title: Case C-318/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — proceedings brought by X (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 79/7/EEC — Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security — Accident insurance for workers — Amount of a lump-sum compensation for permanent incapacity — Actuarial calculation based on average life expectancy by sex of the recipient of that compensation — Sufficiently serious infringement of EU law)

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/17

      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — proceedings brought by X
      (Case C-318/13) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 79/7/EEC - Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security - Accident insurance for workers - Amount of a lump-sum compensation for permanent incapacity - Actuarial calculation based on average life expectancy by sex of the recipient of that compensation - Sufficiently serious infringement of EU law))
      (2014/C 395/20)
      Language of the case: Finnish

         Referring court

      Korkein hallinto-oikeus

         Parties to the main proceedings

      X

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1)

                  Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security must be interpreted as precluding national legislation on the basis of which the different life expectancies of men and women are applied as an actuarial factor for the calculation of a statutory social benefit payable due to an accident at work, when, by applying this factor, the lump-sum compensation paid to a man is less than that which would be paid to a woman of the same age and in a similar situation.

                  2)

                  It is for the referring court to assess whether the conditions for the Member State to be deemed liable are met. Similarly, as regards whether the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings constitutes a ‘sufficiently serious’ infringement of EU law, that court will have to take into consideration, inter alia, the fact that the Court has not yet ruled on the legality of taking into account a factor based on average life expectancy according to sex in the determination of a benefit paid under a statutory social security system and falling within the scope of Directive 79/7. The national court will also have to take into account the right granted to the Member States by the EU legislature, set out in Article 5(2) of Council Directive 2004/113/EC of 13 December 2004 implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services, and Article 9(1)(h) of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation. In addition, that court should bear in mind that the Court has held, on 1 March 2011 (C-236/09, EU:C:2011:100), that the first of those provisions is invalid, since it infringes the principle of equal treatment between men and women.

         (1)  OJ C 233, 10. 8. 2013.


title: Case T-522/09: Order of the General Court of 10 June 2011 — Gemmi Furs v OHIM — Lemmi-Fashion (GEMMI)

text:
               13.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/35

         Order of the General Court of 10 June 2011 — Gemmi Furs v OHIM — Lemmi-Fashion (GEMMI)
   (Case T-522/09) (1)

   2011/C 238/61
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 51, 27.2.2010.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 November 2004 in Joined Cases C-183/02 P and C-187/02 P: Daewoo Electronics Manufacturing España SA (Demesa) (C-183/02) and Territorio Histórico de Álava – Diputación Foral de Álava (C-187/02) v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — State aid — Tax measures — Legitimate expectations — New pleas in law)

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/2

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 11 November 2004
   in Joined Cases C-183/02 P and C-187/02 P: Daewoo Electronics Manufacturing España SA (Demesa) (C-183/02) and Territorio Histórico de Álava – Diputación Foral de Álava (C-187/02) v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Appeal - State aid - Tax measures - Legitimate expectations - New pleas in law)
   (2005/C 6/03)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   In Joined Cases C-183/02 P and C-187/02 P: two appeals under Article 49 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice lodged on 15 and 16 May 2002, Daewoo Electronics Manufacturing España SA (Demesa), established in Vitoria (Spain), (Lawyers: A. Creus Carreras and B. Uriarte Valiente) (C-183/02 P) Territorio Histórico de Álava – Diputación Foral de Álava (Lawyers: A. Creus Carreras, B. Uriarte Valiente and M. Bravo-Ferrer Delgado) (C-187/02 P), supported by Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco (Lawyer: E. Garayar Gutiérrez), the other parties to the proceedings being: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: F. Santaolalla Gadea and J.L. Buendía Sierra), Asociación Nacional de Fabricantes de Electrodomésticos de Línea Blanca (ANFEL), established in Madrid (Spain), and Conseil européen de la construction d'appareils domestiques (CECED), established in Brussels (Belgium) – the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur) and N. Colneric, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 November 2004, in which:

               1.

               Joins Cases C-183/02 P and C-187/02 P for the purposes of the judgment;

               2.

               Dismisses the appeals;

               3.

               Orders the appellants, in addition to bearing their own costs, to pay those incurred by the Commission of the European Communities;

               4.

               Orders the Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 180 of 27.7.2002.


title: Case F-97/11: Action brought on 3 October 2011 — ZZ v Parliament

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/47

         Action brought on 3 October 2011 — ZZ v Parliament
   (Case F-97/11)
   2011/C 347/89
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: P. Nelissen Grade and G. Leblanc, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the Parliament as to the date to be regarded as that on which the applicant’s change of marital status took effect for the purposes of withdrawing the household allowance following the civil judgment pronouncing the applicant’s divorce.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the appointing authority of 4 July 2011 partially dismissing the applicant’s complaint;

               —

               annul the decision of the appointing authority of 21 January 2011, notified by the Streamline administrative management application, to fix the date on which the change in the applicant’s marital status took effect as the date of the judgment pronouncing the divorce;

               —

               indicate to the appointing authority the effects of the annulment of the contested decisions, and, in particular, the date to be taken as that on which the judgment pronouncing the applicant’s divorce from his ex-wife took effect, namely the date of the transcription of the judgment, which took place on 26 April 2011;

               —

               order the Parliament to pay the costs.


title: Case C-157/13: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — Nickel & Goeldner Spedition GmbH v Kintra UAB (Request for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 — Article 3(1) — Concept of an ‘action related to insolvency proceedings and closely connected with those proceedings’ — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 1(2)(b) — Concept of ‘bankruptcy’ — Action for payment of a debt brought by the insolvency administrator — Debt arising out of the international carriage of goods — Relationship between Regulations No 1346/2000 and No 44/2001 and the Convention for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (CMR))

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/11

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — Nickel & Goeldner Spedition GmbH v Kintra UAB
      (Case C-157/13) (1)

      ((Request for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Article 3(1) - Concept of an ‘action related to insolvency proceedings and closely connected with those proceedings’ - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 1(2)(b) - Concept of ‘bankruptcy’ - Action for payment of a debt brought by the insolvency administrator - Debt arising out of the international carriage of goods - Relationship between Regulations No 1346/2000 and No 44/2001 and the Convention for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (CMR)))
      (2014/C 395/13)
      Language of the case: Lithuanian

         Referring court

      Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Nickel & Goeldner Spedition GmbH

         Defendant: Kintra UAB

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Article 1(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that an action for the payment of a debt based on the provision of carriage services taken by the insolvency administrator of an insolvent undertaking in the course of insolvency proceedings opened in one Member State and taken against a service recipient established in another Member State comes under the concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ within the meaning of that provision.

                  2.

                  Article 71 of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation where a dispute falls within the scope of both that regulation and the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road, signed in Geneva on 19 May 1956, as amended by the Protocol signed in Geneva on 5 July 1978, a Member State may, in accordance with Article 71(1) of that regulation, apply the rules concerning jurisdiction laid down in Article 31(1) of that convention.

         (1)  OJ C 156, 1.6.2013.


title: Case C-585/10: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Niels Møller v Haderslev Kommune (Integrated pollution prevention and control — Directive 96/61/EC — Annex I, subheading 6.6(c) — Installations for the intensive rearing of pigs with more than 750 places for sows — Inclusion or non-inclusion of places for gilts)

text:
               11.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/6

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Niels Møller v Haderslev Kommune
   (Case C-585/10) (1)

   (Integrated pollution prevention and control - Directive 96/61/EC - Annex I, subheading 6.6(c) - Installations for the intensive rearing of pigs with more than 750 places for sows - Inclusion or non-inclusion of places for gilts)
   2012/C 39/09
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Vestre Landsret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Niels Møller

      Defendant: Haderslev Kommune

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Vestre Landsret — Interpretation of subheading 6.6 of Annex I to Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (OJ 1996 L 257, p. 26) — Facilities intended for intensive poultry and pig farming having over 750 places for sows — Whether or not to include places for gilts (pigs after first heat which have not yet farrowed)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The expression ‘places for sows’, in subheading 6.6(c) of Annex I to Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 166/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 January 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that it includes places for gilts (female pigs which have already been serviced, but have not yet farrowed).

      (1)  OJ C 38, 5.2.2011.


title: Case F-64/11: Action brought on 24 June 2011 — ZZ v European Commission

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/57

         Action brought on 24 June 2011 — ZZ v European Commission
   (Case F-64/11)
   2011/C 252/126
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Crosby and S. Santoro, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      The subject matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the decision of the defendant to revoke unilaterally the offer of employment made to the applicant, despite the fact that the applicant had already accepted the offer.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Decision of 4 March 2011 whereby the European Commission rejected the internal complaint lodged by the Applicant against the Commission decision HR B2 (2010) 662634 of 5 October 2010;

               —

               pay a compensation for the damages suffered by the Applicant, including salaries and benefits foregone;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of this action.


title: Case C-490/08: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium. (Failure of Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2005/68/EC — Reinsurance — Failure to adopt within the prescribed period)

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/11

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
   (Case C-490/08) (1)

   (Failure of Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2005/68/EC - Reinsurance - Failure to adopt within the prescribed period)
   2009/C 205/20
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Yerrell, acting as Agent, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: D. Haven, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt or communicate, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2005/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2005 on reinsurance and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC and 92/49/EEC as well as Directives 98/78/EC and 2002/83/EC (OJ 2005 L 323, p. 1)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that by not adopting all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2005 on reinsurance and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC and 92/49/EEC as well as Directives 98/78/EC and 2002/83/EC or, in any event, by not communicating those measures to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 10.01.2009.


title: Case F-84/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 2 March 2016 — Loescher v Council (Civil service — Officials — Union representative — Put at the disposal of a trade union or staff association — 2014 promotion procedure — Decision not to promote the applicant — Article 45 of the Staff Regulations — Comparative merits — No obligation under the Staff Regulations to provide for a specific method for assessing the comparative merits of staff put at the disposal of trade union or professional associations — Taking into account of staff reports — Assessment of the level of responsibilities held — Evidence — Review of a manifest error of assessment)

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/49

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 2 March 2016 — Loescher v Council
   (Case F-84/15) (1)

   ((Civil service - Officials - Union representative - Put at the disposal of a trade union or staff association - 2014 promotion procedure - Decision not to promote the applicant - Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - Comparative merits - No obligation under the Staff Regulations to provide for a specific method for assessing the comparative merits of staff put at the disposal of trade union or professional associations - Taking into account of staff reports - Assessment of the level of responsibilities held - Evidence - Review of a manifest error of assessment))
   (2016/C 136/69)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Bernd Loescher (Rhode-Saint-Genèse, Belgium) (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and M. Veiga, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision not to promote the applicant to the next grade (AD 12) in the 2014 Council of the European Union promotion procedure.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Declares that Mr Loescher is to bear his own costs and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 279, 24/8/2015, p. 60.


title: Case F-124/13: Action brought on 19 December 2013 — ZZ v Parliament

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/54

         Action brought on 19 December 2013 — ZZ v Parliament
   (Case F-124/13)
   2014/C 52/107
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

      Defendant: European parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the Appointing Authority rejecting applicant’s request for assistance.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decision and, so far as necessary, the decision rejecting the complaint;

               —

               order the defendant to pay to the applicant an amount of EUR 50 000, as compensation for the non-material damage suffered, together with interest at the legal rate until payment in full has been made;

               —

               order the defendant to pay to the applicant a quarter of the medical expenses incurred in connection with the deterioration of her state of health, as compensation for the material damage suffered, together with interest at the legal rate until payment in full has been made;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case C-395/09: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 September 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Oasis East sp. z o.o. v Minister Finansów (Sixth VAT Directive — Directive 2006/112/EC — Accession of a new Member State — Right to deduct input tax — National legislation excluding the right to deduct tax on the provision of certain services — Commercial partners established in a territory classified as a tax haven — Option for Member States to retain rules excluding the right to deduct at the time when the Sixth VAT Directive entered into force)

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/10

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 September 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Oasis East sp. z o.o. v Minister Finansów
   (Case C-395/09) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Directive 2006/112/EC - Accession of a new Member State - Right to deduct input tax - National legislation excluding the right to deduct tax on the provision of certain services - Commercial partners established in a territory classified as a ‘tax haven’ - Option for Member States to retain rules excluding the right to deduct at the time when the Sixth VAT Directive entered into force)
   2010/C 317/19
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Oasis East sp. z o.o.

      Defendant: Minister Finansów

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Interpretation of Article 17(6) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) and of Article 176 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — National legislation, already in force prior to accession, which excluded a right to a reduction of tax relating to the provision of services in respect of which payment is made in favour of a person having its place of residence, registered office or central management in a territory regarded as being a ‘tax haven’

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 17(6) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995, the provisions of which have, in essence, been reproduced in Article 176 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, must be construed as not authorising the retention of national legislation, applicable when Sixth Directive 77/388 entered into force in the Member State concerned, which excludes in general the right to deduct input value added tax paid at the time of the purchase of imported services, the price of which is directly or indirectly paid to a person established in a State or territory classified as a ‘tax haven’ by that national legislation.

      (1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.


title: Case F-99/13: Action brought on 4th October 2013 — ZZ v ECB

text:
               14.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 367/41

         Action brought on 4th October 2013 — ZZ v ECB
   (Case F-99/13)
   2013/C 367/73
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Central Bank

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the 2012 appraisal report and of the decisions taken on that basis, plus the granting of damages for the moral prejudice suffered.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Applicant’s 2012 appraisal;

               —

               if necessary, annul the decision of 18th April 2013 rejecting the request for an administrative review and of the decision of 23rd July 2013 rejecting the grievance;

               —

               annul any decision taken on the basis of the illegal 2012 appraisal;

               —

               order the Defendant to compensate the moral prejudice suffered evaluated ex aequo et bono at 10 000 €;

               —

               order the Defendant to pay all costs.


title: Case T-500/10: Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — Dorma v OHIM — Puertas Doorsa (doorsa FÁBRICA DE PUERTAS AUTOMÁTICAS) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark ‘doorsa FÁBRICA DE PUERTAS AUTOMÁTICAS’ — Earlier national and international word and figurative marks ‘DORMA’ — Lodging of additional documents on the reputation of the earlier marks in the procedure before the Board of Appeal — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               7.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — Dorma v OHIM — Puertas Doorsa (doorsa FÁBRICA DE PUERTAS AUTOMÁTICAS)
   (Case T-500/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark ‘doorsa FÁBRICA DE PUERTAS AUTOMÁTICAS’ - Earlier national and international word and figurative marks ‘DORMA’ - Lodging of additional documents on the reputation of the earlier marks in the procedure before the Board of Appeal - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 6/26
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Dorma GmbH & Co. KG (Ennepetal, Germany) (represented by: P. Koch Moreno, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Puertas Doorsa, SL (Petrel, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 August 2010 (Case R 542/2009-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Dorma GmbH & Co. KG and Puertas Doorsa, SL.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Dorma GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.


title: Case C-241/05: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 October 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État, France ) — Nicolae Bot v Préfet du Val-de-Marne (Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement — Article 20(1) — Conditions of movement of nationals of a third country not subject to a visa requirement — Maximum stay for a period of three months during the six months following the date of first entry into the Schengen Area — Successive stays — Definition of first entry )

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/16

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 October 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État, France ) — Nicolae Bot v Préfet du Val-de-Marne
   (Case C-241/05) (1)

   (Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement - Article 20(1) - Conditions of movement of nationals of a third country not subject to a visa requirement - Maximum stay for a period of three months during the six months following the date of first entry into the Schengen Area - Successive stays - Definition of ‘first entry’)
   (2006/C 294/26)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Conseil d'État
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Nicolae Bot

      Defendant: Préfet du Val-de-Marne
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d'Etat (France) — Interpretation of Article 20(1) of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders (OJ 2000 L 239, p. 19) — Meaning of first entry into the territories of the Contracting Parties
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 20(1) of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, signed on 19 June 1990 at Schengen, is to be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘first entry’ in that provision refers, besides the very first entry into the territories of the Contracting States to that agreement, to the first entry into those territories taking place after the expiry of a period of six months from that very first entry and also to any other first entry taking place after the expiry of any new period of six months following an earlier date of first entry.

      (1)  OJ C 193, 06.08.2005.


title: Case C-263/06: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 February 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione, Italy) — Carboni e derivati Srl v Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze, Riunione Adriatica di Sicurtà SpA (Common commercial policy — Protection against dumping — Anti-dumping duty — Hematite pig iron originating in Russia — Decision No 67/94/ECSC — Determination of customs value for purposes of the application of a variable anti-dumping duty — Transaction value — Successive sales at different prices — Whether the customs authority may take into consideration the price indicated in a sale of goods effected prior to that on the basis of which the customs declaration was made)

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/2

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 February 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione, Italy) — Carboni e derivati Srl v Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze, Riunione Adriatica di Sicurtà SpA
   (Case C-263/06) (1)

   (Common commercial policy - Protection against dumping - Anti-dumping duty - Hematite pig iron originating in Russia - Decision No 67/94/ECSC - Determination of customs value for purposes of the application of a variable anti-dumping duty - Transaction value - Successive sales at different prices - Whether the customs authority may take into consideration the price indicated in a sale of goods effected prior to that on the basis of which the customs declaration was made)
   (2008/C 107/03)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Corte suprema di cassazione
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Carboni e derivati Srl

      Respondents: Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze, Riunione Adriatica di Sicurtà SpA
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte suprema di cassazione — Interpretation of Article 147 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1), as amended by Regulation No 1762/95 — Basis of calculation to determine application of the anti-dumping duty — Possibility for the customs authority to take into consideration the price indicated in a sale of goods which took place prior to that on the basis of which the customs declaration took place — Hematite pig-iron originating in Russia
   Operative part of the judgment
   In accordance with Article 1(2) of Commission Decision No 67/94/ECSC of 12 January 1994 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports into the Community of hematite pig iron, originating in Brazil, Poland, Russia and Ukraine, the customs authorities may not determine the customs value for the purpose of applying the anti-dumping duty established by that decision on the basis of the price indicated for the goods concerned in a sale prior to that on the basis of which the customs declaration was made when the declared price corresponds to the price actually paid or payable by the importer.
   If the customs authorities have reasonable doubts as to the accuracy of the declared value and their doubts are confirmed after they have asked for additional information or documents and have provided the person concerned with a reasonable opportunity to respond to the grounds for those doubts, without it being possible to determine the price actually paid or payable, they may, in accordance with Article 31 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, calculate the customs value for the purpose of applying the anti-dumping duty established by Decision No 67/94 by reference to the price agreed for the goods in question in the most recent sale prior to that on the basis of which the customs declaration was made and in regard to which the customs authorities have no objective reason to doubt its accuracy.

      (1)  OJ C 224, 16.9.2006.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 11 November 1997 in Case C-251/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof): Sabel BV v. Puma AG, Rudolf Dassler Sport (Directive 89/104/EEC - Approximation of laws relating to the trade marks - 'Likelihood of confusion which includes the likelihood of association')

text:
C 7/2                  EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10. 1. 98
1. Article 37 of the EC Treaty does not preclude                     classified under heading 30 04 of the combined
     domestic provisions relating to the existence and               nomenclature, as established in the annex to Council
     operation of a national monopoly on the retail of               Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the
     alcoholic beverages such as those mentioned in the              tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common
     order for reference.                                            Customs Tariff, and consequently do not come within the
                                                                     scope of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1010/86 of
2. Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty preclude domestic             25 March 1986 laying down general rules for the
     provisions allowing only traders holding a production           production refund on certain sugar products used in the
     licence or a wholesale licence to import alcoholic              chemical industry.
     beverages on conditions such as those laid down by
     Swedish legislation.                                            (1) OJ C 233, 10. 8. 1996.
(1) OJ C 208, 12. 8. 1995.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 11 November 1997
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                     in Case C-251/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                       (Fourth Chamber)                              the Bundesgerichtshof): Sabel BV v. Puma AG, Rudolf
                     of 6 November 1997                                                     Dassler Sport (1)
in Case C-201/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from            (Directive 89/104/EEC Ð Approximation of laws relating
the Tribunal Administratif de Paris): Laboratoires de                to the trade marks Ð Likelihood of confusion which
TheÂrapeutique Moderne (LTM) v. Fonds d'Intervention et                          includes the likelihood of association')
       de ReÂgularisation du MarcheÂ du Sucre (FIRS) (1)                                       (98/C 7/04)
(Refund for use of sugar in the manufacture of certain
chemical products Ð Multivitamin products and products                              (Language of the case: German)
        containing amino acids Ð Tariff classification)
                          (98/C 7/03)                                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     In Case C-251/95: reference to the Court under Article 177
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       of the EC Treaty from the Bundesgerichtshof for a
          published in the European Court Reports)                   preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                     court between Sabel BV and Puma AG, Rudolf Dassler
In Case C-201/96: reference to the Court under Article 177           Sport on the interpretation of Article 4 (1) (b) of first
of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal Administratif de Paris            Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to
(Administrative Court, Paris), for a preliminary ruling in           approximate the laws of the Member States relating to
the proceedings pending before that court between                    trade marks (OJ L 40, 11. 2. 1989, p. 1) Ð the Court,
Laboratoires de TheÂrapeutique Moderne (LTM) and Fonds               composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, C.
d'Intervention et de ReÂgularisation du MarcheÂ du Sucre             Gulmann (Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet,
(FIRS) Ð on the interpretation of Council Regulation                 Presidents of Chambers, G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de
(EEC) No 1010/86 of 25 March 1986 laying down                        Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward,
general rules for the production refund on certain sugar             J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges;
products used in the chemical industry (OJ L 94, 9. 4.               F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl, Principal
1986, p. 9), as amended by Article 9 of Commission                   Administrator, for the Registrar Ð has given a judgment
Regulation (EEC) No 1714/88 of 13 June 1988 (OJ L 152,               on 11 November 1997, in which it has ruled:
18. 6. 1988, p. 23), and of Chapters 21 and 30 of the
combined nomenclature, as established by Council                     The criterion of likelihood of confusion which includes
Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the                   the likelihood of association with the earlier mark'
tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common                contained in Article 4 (1) (b) of First Council Directive
Customs Tariff (OJ L 256, 7. 9. 1987, p. 1) Ð the Court              89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the
(Fourth Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm,                         laws of the Member States relating to trade marks is to be
President of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn and J. L.                 interpreted as meaning that the mere association which
Murray (Rapporteur), Judges: M. B. Elmer, Advocate-                  the public might make between two trade marks as a
General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the                result of their analogous semantic content is not in itself a
Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 November 1997, in               sufficient ground for concluding that there is a likelihood
which it has ruled:                                                  of confusion within the meaning of that provision.
Products consisting of ingredients identical to those                (1) OJ C 248, 23. 9. 1995.
contained in Alvityl 50 DrageÂes' and Strongenol 20
Ampoules' and in the same proportions cannot be


title: Case T-24/13: Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — Cactus v OHIM — Del Rio Rodríguez (CACTUS OF PEACE CACTUS DE LA PAZ) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark CACTUS OF PEACE CACTUS DE LA PAZ — Earlier Community word mark CACTUS and earlier figurative mark Cactus — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 76(1) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/44

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — Cactus v OHIM — Del Rio Rodríguez (CACTUS OF PEACE CACTUS DE LA PAZ)
   (Case T-24/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark CACTUS OF PEACE CACTUS DE LA PAZ - Earlier Community word mark CACTUS and earlier figurative mark Cactus - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 76(1) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 302/56)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

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

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 October 2012 (Case R 2005/2011-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Cactus SA and Isabel Del Rio Rodríguez.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls point 1 of the operative part of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 19 October 2012 (Case R 2005/2011-2) in so far as it rejected the opposition on the grounds that ‘retailing of natural plants and flowers, grains; fresh fruits and vegetables’ services in Class 35 were not covered by the earlier marks;

               2.

               Annuls point 2 of the operative part of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 October 2012 referred to above in so far as it annulled the part of the decision of the Opposition Division allowing the opposition based on ‘natural plants and flowers, grains’ in Class 31, and point 1 of the operative part of that decision, which rejected the opposition based on those goods;

               3.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               4.

               Orders Cactus SA to pay one third of the costs incurred by the parties before the General Court and orders OHIM to pay two thirds of those costs.

      (1)  OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.


title: Case C-157/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Napoli (Italy) lodged on 31 March 2011 — Giuseppe Sibilio v Comune di Afragola

text:
               11.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 173/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Napoli (Italy) lodged on 31 March 2011 — Giuseppe Sibilio v Comune di Afragola
   (Case C-157/11)
   2011/C 173/11
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Napoli

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Giuseppe Sibilio

      Defendant: Comune di Afragola

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Directive 1999/70/EC (1) applicable to socially useful workers or should such workers be regarded, in accordance with Clause 3(1) thereof, as persons having an employment relationship entered into directly between an employer and a worker where the end of the employment relationship is determined by objective conditions such as reaching a specific date, being in the present case the end of a project?

               2.

               Does Clause 4 preclude a socially useful worker or a publicly useful worker from receiving less remuneration than a permanent worker who carries out the same duties and has the same length of service solely because his employment relationship was initiated on the terms described above, or does this constitute an objective reason justifying less favourable treatment in terms of pay?

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43.


title: Case F-57/09: Action brought on 2 June 2009 — Dionisio Galao v Committee of the Regions

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/65

         Action brought on 2 June 2009 — Dionisio Galao v Committee of the Regions
   (Case F-57/09)
   2009/C 180/121
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Ana Maria Dionisio Galao (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Committee of the Regions

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the defendant’s decision fixing the applicant’s conditions of employment as a member of the contract staff under Article 3b of the CEOS, in so far as it limits the duration of the contract to 3 months, and annulment of two addendums to the applicant’s contract of employment as a member of the temporary staff, amending the date of expiry of that contract.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Committee of the Regions of 19 December 2008 in so far as it fixes the applicant’s conditions of employment as a member of the contract staff under Article 3b of the CEOS and, specifically, in so far as it limits the duration of that contract to 3 months;

               —

               annul the decision of the Committee of the Regions of 23 October 2008 in so far as it amends, by addendum No 9 to the contract, the applicant’s conditions of employment as a member of the temporary staff under the second paragraph of Article 8 of the CEOS and, specifically, in so far as it postpones the date of expiry to 31 December 2008;

               —

               annul the decision of the Committee of the Regions of 22 September 2008 in so far as it amends, by addendum No 8 to the contract, the applicant’s conditions of employment as a member of the temporary staff under the second paragraph of Article 8 of the CEOS and, specifically, in so far as it amends the date of expiry of the contract by postponing it from 30 September to 31 December 2008;

               —

               order the Committee of the Regions to pay the costs.


title: Case T-147/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 November 2008 — En Route International v OHIM (FRESHHH) (Community trade mark — Application for registration of the word mark FRESHHH as a Community trade mark — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               24.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/25

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 November 2008 — En Route International v OHIM (FRESHHH)
   (Case T-147/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for registration of the word mark FRESHHH as a Community trade mark - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2009/C 19/46)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: En Route International Ltd (Datchet, United Kingdom) (represented by: W. Göpfert, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: R. Pethke, Agent)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 March 2006 (Case R 352/2005-4) concerning registration of the word sign FRESHHH as a Community trade mark.
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               En Route International Ltd is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 178 of 29.7. 2006.


title: Case C-289/13 P: Appeal brought on 27 May 2013 by Cindu Chemicals BV, Deza, a.s., Koppers Denmark A/S, Koppers UK Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 7 March 2013 in Case T-95/10: CINDU Chemicals BV and others v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/17

         Appeal brought on 27 May 2013 by Cindu Chemicals BV, Deza, a.s., Koppers Denmark A/S, Koppers UK Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 7 March 2013 in Case T-95/10: CINDU Chemicals BV and others v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)
   (Case C-289/13 P)
   2013/C 252/25
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Cindu Chemicals BV, Deza, a.s., Koppers Denmark A/S, Koppers UK Ltd (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-95/10; and

               —

               annul Decision ED/68/2009 of the European Chemicals Agency (‘ECHA’) (the ‘Contested Decision’) identifying Anthracene Oil (Low) as a substance to be included on the Candidate List in accordance with Article 59 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (‘REACH’) (1), or

               —

               alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court to rule on the appellants’ application for annulment; and
               order the respondent to pay all the costs of these proceedings (including the costs before the General Court).

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellants submit that, in dismissing their application for partial annulment in respect of the contested decision, the General Court breached Community law. In particular, the appellants contend that the General Court committed a number of errors in its interpretation of the legal framework as applicable to the appellants’ situation. That resulted in the General Court making a number of errors in law; in particular:

               —

               in finding that the case related to complex scientific and technical facts and that the identification of anthracene oil (low) as having PBT and vPvB properties on the basis of its constituents present in a concentration of at least 0.1% was not vitiated by a manifest error;

               —

               the constituents do not have to be individually identified as having PBT or vPvB properties in a separate ECHA decision based on a thorough assessment for that purpose;

               —

               Article 59(3) and Annex XV of REACH were not breached because information on alternative substances was not included in the Annex XV dossier; and

               —

               that there was no breach of the principle of equal treatment

         For these reasons the appellants claim that the judgment of the General Court in Case T-95/10 should be set aside and the contested decision should be annulled.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC, OJ L 396, p. 1


title: Action brought on 15 May 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic (Case C-185/98)

text:
C 209/28              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    4.7.98
2. If so, is the fact of making membership of the                    above provisions require Member States to adapt their
    occupational pension scheme for medical specialists              legislation to comply with Community directives within
    . . . compulsory a measure adopted by a Member State             the periods prescribed therein. Although the period
    which nullifies the useful effect of the competition             prescribed in Article 3 of Directive 92/101/EEC expired on
    rules applicable to undertakings, or is this the case            1 January 1994, the Hellenic Republic had not adopted
    only under certain conditions, and if so, under which?           the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
                                                                     necessary to comply with that directive.
3. If the last question must be answered in the negative,
                                                                     (1) OJ L 347, 28.11.1992, p. 64.
    can      other    circumstances     render     compulsory
    membership incompatible with Article 90 of the
    Treaty, and if so, which?
                                                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the 4.a Vara Criminal
                                                                     do Círculo do Porto by decision of that court of 21 April
                                                                     1998 in the case of MinisteÂrio PuÂblico against Maria
Action brought on 15 May 1998 by the Commission of                             AmeÂlia Nunes and Evangelina de Matos
 the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                                                                                (Case C-186/98)
                       (Case C-185/98)
                                                                                (98/C 209/58)
                         (98/C 209/57)
                                                                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought                  European Communities by decision of the 4.a Vara
before the Court of Justice on 15 May 1998 by the                    Criminal do Círculo do Porto (Fourth Criminal Chamber,
Commission of the European Communities, represented                  Oporto Circuit) of 21 April 1998, which was received at
by M. Patakia, of the Commission's Legal Service, with an            the Court Registry on 18 May 1998, for a preliminary
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos            ruling in the case of MinisteÂrio PuÂblico against Maria
Gómez de la Cruz, also of the Commission's Legal                     AmeÂlia Nunes and Evangelina de Matos on the following
Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                   questions:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                          Ð did the Community legislation in force at the material
                                                                         time treat the conduct with which the defendants are
                                                                         charged as criminal?
(1) declare that, by failing to adopt, within the period
      prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative
      provisions necessary to comply with Council                        and
      Directive 92/101/EEC of 23 November 1992
      amending Directive 77/91/EEC on the formation of               Ð does a Member State have the power to impose
      public limited liability companies and the                         criminal sanctions on conduct which causes only
      maintenance and alteration of their capital (1), the               economic damage to the Community in respect of
      Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations             which Community law only provides for civil
      under the EC Treaty and that directive,                            sanctions?
(2) in the alternative, declare that, by failing to
      communicate to the Commission the measures
      adopted in order to transpose the said directive into
      national law, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil
      its obligations under the EC Treaty and that directive,                  Removal from the register of C-21/95 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 209/59)
(3) order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                     By order of 3 March 1998 the President of the Court of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                     removal from the register of Case C-21/95 (reference for a
                                                                     preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo
Under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty,           Regionale del Lazio): Toscana TV and Others v. Ministero
a directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,       delle Poste e Telcomunicazioni.
upon each Member State to which it is addressed. Under
Article 5 of the Treaty, the Member States are to take all
                                                                     (1) OJ C 74, 25.3.1995.
appropriate measures to ensure fulfilment of the
obligations arising out of the Treaty or resulting from
action taken by the institutions of the Community. The


title: Case T-380/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 October 2009 — Vischim v Commission (Plant protection products — Active substance chlorothalonil — Amendment of the entry in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC — Directive 2006/76/EC — Retroactivity — No transitional period — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations — Principle of equal treatment)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/40

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 October 2009 — Vischim v Commission
   (Case T-380/06) (1)

   (Plant protection products - Active substance chlorothalonil - Amendment of the entry in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC - Directive 2006/76/EC - Retroactivity - No transitional period - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations - Principle of equal treatment)
   2009/C 282/75
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Vischim Srl (Cesano Maderno, Italy) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Parpala and B. Doherty, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of the second paragraph of Article 2 of Commission Directive 2006/76/EC of 22 September 2006 amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards the specification of the active substance chlorothalonil (OJ 2006 L 263, p. 9).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Vischim Srl to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.


title: Case T-310/09: Action brought on 4 August 2009 — Fuller & Thaler Asset Management v OHIM (BEHAVIOURAL INDEXING)

text:
               10.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 244/13

         Action brought on 4 August 2009 — Fuller & Thaler Asset Management v OHIM (BEHAVIOURAL INDEXING)
   (Case T-310/09)
   2009/C 244/22
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant(s): Fuller & Thaler Asset Management, Inc. (San Mateo, United States) (represented by S. Malynicz, Barrister)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 April 2009 in case R 323/2008-G; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay its own costs and those of the applicant

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘BEHAVIOURAL INDEXING’ for goods and services in classes 9 and 36

      Decision of the examiner: Refused the application for a Community trade mark

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal (i) erred in relation to the meaning and syntax of the mark, as well as its aptness or otherwise as an immediate and direct descriptive term for the goods and services in question; (ii) failed to establish facts of its own motion that would show that the Community trade mark concerned was descriptive to the relevant public, even though it correctly concluded that the relevant public was specialised; and (iii) failed to take account of the public interest that underlies this ground for refusal and failed to establish on the evidence that there was, in the relevant specialised sphere, a reasonable likelihood that other traders in that sphere would wish to use the Community trade mark concerned in the future.


title: Case T-303/08: Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2010 — Tresplain Investments v OHIM — Hoo Hing (Golden Elephant Brand) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Figurative Community trade mark Golden Elephant Brand — Non-registered national figurative mark GOLDEN ELEPHANT — Relative ground for refusal — Reference to the national law governing the earlier mark — Common-law action for passing-off — Article 74(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009) — Articles 8(4) and 52(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Articles 8(4) and 53(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009) — New pleas in law — Article 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure)

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/35

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2010 — Tresplain Investments v OHIM — Hoo Hing (Golden Elephant Brand)
   (Case T-303/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Figurative Community trade mark Golden Elephant Brand - Non-registered national figurative mark GOLDEN ELEPHANT - Relative ground for refusal - Reference to the national law governing the earlier mark - Common-law action for passing-off - Article 74(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009) - Articles 8(4) and 52(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Articles 8(4) and 53(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009) - New pleas in law - Article 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure)
   2011/C 30/62
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Tresplain Investments Ltd (Tsing Yi, Hong Kong, China) (represented by: D. McFarland, Barrister)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Novais Gonçalves, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Hoo Hing Holdings Ltd (Romford, Essex, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Edenborough, Barrister)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 May 2008 (Case R 889/2007-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Hoo Hing Holdings Ltd and Tresplain Investments Ltd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Rejects the form of order sought by Hoo Hing Holdings Ltd for partial annulment and alteration of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 7 May 2008 (Case R 889/2007-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Hoo Hing Holdings and Tresplain Investments Ltd;

               3.

               Orders Tresplain Investments to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by OHIM and one half of those incurred by Hoo Hing Holdings, and orders Hoo Hing Holdings to bear half of its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 11.10.2008.


title: Case T-402/09 P: Appeal brought on 7 October 2009 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of 20 July 2009 of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-86/07, Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               5.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/30

         Appeal brought on 7 October 2009 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of 20 July 2009 of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-86/07, Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-402/09 P)
   2009/C 297/45
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

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

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               In any event, set aside in its entirety and without exception the order under appeal;

               —

               declare that the action at first instance, in relation to which the order under appeal was made, was perfectly admissible in its entirety and without any exception whatsoever;

               —

               allow in its entirety and without any exception whatsoever the relief sought by the appellant at first instance;

               —

               order the Commission to reimburse the appellant in respect of all costs, disbursements and fees incurred by him in relation to both the proceedings at first instance and the present appeal proceedings;

               —

               in the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal, sitting in a different formation, for a fresh decision.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present appeal is brought against the order made by the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) on 20 July 2009 in Case F-86/07 Marcuccio v Commission. That order dismissed, as partly manifestly inadmissible and partly manifestly unfounded, an action for annulment of the Commission’s decision refusing the appellant’s request for an investigation into the psychological harassment suffered by the appellant during the period in which he was on secondment to the Commission’s delegation in Angola, and for an order that the defendant pay compensation for the damage resulting from the psychological harassment alleged.
   In support of his claims, the appellant relies on the following pleas:

               —

               incorrect and inappropriate interpretation of the concept of investigation in Article 17(2) of the Common Rules on insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational diseases of officials of the European Communities and the concept of inquiry for the purpose of establishing whether an official of an institution has been subjected to psychological harassment;

               —

               the Tribunal erred in law in declaring inadmissible the application for annulment of the decision rejecting the request for an inquiry, by reason, inter alia, of misinterpretation in rejecting that application as unfounded;

               —

               the Tribunal erred in law in declaring inadmissible the application for annulment of the report drawn up by the Investigation and Disciplinary Office (IDOC), by reason, inter alia, of a total failure to state reasons, failure to rule on a fundamental aspect of the dispute and misapplication of the concept of a preparatory act in the circumstances of the case;

               —

               misinterpretation of the concept of psychological harassment and of the burden of proof of the psychological harassment on the person claiming such harassment;

               —

               total failure to state reasons with regard to the assertions made by way of alleged justification of the rejection of the claim for damages.


title: Case C-9/15 P: Appeal brought on 12 January 2015 by Andreas Eleftheriou, Eleni Eleftheriou and Lilia Papachristofi against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 10 November 2014 in Case T-291/13: Andreas Eleftheriou, Eleni Eleftheriou and Lilia Papachristofi v European Commission and European Central Bank

text:
               26.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/9

         Appeal brought on 12 January 2015 by Andreas Eleftheriou, Eleni Eleftheriou and Lilia Papachristofi against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 10 November 2014 in Case T-291/13: Andreas Eleftheriou, Eleni Eleftheriou and Lilia Papachristofi v European Commission and European Central Bank
   (Case C-9/15 P)
   (2015/C 171/12)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Andreas Eleftheriou, Eleni Eleftheriou and Lilia Papachristofi (represented by: C. Paschalides, Solicitor, A. Paschalides, dikigoros and A. Riza QC)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission and European Central Bank

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               allow the appeal and dismiss the applications of the Defendants and order them to bear the costs, both before this Court and before the General Court and for the case to proceed to trial on the substantive issues.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The General Court infringed EU law in its appraisal of a number of propositions in its judgment as follows.

                           a)

                           That the ‘duties conferred on the Commission… within the ESM Treaty do not entail any power to make decisions of their own and …that the activities of those two institutions within the ESM Treaty solely commit the ESM,’ (1) was relied on by the General Court without appraising at all the impact of the proposition of law it accepted arguendo at paragraph 48, that the Commission ‘had not surrendered effective control of its overarching decision making role under Article 136(3) [TFEU] pursuant to its powers under Article 17 [TEU] to act as the EU institution responsible for ensuring that acts concluded under the ESM Treaty were in conformity with EU law.’

                           b)

                           It is submitted that the case of Pringle
                               (2) upon which the General Court relied (3), decides that whereas the Commission and the ECB solely commit the ESM (4), nevertheless at inter alia
                               (5) paragraph 164 of that case the court observed that the ‘tasks allocated to the Commission by the ESM Treaty enable it, as provided in 13(3) and 13(4) of that treaty, to ensure that the memoranda of understanding concluded by the ESM are consistent with EU law’ and at paragraph 174 that ‘under Article 13(3) of the ESM Treaty the MoU which is to be negotiated with the Member State requesting stability support must be fully consistent with EU law.’

                           c)

                           ‘A claim for compensation that is directed against the EU and is based on the mere illegality of an act or course of conduct that has not been adopted by an institution of the EU or by its servants must be rejected as inadmissible (6),’ was applied without an appraisal of the submission in the Appellant’s reply which was that ‘... the ECB must have been acting as an EU institution since the ESM could not lawfully exercise effective control of the coercive power under EU law to allow and/or make and/or act in furtherance of the unless-demand. The said coercive power is vested exclusively in the ECB ... effective control of which could not be surrendered under EU law.’

                           d)

                           ‘The conduct allegedly giving rise to the damage pleaded is a failure by the Commission to act when signing the MoU. However, the MoU was signed after the reduction in the value of the applicant’s deposit... That reduction actually occurred on the entry into force of the measures of 29 March 2013. Therefore the applicant cannot be regarded as having established with necessary certainty that the damage it claims to have suffered was actually caused by the inaction alleged against the Commission (7).’ This proposition ignores the way the applicant put his case referred to at paragraph 41 of the judgment viz. ‘that it is in respect of the conditions attached to FAF provided to [the Republic of Cyprus] on 26 April 2013and the process by which they were required by the Commission and the ECB that caused the applicant damage for which it seeks compensation pursuant to Articles 268 and 340 TFEU.’ The process by which they were required included the failure by the Commission to ensure that the conditionality was in conformity with EU law and the unless-demand made by the ECB to cut the supply of euro to Cyprus off which were continuing acts/failures to act beginning on 15 March 2013 and ending with compliance with the conditionality on 29 March 2013.

                           e)

                           The contents of the MoU were challenged on the basis that they referred back to prior compliance with a conditionality that ex hypothesi arose prior to the diminution in the value of the applicant’s deposit, which the General Court failed to appraise as an integral part of a course of conduct.

                           f)

                           ‘In cases where the conduct allegedly giving rise to the damage pleaded consists in refraining from taking action, it is particularly necessary to be certain that the damage was actually caused by the inaction complained of and could not have been caused by conduct separate from that alleged against the defendant institution’: Portela v Commission
                               (8). In other words ‘even if’ (9) the Commission acted in accordance with its duty to ensure the conditions were consistent with EU law it would have made no difference ‘as the MoU was signed after the reduction in value of the applicant’s deposit at BoC (10).’ Again the General Court failed to appraise the arguments relied on by the Appellant: see inter alia (d) and (e) above.

                           g)

                           Further and alternatively the General Court was wrong in point of fact to hold that the MoU was signed after the diminution deposits in all cases. In the case of BoC the final diminution in value did not occur until after the MoU was signed on 26 April 2013 viz. at the end of June 2013.

               2.

               If the ECJ accepts that the defendants were in law capable of acting as institutions of the EU it follows that the General Court’s decision in respect of the second head of claim [for annulment] referred to at paragraphs 55 to 60 of the judgment would fall away afortiori.

      (1)  At paragraph 45 of its judgment.

      (2)  Case C-370/12 [2012].

      (3)  Paragraph 45 of judgment.

      (4)  Paragraph 45 of judgment dated 10 November 2014.

      (5)  See also 112 and 163.

      (6)  Paragraph 43 of the judgment and case C-520/12 P.

      (7)  Paragraph 54 of judgment.

      (8)  Case T-137/07 at paragraph 80.

      (9)  Case T-7/96 Perillo v Commission.

      (10)  Paragraph 54 of judgment.


title: Case T-401/09: Order of the General Court of 6 July 2010 — Marcuccio v Court of Justice (Action for annulment — Rejection by the Court of Justice of a request for compensation — Action for damages — Service of an appeal to the applicant’s former representative — Absence of harm — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly devoid of any basis in law)

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/37

         Order of the General Court of 6 July 2010 — Marcuccio v Court of Justice
   (Case T-401/09) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Rejection by the Court of Justice of a request for compensation - Action for damages - Service of an appeal to the applicant’s former representative - Absence of harm - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly devoid of any basis in law)
   2010/C 234/67
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

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

      Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: A. Placco, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Firstly, an action for annulment of the alleged rejection by the Court of Justice of the applicant’s request for damages by way of compensation for the damage suffered by the applicant as a result of an alleged irregularity in service on him of an appeal in Case T-20/09 P and, secondly, an action for damages

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Luigi Marcuccio is ordered to pay the costs.

               3.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the application of the European Commission for leave to intervene.

      (1)  OJ C 297, 5.12.2009.


title: Case T-48/02: Action brought on 27 February 2002 by Brouwerĳ Haacht N.V. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 109/62                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          4.5.2002
Finally, the applicants submit that the objectives of the Council          The applicant claims that the Commission has failed to comply
in the directives cited are not covered by Community law and               with the obligation to provide a statement of reasons as
are therefore a direct cause of the refusal to disclose the                prescribed by Article 253 of the EC Treaty, and with the
accounts, and that the causal link between the objectives of               guidelines for the calculation of fines. According to the
the directive and the damage caused and anticipated is thus                applicant, the Commission, in determining the actual econ-
clear.                                                                     omic power of the parties concerned, failed to define the
                                                                           relevant market. It maintains that the decision does not make
                                                                           it clear whether the relevant market is the private label market
(1) First Council Directive 68/151/EEC of 9 March 1968 on co-              or the beer market in general. Moreover, the Commission
    ordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests    over-estimated the economic power of the applicant in the
    of members and others, are required by Member States of                market for private label beer, if and in so far as it is that market
    companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of                which is to be regarded as the relevant market. The applicant
    Article 58 of the Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards        further argues that the Commission wrongly characterised the
    equivalent throughout the Community (OJ, English Special Edition
    1968(I), p. 41).
                                                                           role played by the applicant in the cartel in question as an
(2) Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on           active role. According to the applicant, its role must be
    Article 54 (3) (g) of the Treaty on the annual accounts of certain     regarded as having been purely passive, or at least as less
    types of companies (OJ 1978 L 222, p. 11).                             active.
                                                                           Lastly, the applicant pleads infringement of the Notice on
                                                                           Cooperation and of the principle of equal treatment. According
                                                                           to the applicant, the Commission failed to take sufficient
                                                                           account of the significance of the applicant’s statements
                                                                           proving the infringement of the rules. The Commission
                                                                           consequently treated similar situations in a dissimilar way, by
Action brought on 27 February 2002 by Brouwerij                            not applying the same reduction in the fine where there was a
Haacht N.V. against the Commission of the European                         comparable level of cooperation. Moreover, the Commission
                             Communities                                   treated dissimilar situations in a similar way, by applying the
                                                                           same reduction in the fines imposed on the applicant and on
                            (Case T-48/02)                                 parties who cooperated less, or not at all, in the Commission’s
                                                                           investigation.
                          (2002/C 109/118)
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  Action brought on 26 February 2002 by Brasserie Natio-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 nale against the Commission of the European Communi-
European Communities on 27 February 2002 by Brouwerij                                                     ties
Haacht N.V., established at Boortmeerbeek (Belgium), rep-
resented by Yves van Gerven, Frédéric Louis and Hendrik                                             (Case T-49/02)
Viane, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                                (2002/C 109/119)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
—     annul Article 4 of the decision in issue, in so far as it
      concerns Brouwerij Haacht N.V. and, in so far as may be
      necessary, order that no fine be imposed on Brouwerij
      Haacht N.V. or substantially reduce the fine;                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
—     order the Commission to pay the costs in any event.                  European Communities on 26 February 2002 by Brasserie
                                                                           Nationale, established at Bascharage (Luxembourg), represent-
                                                                           ed by Alexandre Carnelutti and Jean-Louis Schiltz, lawyers,
                                                                           with an address for service in Luxembourg.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
The action is directed against the decision in so far as it
imposes a fine on the applicant in consequence of the private              —     annul Article 1 of the Commission’s decision of 5 Decem-
label cartel on the Belgian beer market.                                         ber 2001 in Case COMP/37800/F3 — Brasseries Luxem-


title: Case F-92/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 12 May 2016 — Guittet v Commission (Civil service — Former official — Social security — Accident — Article 73 of the Staff Regulations — Closure of the procedure — Fixing of rate of partial permanent invalidity — Payment supplementary to the lump sum paid in the event of partial permanent invalidity — Implementation of a judgment annulling a measure — Incurable and total deafness)

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/37

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 12 May 2016 — Guittet v Commission
   (Case F-92/15) (1)

   ((Civil service - Former official - Social security - Accident - Article 73 of the Staff Regulations - Closure of the procedure - Fixing of rate of partial permanent invalidity - Payment supplementary to the lump sum paid in the event of partial permanent invalidity - Implementation of a judgment annulling a measure - Incurable and total deafness))
   (2016/C 222/48)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Christian Guittet (Cannes, France) (represented by: L. Levi and A. Tymen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T.S. Bohr, Agent, and C. Mélotte, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment, first, of the decision reassessing the rate of the applicant’s partial permanent invalidity and, secondly, the decision partially rejecting the applicant’s complaint, and an application seeking compensation in respect of the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of 6 October 2014 closing the procedure opened under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union following the accident of 8 December 2003, of which Mr Guittet was the victim, in so far as that decision fixed at 65 % the rate of partial permanent invalidity granted to Mr Guittet under Article 12 of the rules common to the institutions of the European Union on insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease, in the version in force prior to 1 January 2006;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay Mr Guittet the sum of EUR 5 000;

               3.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               4.

               Declares that the European Commission is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay the costs incurred by Mr Guittet.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 7/9/2015, p. 83.


title: Case T-174/12: Action brought on 17 April 2012 — Syrian Lebanese Commercial Bank v Council

text:
               23.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/18

         Action brought on 17 April 2012 — Syrian Lebanese Commercial Bank v Council
   (Case T-174/12)
   2012/C 184/33
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Syrian Lebanese Commercial Bank S.A. L. (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: P. Vanderveeren, L. Defalque and T. Bontinck, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Article 1 of Council Implementing Regulation No 55/2012 of 23 January 2012 and point 27 of the annex to that regulation in so far as the applicant has been added to Annex II to Council Regulation 36/2012 of 18 January 2012;

               —

               annul Article 1 of Implementing Decision 2012/37/CFSP and point 27 of the annex to that decision in so far as the applicant has been added to Annex II to Decision 2011/273;

               —

               annul, in so far as necessary; the Council’s decision (in the form of a letter) of 24 January 2012;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               By its first plea in law, the applicant alleges a manifest error of assessment of its involvement in the financing of the Syrian Regime, since the Council failed to prove the applicant’s involvement in the financing of that regime, either prior to or since adopting the contested measures.

               2.

               By its second plea in law it alleges an infringement of the rights of the defence, of the right to a fair hearing and to effective judicial protection as a result of the failure to organise a hearing when adopting the contested measures, and by the Council’s implicit refusal to furnish evidence justifying the nature and severity of the sanction.

               3.

               The third plea in law alleges a lack of sufficient and precise reasoning, in that the Council merely provided vague and general considerations without stating the specific and concrete reasons why it considered that the applicant needed to be made subject to restrictive measures.

               4.

               By its fourth plea in law, the applicant claims that there were insufficiencies surrounding the adoption of the contested measures, in so far as the Council failed to set out therein the fundamental rights and principles which European Union law grants to the addresses of those measures, and in so far as those measures were adopted on the basis of Article 215 TFEU, which the applicant regards as devoid of any democratic guarantees.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of  10 January 2006  in Case C-373/04 P: Commission of the European Communities v Mercedes Alvarez Moreno (Appeal — Officials — Member of the auxiliary staff — Conference interpreter — Action — Request pursuant to Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations — Measure adversely affecting a person — Definition)

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/9

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 10 January 2006
   in Case C-373/04 P: Commission of the European Communities v Mercedes Alvarez Moreno (1)

   (Appeal - Officials - Member of the auxiliary staff - Conference interpreter - Action - Request pursuant to Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations - Measure adversely affecting a person - Definition)
   (2006/C 48/17)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-373/04 P, appeal pursuant to Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice lodged on 27 August 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: D. Martin and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart), the other party to the proceedings being Mercedes Alvarez Moreno residing in Berlin (Germany) (Lawyers: G. Vandersanden and L. Levi) — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C. W. A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, J. Makarczyk, C. Gulmann, G. Arestis (Rapporteur) and J. Klučka, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 January 2006, in which it:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 10 June 2004 in Joined Cases T-153/01 and T-323/01 Alvarez Moreno v Commission in so far as it declared that the action for annulment of the letter of Mr Walker of 23 February 2001 was admissible and ordered the Commission of the European Communities to pay the whole of the costs relating to the action in Case T-323/01;

               2.

               In Case T-323/01, dismisses the action for annulment of, first, the letter of Mr Walker of 23 February 2001 and, second, the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 7 September 2001, rejecting Mrs Alvarez Moreno's complaint;

               3.

               Orders each of the parties to bear its or her own costs relating to the present proceedings and to those brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 251, 9.10.2004.


title: Case T-312/06: Action brought on 17 November 2006 – FMC Chemical v EFSA

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/66

         Action brought on 17 November 2006– FMC Chemical v EFSA
   (Case T-312/06)
   (2006/C 326/139)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: FMC Chemical SPRL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C. Mereu, K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the present application admissible and well founded;

               —

               annul the EFSA's Conclusion Report, titled ‘Conclusion regarding the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance Carbosuflan’;

               —

               order the EFSA and/or the European Commission by way of incidental request in accordance with Articles 63 and 64 of the Court's Rules of Procedure, to produce the proposal regarding the (non) inclusion of Carbosuflan in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC it intends to present to the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health for a vote at its 22/24 November 2006 meeting, or any other meeting;

               —

               declare the illegality and inapplicability vis-à-vis the applicant and the review of their Carbosuflan dossiers of Article 20 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002;

               —

               order the defendant to compensate the applicants for the damages incurred as a result of the contested measure, and to hold at this stage by interlocutory statement that the defendant is obliged to compensate the applicants for the damages they incurred and to reserve the fixing of the amount of compensation either by agreement between the parties or by the Court in the absence of such agreement;

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and the main arguments raised by the applicant are identical to those relied on in Case T-311/06, FMC Chemical et Arysta Lifesciences v European Food Safety Authority.


title: Case T-343/03: Order of the Court of First Instance of  16 November 2005  — Deutsche Post and Securicor Omega Express v Commission (State aid — Article 88(3) EC — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Complaint — Rejection — Lack of subject matter)

text:
               11.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/31

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 November 2005 — Deutsche Post and Securicor Omega Express v Commission
   (Case T-343/03) (1)

   (State aid - Article 88(3) EC - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Complaint - Rejection - Lack of subject matter)
   (2006/C 36/66)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Deutsche Post AG (Bonn, Germany) and Securicor Omega Express (Sutton, Surrey, United Kingdom) (represented by: T. Lübbig, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Kreuschitz, N. Khan and M. Niejahr, Agents)

      Party intervening in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: M. Bethell, Agent)
   Application for
   Annulment of Commission Decision C (2003) 1652 final of 27 May 2003, which states that the measures which the United Kingdom authorities propose to adopt for Post Office Ltd are compatible with the common market (State aid N 784/2002)
   Operative part of the Order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Each party shall bear its own costs.

               3.

               The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland shall bear its own costs of intervention.

      (1)  OJ C 7, 10.1.2004.