that the
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published             profession of Heilpraktiker may not be exercised in the first
                    in the European Court Reports)                                 Member State.
In Case C-294/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary                   (1 ) OJ C 285 of 7.10.2000.
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Deutsche Paracelsus Schulen für Naturheilverfahren GmbH
and Kurt Gräbner, on the interpretation of Articles 52 and 59
of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 43 and 49
EC) and of Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a
second general system for the recognition of professional


title: Case C-596/12: Action brought on 20 December 2012 — European Commission v Italian Republic

text:
               9.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/8

         Action brought on 20 December 2012 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-596/12)
   2013/C 71/13
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Enegren and C. Cattabriga, Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by excluding the category of managers from the scope of the redundancy process laid down in Article 4 of Law No 223/1991, in conjunction with Article 24 of that Law, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(1) and (2) of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies; (1)

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission submits that, by excluding the category of managers from the scope of the redundancy process (procedura di mobilità) laid down in Article 4 of Law No 223/1991, in conjunction with Article 24 of that Law, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(1) and (2) of Directive 98/59/EC.
   That directive regulates the procedure for informing and consulting with the workers’ representatives which must be followed by an employer where he is contemplating collective redundancies, as well as the procedure for collective redundancies itself.
   Pursuant to Article 1(1) and (2) of the directive, such procedures apply to dismissals effected by an employer for one or more reasons not related to the individual workers concerned, where the number of redundancies is above a certain threshold set by reference to the number of workers in the undertaking. In calculating the number of workers employed by the undertaking and also the number of redundancies effected, all workers are included, regardless of their qualifications or duties, the only exceptions being those with contracts of employment concluded for limited periods of time, public employees and the crews of seagoing vessels.
   In implementing Directive 98/59/EC, the Italian legislature excluded from the scope of the information and consultation procedures established by it in the case of collective redundancies the category of managers, which, according to the Italian Civil Code, is included within the concept of a worker. Such an exclusion is not only contrary to the general scope of the directive, but is also wholly unjustified. The category of managers in Italian law is, indeed, very broad and even includes workers not entrusted with particular management powers in the context of the undertaking and defined as managers only in that they possesses a high level of professional qualifications.

      (1)  OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16.


title: Case C-637/15 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 October 2016 — VSM Geneesmiddelen BV v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Public health — Consumer protection — Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 — Health claims on foods — Article 13(3) — Community list of permitted health claims on foods — Botanical substances — Claims on hold — Action for failure to act and for annulment — Definition of position by the European Commission — Challengeable act)

text:
               27.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/7

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 October 2016 — VSM Geneesmiddelen BV v European Commission
   (Case C-637/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Public health - Consumer protection - Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 - Health claims on foods - Article 13(3) - Community list of permitted health claims on foods - Botanical substances - Claims on hold - Action for failure to act and for annulment - Definition of position by the European Commission - Challengeable act))
   (2017/C 063/11)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: VSM Geneesmiddelen BV (represented by: U. Grundmann, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. Wilderspin and S.Grünheid, Agents)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               There is no need to rule on the application for leave to intervene lodged by the European Confederation of Pharmaceutical Entrepreneurs (EUCOPE).

               3.

               VSM Geneesmiddelen BV shall pay the costs relating to the appeal proceedings.

               4.

               VSM Geneesmiddelen BV and the European Confederation of Pharmaceutical Entrepreneurs (EUCOPE) shall bear their own costs relating to EUCOPE’s application for leave to intervene.

      (1)  OJ C 48, 8.2.2016.


2.8.2003              EN                    Official Journal of the European Union                                       C 184/31
       Removal from the register of Case C-369/02 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-449/02 (1)
                         (2003/C 184/70)                                                    (2003/C 184/72)
By order of 6 May 2003 the President of the Court of Justice        By order of 5 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the            of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-369/02: Commission of the European               register of Case C-449/02: Commission of the European
Communities v Hellenic Republic.                                    Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
(1) OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.                                         (1) OJ C 31 of 08.02.2003.
       Removal from the register of Case C-440/02 (1)
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-7/03 (1)
                         (2003/C 184/71)
                                                                                (2003/C 184/73)
By order of 28 May 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the            By order of 8 May 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
register of Case C-440/02: Commission of the European               of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
Communities v Italian Republic.                                     register of Case C-7/03 (Reference for a preliminary ruling by
                                                                    the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Divi-
                                                                    sion): Société de produits Nestlé SA v Unilever plc.
(1) OJ C 19 of 25.01.2003.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 101 of 26.04.2003.


title: Case T-110/11: Action brought on 18 February 2011 — ASA v OHIM — Merck (FEMIFERAL)

text:
               7.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/22

         Action brought on 18 February 2011 — ASA v OHIM — Merck (FEMIFERAL)
   (Case T-110/11)
   2011/C 139/42
   Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: ASA Sp. z o.o. (Głubczyce, Poland) (represented by: M. Chimiak, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Merck Sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland)

      Form of order sought

               —

               set aside in its entirety the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 November 2010 in Case No R 0182/2010-1;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant.

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘FEMIFERAL’ for goods in Class 5 — Application No 5320701

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Merck Sp. z o.o.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the national word mark ‘Feminatal’ and the national figurative mark containing the word element ‘feminatal’ for goods in Class 5.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: dismissal of the opposition.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: invalidation of the decision of the Opposition Division and dismissal of the application for the trade mark in its entirety.

      Pleas in law: Breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1) by reason of the erroneous finding that the trade marks ‘Feminatal’ and ‘FEMIFERAL’ are similar to one another in a manner which is likely to mislead Polish consumers as to the origin of the goods, by reason of the misappraisal of the distinctive character of the prefix ‘femi’ and lack of regard for characteristics specific to Polish consumers and also the principles of the Polish language, as also by reason of the defective assessment of the similarity of the marks in all three aspects: visual, phonetic and conceptual.

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


title: Case T-576/17: Action brought on 24 August 2017 — Mas Que Vinos Global v EUIPO — JESA (EL SEÑORITO)

text:
               23.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 357/26

         Action brought on 24 August 2017 — Mas Que Vinos Global v EUIPO — JESA (EL SEÑORITO)
   (Case T-576/17)
   (2017/C 357/34)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Mas Que Vinos Global, SL (Dobarrios, Spain) (represented by: M. Sanmartín Sanmartín, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Jose Estevez, SA (JESA) (Jerez de la Frontera, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘EL SEÑORITO’ — Application for registration No 13 502 166

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 June 2017 in Case R 1775/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 42, 60, 63, 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 and of Article 8(1)(b) of that regulation.


title: Case T-302/11: Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2014  — HeidelbergCement v Commission (Competition  — Administrative proceeding  — Decision to request information  — Necessity of the information requested  — Duty to state reasons  — Proportionality)

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2014 — HeidelbergCement v Commission
   (Case T-302/11) (1)

   ((Competition - Administrative proceeding - Decision to request information - Necessity of the information requested - Duty to state reasons - Proportionality))
   2014/C 135/38
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: HeidelbergCement AG (Heidelberg, Germany) (represented by: U. Denzel, T. Holzmüller and P. Pichler, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Kellerbauer, R. Sauer and C. Hödlmayer, acting as Agents, and A. Böhlke, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 2361 final of 30 March 2011, in the context of a procedure pursuant to Article 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case COMP/39520 — cement and related products).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders HeidelbergCement AG to pay the costs, including those of the interim proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.


title: Case T-78/12: Action brought on 17 February 2012 — GRE v OHIM — Villiger Söhne (LIBERTE brunes)

text:
               14.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 109/30

         Action brought on 17 February 2012 — GRE v OHIM — Villiger Söhne (LIBERTE brunes)
   (Case T-78/12)
   2012/C 109/61
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH (Kloster Lehnin, Germany) (represented by: I. Memmler, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Villiger Söhne GmbH (Waldshut-Tiengen, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 December 2011 in Case No R 2109/2010-1;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘LIBERTE brunes’ for goods in Classes 25, 30 and 34 (application No 6 462 171)

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Villiger Söhne GmbH

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘LA LIBERTAD’ (Community trade mark No 1 456 664) and the figurative mark ‘La LIBERTAD’ (Community trade mark No 2 433 126) for goods in Classes 14 and 34

      Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 as there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.


title: Case C-506/13 P: Appeal brought on 19 September 2013 by Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro AE against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 July 2013 in Case T-552/11 Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro v Commission

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/50

         Appeal brought on 19 September 2013 by Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro AE against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 July 2013 in Case T-552/11 Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro v Commission
   (Case C-506/13 P)
   2013/C 344/88
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro AE (represented by: E. Tzannini, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               uphold the present action;

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union (registered under No 575925) of 9 July 2013 in Case Τ-552/11;

               —

               hear and rule on the substance of the present case, alternatively refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union for it to examine the substance of the case;

               —

               dismiss the counter claim of the European Commission in that all the relevant forms of order raised at first instance are wholly inadmissible and in any event unfounded;

               —

               uphold the action brought on 24 October 2011 by the ‘Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro’ for the annulment of the debit note No 3241109207 issued on 9 September 2011;

               —

               annul the contested debit note No 3241109207 for the sum of EUR 83 001,09;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               Error of law, in the failure to recognise that the debit note produces legal effects and as a result misapplication of Article 263 TFEU. The General Court, in holding that the European Commission did not exercise powers which it holds as a public authority and that the purpose of the debit note resides in the exercise of rights acquired by the Commission from the provisions of the contract committed an error of law.

               2.

               Error of law, in the incorrect classification under the legal concept of ‘undue payment’. The General Court’s interpretation of the contract in respect of the meaning of undue payment is incorrect and wholly improper.

               3.

               Infringement of the fundamental principles of European Union law in that the arguments of ‘Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro’ in relation to the default interest rate were not taken into account. The General Court unlawfully determined the date when interest would start to run as the date following the date for payment stated in the debit note.

               4.

               Application of the incorrect legal criteria in the assessment by the General Court of the evidence. The General Court incorrectly called into question the working hours of the persons employed.

               5.

               Error of law and erroneous classification of the facts in the basic premise. The General Court did not make a correct legal classification of the contested facts in respect of the nature and function of time sheets.

               6.

               Manifest legal errors of assessment in respect of the procedural rules which safeguard the rights of the defence and equality of arms between the European Commission and the ‘Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro’. The General Court erroneously held that the submitted worksheets did not meet the requirements imposed by the provisions of the contract and consequently determined that they were to be rejected as a means of proof and, further, that the submitted correspondence was not adequate evidence of the hours of work which were in fact provided by the persons employed.

               7.

               Error of law in the assessment of the legal nature of the methods for the calculation of costs (Cost Models).

               8.

               Error of law in respect of the meaning of misuse of power by the European Commission.

               9.

               Erroneous classification of the facts in the basic premise, which leads to the erroneous judicial ruling on rejection of the argument of the ‘Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro’ on the inadequate statement of reasons in the contested debit note.

               10.

               Error of law in the assessment of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. The General Court erred in not holding that the European Commission, in breach of the protection of legitimate expectations, nullified the entire research work of the ‘Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro’, validating its formal deviations from the allegedly correct procedure by pursuit of the entirety of the sums paid.


title: Case C-139/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 2 April 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Rafet Kqiku (Visas, asylum, immigration — Third-country national holding a Swiss residence permit — Entry of and stay in the territory of a Member State for purposes other than transit — Lack of a visa)

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/18

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 2 April 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Rafet Kqiku
   (Case C-139/08) (1)

   (Visas, asylum, immigration - Third-country national holding a Swiss residence permit - Entry of and stay in the territory of a Member State for purposes other than transit - Lack of a visa)
   2009/C 141/29
   Language of the case: Germany

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe

      Party/parties in the main proceedings

   Rafet Kqiku

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe (Germany) — Interpretation of Articles 1 and 2 of Decision No 896/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 establishing a simplified regime for the control of persons at the external borders based on the unilateral recognition by the Member States of certain residence permits issued by Switzerland and Liechtenstein for the purpose of transit through their territory (OJ 2006 L 167, p. 8) — Possibility for a national of the former State Union of Serbia and Montenegro residing in Switzerland and holding a Swiss type C permanent resident permit to enter the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany for purposes other than transit and to remain there for two days without a visa

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:
   Decision No 896/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 establishing a simplified regime for the control of persons at the external borders based on the unilateral recognition by the Member States of certain residence permits issued by Switzerland and Liechtenstein for the purpose of transit through their territory must be interpreted as meaning that the residence permits listed in the annex to that decision, issued by the Swiss Confederation or the Principality of Liechtenstein to third-country nationals subject to a visa requirement, are considered to be equivalent to a transit visa only. As regards entering the territory of the Member States for the purpose of transit, the requirements laid down in Articles 1(1) and 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement are fulfilled if the person covered by that decision is in possession of a residence permit issued by the Swiss Confederation or the Principality of Liechtenstein which is listed in the annex to that decision.

      (1)  OJ C 183, 19.07.2008.


title: Case C-313/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania) lodged on 7 June 2013 — Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a Județului Sibiu — Activitatea de Inspecție Fiscală v Cătălin Ienciu

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania) lodged on 7 June 2013 — Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a Județului Sibiu — Activitatea de Inspecție Fiscală v Cătălin Ienciu
   (Case C-313/13)
   (2013/C 226/12)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a Județului Sibiu — Activitatea de Inspecție Fiscală

      Defendant: Cătălin Ienciu

      Question referred

   If a vendor has been reclassified as a taxable person for VAT purposes and the consideration for (price of) the supply of the immovable property has been determined by the parties, without any reference to VAT, must Articles 73 and 78 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that the taxable amount is:

               (a)

               the consideration for (price of) the supply of the property determined by the parties, less the rate of VAT, or

               (b)

               the consideration for (price of) the supply of the property agreed by the parties?

      (1)  Council Directive of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).


title: Case T-220/06: Action brought on 16 August 2006 — JAKO-O v OHIM — P.I. Fashion (JAKO-O)

text:
               14.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/14

         Action brought on 16 August 2006 — JAKO-O v OHIM — P.I. Fashion (JAKO-O)
   (Case T-220/06)
   (2006/C 249/33)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: JAKO-O Möbel und Spielmittel für die junge Familie GmbH (Bad Rodach, Germany) (represented by: E. Bertram, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: P.I. Fashion B.V. (Amsterdam, The Netherlands)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 14 June 2006 (Case R 1178/2005-2) of the Office of Harmonisation in the Internal Market;

               —

               rejection of the opposition No B 553695 against CTM application No 2395564;

               —

               order the costs of the proceedings to be borne by the defendant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The Community word mark ‘JAKO-O’ for goods and services in classes 3, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 28, 39 and 41 (soaps, perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics) — application No 2395564.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: P.I. Fashion B.V.

      Mark or sign cited: The national figurative mark ‘LAGERFELD JAKO’ for goods and services in Class 3.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld for the contested goods.

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

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94.
   The applicant argues that there is no similarity between the earlier right and the community trademark application either phonetically, visually or conceptually and therefore, no likelihood of confusion in the sense of the above-mentioned article. The likelihood of confusion is further reduced, according to the applicant, by the fame attributed to the element LAGERFELD by the average consumer, which is to be regarded as the dominant element of the mark.


title: Case C-36/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) by order of that court dated 23 December 2002, in the case of The Queen on the application of Approved Prescription Services Ltd against the Licensing Authority (acting by the Medicines Control Agency), Interested party: Eli Lilly & Co. Ltd

text:
5.4.2003                EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 83/7
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court                      Appeal brought on 4 February 2003 by Rica Foods (Free
of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division                      Zone) NV against the judgment delivered on 14 Novem-
(Administrative Court) by order of that court dated                       ber 2002 by the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber)
23 December 2002, in the case of The Queen on the                         in Joined Cases T-94/00, T-110/00 and T-159/00 Rica
application of Approved Prescription Services Ltd against                 Foods (Free Zone) NV, Free Trade Foods NV and Suproco
the Licensing Authority (acting by the Medicines Control                  NV, supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands, v
         Agency), Interested party: Eli Lilly & Co. Ltd                   Commission of the European Communities, supported by
                                                                                the Kingdom of Spain and the French Republic
                           (Case C-36/03)
                                                                                (Case C-41/03 P)
                          (2003/C 83/12)                                                            (2003/C 83/13)
                                                                          An appeal has been brought before the Court of Justice of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    European Communities on 4 February 2003 by Rica Foods
European Communities by an order of the High Court of                     (Free Zone) NV, represented by G. van der Wal, advocaat
Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Adminis-               before the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, against the judgment
trative Court) dated 23 December 2002, which was received                 delivered on 14 November 2002 by the Court of First Instance
at the Court Registry on 3 February 2003, for a preliminary               (Third Chamber) in Joined Cases T-94/00, T-110/00 and
ruling in the case of The Queen on the application of Approved            T-159/00 Rica Foods (Free Zone) NV, Free Trade Foods NV and
Prescription Services Ltd against the Licensing Authority                 Suproco NV, supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands, v
(acting by the Medicines Control Agency), Interested party: Eli           Commission of the European Communities, supported by the
Lilly & Co. Ltd, on the following questions:                              Kingdom of Spain.
Can an application for a marketing authorisation for a                    The appellant claims that the Court should:
medicinal Product C validly be made under the first paragraph
of Article 10.1(a)(iii) of Directive 2001/83/EC (1), where the            (1) declare admissible the appeal lodged by the appellant
application seeks to demonstrate that Product C is essentially                 against the judgment delivered on 14 November 2002 by
similar to another product, Product B, in circumstances where:                 the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                               in Joined Cases T-94/00, T-110/00 and T-159/00;
(1) Product B is related to an original medicinal Product A,
       in that Product B has been authorised as a ‘line extension’        (2) set aside the judgment delivered on 14 November 2002
       of Product A, but has a different pharmaceutical form                   by the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-
       from Product A or is otherwise not ‘essentially similar’ to             ties in Joined Cases T-94/00, T-110/00 and T-159/00
       Product A within the meaning of Article 10.1(a)(iii); and               and, ruling afresh pursuant to the application at first
                                                                               instance lodged by the present appellant on 18 April
                                                                               2000:
(2) Product A has been authorised for marketing in the
       Community for more than the six/ten year period stipu-
       lated in Article 10.1(a)(iii); and                                      —     annul Regulation No 465/2000/EC (1);
                                                                               —     declare that the Community is liable for the damage
(3) Product B has been authorised for marketing for less than                        suffered by the appellant by reason of the fact that
       the six/ten year period stipulated in Article 10.1(a)(iii).                   imports of the products referred to in Regulation
                                                                                (EC) No 465/2000 have, since 1 March 2000, been
                                                                                prevented or restricted as a consequence of that
                                                                                regulation, and order the parties to reach agreement
( 1) Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the                      on the extent of the damage suffered by the appel-
     Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to                    lant, and, if no agreement is reached on that matter,
     medicinal products for human use (OJ L 311, 28.11.2001, p. 67).                 order that proceedings be continued within a period
                                                                                to be laid down by the Court of Justice for the
                                                                                purpose of determining the extent of the damage, or
                                                                                at any rate order the Community to pay compen-
                                                                                sation for the provisionally estimated damage and


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 January 2005 in Case C-448/02: Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1995 financial year — Arable crops)

text:
               5.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 57/5

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 20 January 2005
   in Case C-448/02: Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (EAGGF - Clearance of accounts - 1995 financial year - Arable crops)
   (2005/C 57/09)
   Language of the case: Greek
   In Case C-448/02: Hellenic Republic (Agents: I. Chalkias and G. Kanellopoulos) v Commission of the European Communities (Agent: M. Condou-Durande) – Action for annulment under Article 230 EC, brought on 10 December 2002 – the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta, J. Makarczyk, P. Kūris (Rapporteur) and G. Arestis, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 20 January 2005 in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 31, 08.02.2003.


title: Case C-278/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 13 June 2007 — Josef Vosding Schlacht-, Kühl- und Zerlegebetrieb GmbH & Co v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 13 June 2007 — Josef Vosding Schlacht-, Kühl- und Zerlegebetrieb GmbH & Co v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
   (Case C-278/07)
   (2007/C 211/28)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesfinanzhof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Josef Vosding Schlacht-, Kühl- und Zerlegebetrieb GmbH & Co

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
   Questions referred

               1.

               Must the limitation period prescribed in the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC, EURATOM) No 2988/95 (1) of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests be applied even if an irregularity was committed or ceased before Regulation (EC, EURATOM) No 2988/95 entered into force?

               2.

               Is the limitation period prescribed in that provision applicable in general to administrative measures such as the recovery of export refunds granted as a result of irregularities?

         If the answers to those questions are in the affirmative:

               3.

               May a longer period pursuant to Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC, EURATOM) No 2988/95 be applied by a Member State even if such a longer period was already provided for in the law of the Member State before the abovementioned regulation was adopted? May such a longer period be applied even if it was not prescribed in a specific provision for the recovery of export refunds or for administrative measures in general, but resulted from a general rule of the Member State concerned covering all limitation cases not specifically regulated (‘catch-all’ provision)?

      (1)  OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1.


title: Case F-25/14: Action brought on 24 March 2014 — ZZ v FRA

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/43

         Action brought on 24 March 2014 — ZZ v FRA
   (Case F-25/14)
   2014/C 184/71
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the decision to terminate the indefinite duration contract of the Applicant, of the decision rejecting the complaint and to grant compensation for the moral and material damages suffered.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the FRA Director dated 13 June 2013 to terminate indefinite duration contract of the Applicant;

               —

               annul the decision of the FRA Director dated 20 December 2013, rejecting the complaint;

               —

               grant the Applicant compensation for his material prejudice consisting of the difference between, on the one hand, the unemployment allowance which he will perceive from April 2014 and, after that, any potential replacement income or lack thereof and, on the other hand, his full salary, including all allowances, of 7 850,33 euros until the date of his full reintegration within the Agency (plus interest for late payment at the rate of 3 points above the European Central Bank rate);

               —

               grant the Applicant adequate compensation for the moral damage caused by the decision, which cannot be repaired by the annulment of the decision. This moral damage is assessed ex aequo et bono at 50 000,00 euros;

               —

               order the Defendant to pay all costs.


title: Case T-125/08: Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 March 2012 — Atlantean v Commission

text:
               26.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/33

         Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 March 2012 — Atlantean v Commission
   (Case T-125/08) (1)

   2012/C 151/56
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 116, 9.5.2008.


title: Case F-125/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 13 March 2013 — Mendes v Commission (Civil service — Open competition — Non-admission to the assessment tests — Administration’s duty to interpret complaints in a spirit of openness — Amendment to the vacancy notice after holding the admission tests — Principle of legitimate expectations — Legal certainty)

text:
               27.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/28

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 13 March 2013 — Mendes v Commission
   (Case F-125/11) (1)

   (Civil service - Open competition - Non-admission to the assessment tests - Administration’s duty to interpret complaints in a spirit of openness - Amendment to the vacancy notice after holding the admission tests - Principle of legitimate expectations - Legal certainty)
   2013/C 123/49
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Isabel Mendes (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rogrigues and A. Blot, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Application to annul the decision not to admit the applicant to the assessment tests in competition EPSO/AST/111/10

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               annuls the decision of the selection board of open competition EPSO/AST/111/10 of 7 April 2011 not to admit the applicant to the assessment tests;

               2.

               orders the European Commission to pay EUR 2 000 to the applicant;

               3.

               dismisses the application as to the remainder;

               4.

               orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012, p. 21.


title: Case C-635/16 P: Appeal brought on 8 December 2016 by Spliethoff's Bevrachtingskantoor BV against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 11 October 2016 in Case T-564/15: Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor BV v European Commission

text:
               6.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 70/9

         Appeal brought on 8 December 2016 by Spliethoff's Bevrachtingskantoor BV against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 11 October 2016 in Case T-564/15: Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor BV v European Commission
   (Case C-635/16 P)
   (2017/C 070/14)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Spliethoff's Bevrachtingskantoor BV (represented by: Y. de Vries, advocaat)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the order of the General Court of 11 October 2016 in case T-564/15;

               —

               refer the case back to the General Court;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs before the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The General Court erred in law by finding that the action is inadmissible, given that it is directed against the Commission, who is not the author of the contested act;
   The General Court erred in law by finding that the action was inadmissible because the contested act is merely provisional in nature and therefore is not a definitive act;
   The General Court erred in law by rejecting Spliethoff’s request to treat its action for annulment as if it were directed against the 31 July Decision (1).

      (1)  Commission Implementing Decision C(2015) 5274 final establishing the list of proposals selected for receiving EU financial assistance in the field of Connecting Europe Facility (CEF)-Transport sector following the calls for proposals launched on 11 September 2014 based on the Multi-Annual Work Programme