title: Action brought on 16 October 1997 by Pierre Richard against the European Parliament (Case T-273/97)

text:
C 387/22              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        20 . 12 . 97
the European Communities on 13 October 1997 by                       bringing about conversion of European agriculture to
Azienda Agricola Tre e Mezzo, represented by Carlo                   farming of a kind which uses everdecreasing quantities of
Piccoli and Fabrizio Fabbri, of the Forli Bar ( Cesena ), and        plant-protection products and to that end a large
Francois Turk, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address                proportion of the aid in the industry is directed towards
for service in Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers, 13A              organic farming — but by adopting the contested
Avenue Guillaume .                                                   regulation, the defendant made a sudden change of
                                                                     direction, pursuing aims different from those declared
                                                                     earlier, so that more difficulties and problems are
The applicant claims that the Court should :                         encountered in implementing organic methods owing to
                                                                     the reduction of the technical resources available to
                                                                     farmers who are adopting or wish to adopt such methods .
— declare that the applicant has locus standi as such,
                                                                     (') Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 1488/97 of 29 July 1997
                                                                           amending Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2092/91 on organic
— annul Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 1488/97 of                         production of agricultural products and indications referring
                                                                           thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs ( OJ L 202 ,
     29 July 1997 published in Official Journal of the                     30 . 7 . 1997, p. 12 ).
     European Communities L 202 of 30 July 1997, p. 12 ,             ( 2 ) OJ L 198 , 22 . 7 . 1991 , p . 1 .
     in so far as it does not include, in the new wording of         (') Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2078/92 of 30 June 1992 on
     Annex lib of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2092/91 ,                  agricultural production methods compatible with the
     the following plant-health products : preparations from               requirements of the protection of the environment and the
     Ryania speciosa, propolis, diatomaceous earth, stone                  maintenance of the countryside ( OJ L 215, 30. 7. 1992, p. 85 ).
     meal , Bordeaux mixture, Burgundy mixture , sodium
     silicate, sodium bicarbonate , and plant and animal
     oils,
— order the European Commission to pay the costs .
                                                                     Action brought on 16 October 1997 by Pierre Richard
                                                                                against the European Parliament
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                                ( Case T-273/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 387/42 )
The applicant, a company producing organic products and
duly accredited as such by one of the eight certificatory                                 {Language of the case: French)
authorities recognized by the Italian State, opposes the
removal by the contested regulation (') of certain plant
health products from the list of those allowed in organic            An action against the European Parliament was brought
agriculture .                                                        before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                     Communities on 16 October 1997 by Pierre Richard, of
                                                                     Luxembourg, represented by Andre Lutgen, of the
In support of its claims, the applicant alleges, first,              Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
infringement of the last indent of Article 155 of the EC             Luxembourg at his Chambers, 1 , Rue Jean-Pierre Brasseur.
Treaty, which provides that the powers conferred on the
Commission by the Council are to be exercised for the
implementation of the rules laid down by the Council .               The applicant claims that the Court should :
The applicant considers that Council Regulation No 2092/
91 ( 2 ) was designed to favour and promote the
development and expansion of organic production                      — annul the decision of the appointing authority
methods, by regulating that activity and providing                          rejecting the applicant's application for the post
incentives in the form of contributions and financing. In                   advertised by Notice of Vacancy No 8011 ,
actual fact, the wording of Annex lib, and all the products
included in it, resulted from a precise choice which
mentioned specified products rather than others,                     — annul the decision to appoint the successful Swedish
regardless of whether or not their use had been authorized                  candidate,
by individual Member States . The Commission's decision
to exclude from the list of permitted products the new
plant-protection products mentioned above , solely by                — annul the decision taken by the Bureau, at its meeting
reference to the criterion of lack of ' authorization or use '              of 17 July 1997, to reject the applicant's complaint
is therefore open to criticism .                                            against that decision,
The applicant also alleges misuse of powers, in that the             — take formal notice that he reserves the right to claim
Council, by Regulation No 2078/92 ('), introduced                           compensation, as and when appropriate, for the
agricultural and environmental measures capable of                          material and non-material damage suffered.
 ---pagebreak--- 20 . 12 . 97            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 387/23
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   Action brought on 16 October 1997 by Societa Ca'
                                                                      Pasta s.r.l . against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
The applicant, an official in Grade A 4, takes issue with
the appointing authority's refusal to promote him to                                          ( Case T-274/97 )
Grade A 3 , rejecting his application for the post advertised                                   ( 97/C 387/43 )
in Notice of Vacancy No 8011 . A Swedish woman who
passed an open competition and was placed third on the
reserve list was appointed in his place .                                              (Language of the case: Italian)
The applicant puts forward the following pleas in support             An action against the Commission of the European
of his claims :
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                      Instance on 16 October 1997 by Societa Ca ' Pasta s.r.l .,
— infringement of Article 29 ( 1 ) of the Staff Regulations,          represented by Paolo Piva , of the Venice Bar, and Guy
     in that, in contravention of that provision , the                Arendt, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for
     appointing authority opened the external recruitment             service in Luxembourg at the latter's chambers, 62 Avenue
                                                                      Guillaume .
     procedure without first considering the possibility of
     filling the vacant post through the various internal
     recruitment procedures . The different selection criteria
     by which the appointing authority is bound under                 The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance
     Articles 7 and 27 of the Staff Regulations make it               should annul the measure in the form of a letter of reply
     impossible to compare directly internal applications             dated 4 August 1997 ( File No 11423 ) from Directorate
     with external applications in that the appointing                General XIV ( Fisheries ) relating to ' Project IT/ 166/91 —
     authority's decisions on promotion and transfer must             Your letter of 21 July 1997'.
     be based on the interest of the service while
     recruitment must be on the basis of the criteria of
     ' ability, efficiency and integrity, ... on the broadest         Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support:
     possible geographical basis',
                                                                      This action derives from the grant of aid to the applicant
— breach of the obligation to state reasons under                     in connection with structural incentives for the fisheries
     Article 25 of the Staff Regulations,                             and agricultural sector. With a view to implementation of
                                                                      a project for modernization of an aquaculture unit in
                                                                      Contarina ( Veneto ), the applicant sought and obtained a
— infringement of Article 7 of the Staff Regulations in               Community contribution of Lit 942 300 004, equal to
     that the applicant's candidature was rejected and the            40 % of the approved cost. Following an administrative
     candidate ultimately chosen was appointed not on the             check, involving Commission representatives, it was noted
     basis of the criterion of the interest of the service but        that the business had been transferred without the prior
     of considerations relating to the nationality of the             authorization considered necessary under Article 24 of
     candidates in question,                                          Regulation No 4253/88 ('). After completing the
                                                                      procedure provided for in Article 44 of Regulation
                                                                      No 4028/86 (-), the head of Directorate General XIV
— existence, in this case, of a manifest error of                     issued the contested measure, confirming 'continuation of
     assessment and failure to take account of the selection
                                                                      the internal procedure with a view to cancelling the
     criteria published in the Notice of Vacancy, in that, as         contribution and recovering the amount already paid '.
     regards the specifications set out in that notice,
     external candidates inevitably did not have knowledge
     of the specific nature of the Parliament's departments           In support of its claims, the applicant relies on the
     or of the practical operation of internal administrative         following pleas in law:
     procedures or rules,
                                                                      — breach of essential procedural requirements, in that
— the decision complained of is contrary to the interest                  the principle of collegiality was not observed in
     of the service in that, despite the applicant's                      relation to the adoption of the contested measure;
     experience, the post in question was not satisfactorily
      filled,
                                                                      — inappropriate investigation, lack of a statement of
— the contested decision was made on the basis of data                     reasons and misuse of powers . According to the
     which were manifestly not comparable, in that the                     applicant, there was a clear distortion of the facts
      successful candidate chosen was on a reserve list while              owing essentially to an improper and inadequate
     the applicant's qualifications were of necessity assessed             investigation, the purpose of which was to check
                                                                           whether there had been a transfer of the business
      on the basis of his staff reports .
                                                                           without prior authorization from the Commission and
                                                                           the Italian Government ( the described as 'a significant
                                                                           alteration ') rather than , possibly, consistent use of the


title: Case T-327/15: Action brought on 2 June 2015 — Hellenic Republic v Commission

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/42

         Action brought on 2 June 2015 — Hellenic Republic v Commission
   (Case T-327/15)
   (2015/C 279/52)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: G. Kanellopoulos, Ο. Tsirkinodou and Α. Ε. Vasilopoulou)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission Implementing Decision of 25 March 2015 on applying financial correction on the EAGGF Guidance Section of the Operational Programme CCI No 2000GR061PO021 (GREECE — Objective 1 — Rural Reconstruction), to the amount of EUR 7 2 1 05  592,41, which was notified under number C(2015) 1936 final.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               In the first plea for annulment, it is claimed that the contested decision lacks a legal basis, because Article 39 of Regulation (ΕC) 1260/1999 (1), on which it is based, has been repealed, in so far as concerns the EAGGF Guidance Section (the first part of the first plea in law), and, in any event, the legal requirements for reliance on Article 39 of Regulation (ΕC) No 1260/1999 are not met in advance (the second part of the first plea in law).

               2.

               In the second plea for annulment, it is claimed, in the alternative to the first plea in law, that the adoption of the contested decision exceeded the competence ratione temporis of the Commission (the first part of the second plea in law), or that its adoption was out of time and in breach of essential procedural requirements and is an infringement of the right of the Hellenic Republic to be heard and of its rights of defence (the second part of the second plea in law).

               3.

               In the third plea, it is claimed that the contested decision is incompatible with the principle of legal certainty and the legitimate expectations of the Member State.

               4.

               Last, in the fourth plea for annulment it is claimed that the contested decision has infringed the principle of ne bis in idem because a multiple correction has been imposed, and in any event it is claimed that the financial correction imposed is entirely disproportionate and should be annulled.

      (1)  Council Regulation (ΕC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (OJ 1999 L 161, p. 1).


title: Case T-23/16: Action brought on 25 January 2016 — Biernacka-Hoba v EUIPO — Formata Bogusław Hoba (Formata)

text:
               29.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 111/29

         Action brought on 25 January 2016 — Biernacka-Hoba v EUIPO — Formata Bogusław Hoba (Formata)
   (Case T-23/16)
   (2016/C 111/34)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Ilona Biernacka-Hoba (Aleksandrów Łódzki, Poland) (represented by: R. Rumpel, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Formata Bogusław Hoba (Aleksandrów Łódzki, Poland)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘Formata’ — Community trade mark No 11 529 427

      Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 November 2015 in Case R 102/2015-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the action to be well founded;

               —

               annul the contested decision insofar as it dismisses the application for cancellation of Trade Mark No 011529427 ‘Formata’;

               —

               amend the contested decision by cancelling Trade Mark No 011529427 ‘Formata’;

               —

               amend the contested decision with regard to the costs;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


Important legal notice

|

E2000P0006

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Verwaltungsbeschwerdeinstanz des Fürstentums Liechtenstein (Administrative Court for the Principality of Liechtenstein) by decision of that court of 15 June 2000 in the case of Dr Jürgen Tschannett (Case E-6/00)

Official Journal C 049 , 15/02/2001 P. 0009 - 0009

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Verwaltungsbeschwerdeinstanz des Fürstentums Liechtenstein (/Administrative Court for the Principality of Liechtenstein) by decision of that court of 15 June 2000 in the case of Dr Jürgen Tschannett(Case E-6/00)(2001/C 49/13)A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 15 June 2000 of Verwaltungsbeschwerdeinstanz des Fürstenstums Liechtenstein (/Administrative Court for the Principality of Liechtenstein), which was received at the Court Registry on 21 June 2000, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Dr Jürgen Tschannett, on the following questions:1. Is the single practice rule applying without exception to all doctors under Liechtenstein national law, and in particular Article 9(1) of the Regulation of 8 November 1988 on the medical professions which provides: "A doctor may pursue his profession in a self-employed capacity, as a sole practitioner or jointly with others, only if he holds a licence authorising him to do so and only if he himself works on his own behalf in the practice concerned. A doctor may not operate more than one practice, whether as a sole practitioner or jointly with others" compatible with the EEA and/or with the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA Agreement) of 2 May 1992?2. If the answer to the first question is that the Liechtenstein single practice rule, as laid down in Article 9(1) of the Regulation of 8 November 1988 on the medical professions, is basically compatible with the EEA, does that none the less mean that, in an individual case, regard must be had to the specialist medical activities carried on by an "occupational physician", so that the necessary exceptions should be made for such specific activities, which do not require a "medical practice" within the generally accepted meaning of the term?


title: Case C-82/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hof van Cassatie by judgment of that Court of 28 February 2002 in the case of Agence Maritime Lalemant against 1. Malzfabrik Tivoli GmbH, 2. Malteurop G.I.E, 3. Belgische Interventie- en Restitutiebureau and Malzfabrik Tivoli GmbH against Belgische Interventie- en Restitutiebureau

text:
1.6.2002               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 131/3
Is a provision of national law, in casu Paragraph 60(1) and (2)          Action brought on 13 March 2002 by the Commission of
of the Markenschutzgesetz (Austrian Law on the Protection of             the European Communities against the Federal Republic
Trademarks), in conjunction with Paragraph 10a thereof,                                            of Germany
which may be interpreted as meaning that the mere transit of
goods manufactured/distributed in contravention of provisions
of the law on trademarks is not punishable under criminal law,                                    (Case C-86/02)
contrary to Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 3295/
94 (1) of 22 December 1994 laying down measures to prohibit                                      (2002/C 131/07)
the release for free circulation, export, re-export or entry for a
suspensive procedure of counterfeit and pirated goods, as
amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 241/1999 (2) of
25 January 1999?
                                                                         An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                         brought before the Court of Justice of the European Commu-
                                                                         nities on 13 March 2002 by the Commission of the European
(1) OJ L 341, p. 8.                                                      Communities, represented by Josef Christian Schieferer, of its
(2) OJ L 27, p. 1.                                                       Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                         the office of Luis Escobar Guerrero, of its Legal Service, C 254,
                                                                         Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         (1) declare that, by adopting Paragraph 1(6) and Para-
                                                                               graph 1.44 of the SprengÄndG 1997 of 23 June 1998,
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hof van Cassatie
                                                                               the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
by judgment of that Court of 28 February 2002 in the
                                                                               obligations, imposed on it by the first paragraph of
case of Agence Maritime Lalemant against 1. Malzfabrik
                                                                               Article 10 and the third paragraph of Article 249 of the
Tivoli GmbH, 2. Malteurop G.I.E, 3. Belgische Interventie-
                                                                               EC Treaty, to comply with Directive 93/15/EEC (1) and
en Restitutiebureau and Malzfabrik Tivoli GmbH against
                                                                               has failed to comply with its obligations arising from the
          Belgische Interventie- en Restitutiebureau
                                                                               first paragraph of Article 226 of the EC Treaty;
                          (Case C-82/02)                                 (2) order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
                         (2002/C 131/06)
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Hof van Cassatie                 The Commission objects to the provision whereby explosives,
(Belgian Court of Cassation) of 28 February 2002, received at            apart from those intended for export to, or introduction into,
the Court Registry on 12 March 2002, for a preliminary ruling            another Member State, may only be used or relinquished to
in the case of Agence Maritime Lalemant against 1. Malzfabrik            others if they bear an identification mark issued by the
Tivoli GmbH, 2. Malteurop G.I.E, 3. Belgische Interventie- en            Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung und -prüfung (BAM)
Restitutiebureau and Malzfabrik Tivoli GmbH against Belgische            (Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing). The fact
Interventie- en Restitutiebureau on the following question:              that, as a result of provisional measures taken by the BAM,
                                                                         that obstacle to trade no longer exists is not enough to cure
                                                                         the infringement of Community law.
Must Article 9(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2730/
79 (1) of 29 November 1979 laying down common detailed
rules for the application of the system of export refunds on             The transitional provision contained in Paragraph 1.44 of the
agricultural products be interpreted as meaning that goods               German statute could lead to serious distortions of the internal
exported to non-member countries and in respect of which                 market, since explosives which may be freely placed on the
customs export formalities have been completed are to be                 market within the Community pursuant to the provisions of
regarded as having left the geographical territory of the                the directive are not permitted on the German market, whereas
Community when they actually leave the territory of the                  explosives which should no longer feature on the market after
Community or when they are placed in a customs warehouse?                the expiry of the transitional period might be allowed in
                                                                         Germany.
(1) OJ L 317, 1979, p. 1.                                                (1) OJ L 121 of 15.5.1993, p. 20.


title: Judgment of the Court of 31 March 2015 in Case E-20/14 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Regulation (EC) No 392/2009 on the liability of carriers of passengers by sea in the event of accidents)

text:
               22.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 350/6

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 31 March 2015
   in Case E-20/14
   EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland
   (Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Regulation (EC) No 392/2009 on the liability of carriers of passengers by sea in the event of accidents)
   (2015/C 350/09)
   In Case E-20/14, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 EEA by failing to adopt the measures necessary to make, as such and within the time prescribed, part of its internal legal order the Act referred to at point 56x of Chapter V of Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement (Regulation (EC) No 392/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the liability of carriers of passengers by sea in the event of accidents), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto and by Joint Committee Decision No 17/2011 of 1 April 2011, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 31 March 2015, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing, within the time prescribed, to adopt the measures necessary to make part of its internal legal order the Act referred to at point 56x of Chapter V of Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement (Regulation (EC) No 392/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the liability of carriers of passengers by sea in the event of accidents), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by way of Protocol l thereto and by Joint Committee Decision No 17/2011 of 1 April 2011.

               2.

               Orders Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.


title: Case T-92/11: Action brought on 18 February 2011 — Andersen v Commission

text:
               2.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/28

         Action brought on 18 February 2011 — Andersen v Commission
   (Case T-92/11)
   2011/C 103/48
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Jørgen Andersen (Ballerup, Denmark) (represented by: M. F. Nissen and G. Van de Walle de Ghelcke, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Article 1(2) of the Decision of the Commission dated 24 February 2010 in State Aid case C 41/08 (NN 35/08) — Public service contracts between the Danish Ministry of Transport and Danske Statsbaner (DSB) (OJ 2011 L 7, p. 1);

               —

               Order that the Commission pay the cost incurred by the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission manifestly erred in law in concluding that the Danish government did not commit a manifest error of appreciation with regard to the classification of the Copenhagen-Ystad route as a public service and in including it in the scheme of public service contracts. The applicant considers that this route has efficiently been operated by market participants without subsidies and therefore should not be included in a public service contract.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission manifestly erred in law by not ordering recovery of the incompatible overcompensation paid to DSB due to the dividends paid to its shareholder, the Danish State. The applicant considers that payment of dividends from a wholly State-owned company to the State is not a legitimate mechanism for off-setting incompatible overcompensation.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging the Commission manifestly erred in law by applying Regulation No 1370/2007 (1) instead of Regulation No 1191/69 (2). The applicant considers that, regarding unlawful State aid, the Commission should apply the law as applicable at the time that aid was granted.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70 (OJ 2007 L 315, p. 1)

      (2)  Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 of the Council of 26 June 1969 on action by Member States concerning the obligations inherent in the concept of a public service in transport by rail, road and inland waterway (OJ 1969 L 156, p. 1)


title: Order of the President of 24 April 2017 — In Case E-20/16 — Autonomy Capital (Jersey) LP and Eaton Vance Management v EFTA Surveillance Authority

text:
               14.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/6

         ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
   of 24 April 2017
   In Case E-20/16
   Autonomy Capital (Jersey) LP and Eaton Vance Management v EFTA Surveillance Authority
   (2017/C 303/07)
   Application for the annulment of EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 207/16/COL of 23 November 2016 closing a complaint against Iceland in the field of free movement of capital (capital controls), the President of the Court made an Order of 24 April 2017, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               Case E-20/16 is removed from the Register.

               2.

               The applicants are to bear the costs of the proceedings.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) of 15 February 1996 in Case C-309/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Commerce, Lyon): Nissan France and Others v. Jean-Luc Dupasquier du Garage Sport Auto and Others (Competition - Vehicle distribution - Regulation (EEC) No 123/85 - Applicability as against third parties - Parallel importer - Simultaneous conduct of business as both authorized intermediary and independent reseller)

text:
4 . 5 . 96            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 133/5
1 , dismisses the appeal;                                                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Second Chamber )
2 , orders the appellants to pay the costs.                                             of 15 February 1996
                                                                     in Case C-3 09/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                     the Tribunal de Commerce, Lyon ): Nissan France and
(') OJ No C 254, 10 . 9 . 1994 .                                     Others v. Jean-Luc Dupasquier du Garage Sport Auto and
                                                                                Others ( 1 )
                                                                     (Competition — Vehicle distribution — Regulation (EEC)
                                                                     No 123/85 — Applicability as against third parties —
                                                                     Parallel importer — Simultaneous conduct of business as
                                                                       both authorized intermediary and independent reseller)
                                                                                ( 96/C 133/09 )
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                      ( Second Chamber )                                            (Language of the case: French)
                     of 15 February 1996
in Case C-226/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal de Commerce, Albi ): Grand Garage Albigeois
           SA and Others v. Garage Massol Sàrl ( ! )                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
(Competition — Vehicle distribution — Regulation (EEC)                       published in the European Court Reports)
No 123/85 — Applicability as against third parties —
                     Independent reseller)
                          ( 96/C 133/08 )
                                                                     In Case C-309/94 — reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                     the Tribunal de Commerce, Lyon, in the proceedings
                (Language of the case: French)                       pending before that court between Nissan France and
                                                                     Others v . Jean-Luc Dupasquier du Garage Sport Auto and
                                                                     Others — the Court - ( Second Chamber ), composed of
                                                                     G. Hirsch, President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini and
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                   F. A. Schockweiler ( Rapporteur ), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo
                                                                     Colomer, Advocate-General ; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for
                                                                     the Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 February 1996 , the
                                                                     operative part of which as follows :
In Case C-226/94 — reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal de Commerce, Albi, in the proceedings pending
before that court between Grand Garage Albigeois SA and
Others v. Garage Massol Sari — the Court ( Second
Chamber ), composed of G. Hirsch, President of the                   Commission Regulation (EEC) No 123/85 of 12 December
Chamber, G. F. Mancini and F. A. Schockweiler                        1984 on the application of Article 85 (3) of the EC Treaty
( Rapporteur ), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,                      to certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and
Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the                 servicing agreements must be interpreted as not preventing a
Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 February 1996 , the                 trader who is neither an approved reseller in the distribution
operative part of which is as follows :                              network of a manufacturer of a particular make of motor
                                                                     vehicle nor an authorized intermediary within the meaning
                                                                     of Article 3 (11 ) of that Regulation from undertaking
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 123/85 of 12 December                 parallel imports and operating as an independent reseller of
1 984 on the application ofArticle 85 (3) of the EC Treaty to        new vehicles ofthat make. Nor does that Regulation prevent
certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and                 an independent trader from carrying on at the same
servicing agreements must be interpreted as not preventing a         time the businesses of authorized intermediary and that
trader who is neither an approved reseller in the distribution       of non-approved reseller of vehicles acquired by way
network of a manufacturer of a particular make of motor              of parallel imports.
vehicle nor an authorized intermediary within the meaning
of Article 3 (11 ) of that Regulation, from carrying on an
independent business reselling new vehicles of that make.
                                                                     (<) OJ No C 380, 31 . 12 . 1994 .
0 ) OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .


title: Case C-338/15 P: Appeal brought on 7 July 2015 by Claire Staelen against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 29 April 2015 in Case T-217/11 Staelen v European Ombudsman

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/43

         Appeal brought on 7 July 2015 by Claire Staelen against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 29 April 2015 in Case T-217/11 Staelen v European Ombudsman
   (Case C-338/15 P)
   (2015/C 294/55)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Claire Staelen (represented by: V. Olona, avocate)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Ombudsman

      Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the judgment delivered on 29 April 2015 by the General Court in Case T-217/11 Staelen v European Ombudsman;

               —

               therefore, uphold the appellant’s application for compensation for non-material damage suffered on account of the conduct adversely affecting her, the amount of which the appellant calculates at EUR 50  000;

               —

               rule according to the appellant’s pleas sought at first instance except her application for compensation for material damage;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of both instances.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant invokes six grounds in support of her appeal all alleging errors of law and distortion of the facts.
   In the first place, the appellant considers that the General Court erred in law and distorted the facts in so far as the appellant refused to allow the investigation on the initiative of the Ombudsman. The General Court also distorted the subject-matter of the complaint.
   In the second place, she claims that the General Court erred in law by incorrectly interpreting Article 228 TFEU and Decision 94/262 (1) by depriving them of effectiveness.
   In the third place, she claims that the General Court distorted the facts with regard to the duration of the discrimination relating to inclusion in the lists of suitable candidates.
   In the fourth place, she complains that the General Court distorted the facts and erred in law by holding that the Ombudsman did not infringe its duty of transparency and due diligence.
   In the fifth place, she complains that the General Court declared inapplicable the Decision of the President of the European Parliament, of 23 February 2003, and the Code of Good Administrative Behaviour.
   In the last place, she considers that the General Court was wrong to hold that the Ombudsman did not have to examine the entire destruction of the competition dossier.

      (1)  Decision 94/262/ECSC, EC, Euratom of the European Parliament of 9 March 1994 on the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman's duties (OJ 1994 L 113, p. 15).


title: Case C-416/08 P: Appeal brought on 22 September 2008 by Apple Computer, Inc. against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) delivered on 1 July 2008 in Case T-328/05 Apple Computer, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/25

         Appeal brought on 22 September 2008 by Apple Computer, Inc. against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) delivered on 1 July 2008 in Case T-328/05 Apple Computer, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-416/08 P)
   (2008/C 301/38)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellants: Apple Computer, Inc. (represented by: M. Hart, N. Kearley, Solicitors)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), TKS-Teknosoft SA
   Form of order sought
   The appellant claims that the Court should order that:

               —

               The appeal by the applicant to the European Court of Justice be allowed;

               —

               The judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (CFI) in case T-328/05 of 1 July 2008 be set aside;

               —

               The case be referred back to the CFI; and

               —

               The costs in the case be reserved.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               Apple, Inc., (the applicant) has applied to register a Community Trademark for the word mark ‘QUARTZ’. Its application covers:
               ‘A computer operating system functionality specially intended for use by IT developers with the aim of improving and accelerating the reproduction of digital images in application programs, except products intended for the banking sector’ in Class 9.

               2.

               TKS-Teknosoft S.A. (the ‘Opponent’) is the registered proprietor of a Community Trade Mark Registration for the figurative mark ‘QUARTZ’, which was in respect of, amongst other things:

                           (a)

                           ‘packets of programs for banking’ in Class 9; and

                           (b)

                           ‘computer programming, computer data processing, computer software development, assistance and consulting services in the computer field electronic data processing, computer software design and development, licensing of computer software and computer applications; all these services being linked to banking’ in Class 42.

         The Opponent opposes the registration of the Applicant's QUARTZ mark on the basis that there would be a likelihood of confusion between the two marks. The Court of First Instance agreed.
   The Applicant submits that the CFI erred in law because:

               (a)

               the goods in respect of which the two marks would be registered and used are clearly different and the CFI failed to take into account those relevant differences;

               (b)

               it did not correctly identify the relevant ‘public’ for the purposes of assessing whether confusion was likely. In particular, it did not give sufficient weight to the fact that the relevant public must logically be software specialists employed in or providing services to the banking sector; and

               (c)

               it therefore misapplied the global appreciation test as previously set out by the European Court of Justice.


title: Case T-360/09: Judgment of the General Court of 29 June 2012 — E.ON Ruhrgas and E.ON v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — German and French markets for natural gas — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Market sharing — Duration of the infringement — Fines)

text:
               11.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 June 2012 — E.ON Ruhrgas and E.ON v Commission
   (Case T-360/09) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - German and French markets for natural gas - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Market sharing - Duration of the infringement - Fines)
   2012/C 243/28
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: E.ON Ruhrgas AG (Essen, Germany), and E.ON AG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: G. Wiedemann and T. Klose, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, A. Bouquet and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, assisted by M. Buntscheck, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 5355 final of 8 July 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/39.401 — E.ON/GDF), and, in the alternative, for a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2009) 5355 final of 8 July 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/39.401 — E.ON/GDF), first, inasmuch as it found that the duration of the infringement was from 1 January 1980 until at least 24 April 1998 as regards the infringement committed in Germany and, secondly, inasmuch as it found that an infringement was committed in France from 13 August 2004 to 30 September 2005;

               2.

               Sets the amount of the fine imposed on E.ON Ruhrgas AG and E.ON AG in Article 2(a) of Decision C(2009) 5355 final at EUR 320 million;

               3.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               4.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.


title: Case C-424/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 28 October 2009 — Christina Ioanni Toki v Ipourgos Ethnikis Pedias kai Thriskevmaton

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/21

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 28 October 2009 — Christina Ioanni Toki v Ipourgos Ethnikis Pedias kai Thriskevmaton
   (Case C-424/09)
   2010/C 24/37
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Simvoulio tis Epikratias

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Christina Toki

      Defendant: Ipourgos Ethnikis Pedias kai Thriskevmaton

      Questions referred

               1.

               For the purposes of Article 3(b) of Directive 89/48/EEC on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16), prior its repeal pursuant to Article 62 of Directive 2005/36/EC (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22), does the recognition mechanism provided for therein apply to cases in which, in the Member State of origin, the profession in question is regulated within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 1(d) of the directive, but the person concerned is not a full member of an association or organisation which fulfils the conditions of that paragraph?

               2.

               For the purposes of Article 3(b) of Directive 89/48/EEC does pursuit of a profession full-time in the Member State of origin mean pursuit in a self-employed or employed capacity of the actual profession authorisation to pursue which is being sought in the host Member State in reliance on Directive 89/48/EEC, or may it also cover employment on research work in an academic field related to the profession in an establishment that is in principle not for profit?


title: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 April 2005 in Case C-376/02 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden Stichting ‘Goed Wonen’ v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Turnover tax — Common system of value added tax — Article 17 of Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC — Deduction of input tax — Amendment of national legislation — Retroactive effect — Principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty)

text:
               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/6

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Grand Chamber)
   of 26 April 2005
   in Case C-376/02 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden Stichting ‘Goed Wonen’ v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (1)

   (Turnover tax - Common system of value added tax - Article 17 of Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC - Deduction of input tax - Amendment of national legislation - Retroactive effect - Principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty)
   (2005/C 143/05)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-376/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands), made by decision of 18 October 2002, received at the Court on 21 October 2002, in the proceedings pending before that court between Stichting ‘Goed Wonen’ and Staatssecretaris van Financiën — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas (Rapporteur), R. Silva de Lapuerta and A. Borg Barthet, Presidents of Chambers, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, P. Kūris, E. Juhász, G. Arestis and M. Ilešič, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General, M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 26 April 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               The principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty do not preclude a Member State, on an exceptional basis and in order to avoid the large-scale use, during the legislative process, of contrived financial arrangements intended to minimise the burden of value added tax that an amending law is specifically designed to combat, from giving that law retroactive effect when, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, economic operators carrying out economic transactions such as those referred to by the law were warned of the impending adoption of that law and of the retroactive effect envisaged in a way that enabled them to understand the consequences of the legislative amendment planned for the transactions they carry out.

               When that law exempts an economic transaction in respect of immovable property previously subject to value added tax, it may have the effect of revoking a value added tax adjustment made on account of the exercise, when immovable property was used for a transaction regarded at that time as taxable, of a right to deduct value added tax paid in respect of the supply of that immovable property.

      (1)  OJ C 7 of 11.01.2003.


title: Joined Cases C-455/13 P, C-457/13 P and C-460/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 September 2015 — Confederazione Cooperative Italiane, Cooperativas Agro-Alimentarias, Fédération française de la coopération fruitière, légumière and horticole (Felcoop) (C-455/13 P), European Commission (C-457/13 P), Italian Republic (C-460/13 P) v Associazione Nazionale degli Industriali delle Conserve Alimentari Vegetali (Anicav) and Others (Appeals — Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Fruit and vegetable sector — Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 — Article 52(2a) — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 — Articles 50(3) and 60(7) — Aid to producer organisations — Products processed from fruit and vegetables — Flat rate covering certain processing operations — Eligibility of investments and actions connected with the processing — Actions for annulment — Admissibility — Whether directly concerned)

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/2

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 September 2015 — Confederazione Cooperative Italiane, Cooperativas Agro-Alimentarias, Fédération française de la coopération fruitière, légumière and horticole (Felcoop) (C-455/13 P), European Commission (C-457/13 P), Italian Republic (C-460/13 P) v Associazione Nazionale degli Industriali delle Conserve Alimentari Vegetali (Anicav) and Others
   (Joined Cases C-455/13 P, C-457/13 P and C-460/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeals - Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Fruit and vegetable sector - Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 - Article 52(2a) - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 - Articles 50(3) and 60(7) - Aid to producer organisations - Products processed from fruit and vegetables - Flat rate covering certain processing operations - Eligibility of investments and actions connected with the processing - Actions for annulment - Admissibility - Whether directly concerned))
   (2015/C 381/02)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

   (Case C-455/13 P)

      Appellants: Confederazione Cooperative Italiane, Cooperativas Agro-Alimentarias, Fédération française de la coopération fruitière, légumière and horticole (Felcoop) (represented by: M. Merola and C. Santacroce, avvocati)
   (Case C-457/13 P)

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: K. Skelly, A. Marcoulli and B. Schima, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the European Commission: French Republic (represented by: D. Colas and C. Candat, acting as Agents), Sociedad Cooperativa de Exportación de Frutos Cítricos Anecoop (Anecoop) S. Coop., Cooperativa Agrícola Nuestra Señora del Oreto (CANSO) Coop. V., Cooperativa Agrícola ‘Sant Bernat’ (Carlet) Coop. V., Cooperativa Agrícola SCJ (COPAL) Coop. V., Grupo AN S. Coop., Acopaex S. Coop., Las Marismas de Lebrija Sociedad Cooperativa Andaluza (Las Marismas), Associació de Cooperatives Agràries de les Terres de Lleida (ACTEL), Unió Corporació Alimentária (UNIO) SCCL, Union Coopérative Agricole France Prune (France Prune), Agrial SCA, Triskalia, Union Fermière Morbihannaise (UFM), VOG Products Soc. agr. coop., Consorzio Padano Ortofrutticolo (CO.PAD.OR.) Soc. agr. coop., Consorzio Casalasco del Pomodoro Soc. agr. coop., Agricoltori Riuniti Piacentini (ARP) Soc. agr. coop., Orogel Fresco Soc. agr. coop., Conserve Italia Soc. agr. coop., Fruttagel Soc. agr. coop. (represented by: M. Merola and C. Santacroce, avvocati), Unione Nazionale tra le Organizzazioni di Produttori Ortofrutticoli, Agrumari e di Frutta in Guscio (Unaproa) (represented initially by S. Crisci and subsequently by G. Coppo, avvocati)
   (Case C-460/13 P)

      Appellant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and S. Varone, avvocato dello Stato)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Associazione Nazionale degli Industriali delle Conserve Alimentari Vegetali (Anicav), Agrupación Española de Fabricantes de Conservas Vegetales (Agrucon), Associazione Italiana Industrie Prodotti Alimentari (AIIPA), Campil-Agro-Industrial do Campo do Tejo Lda, Evropaïka Trofima AE, FIT — Fomento da Indústria do Tomate SA, Konservopoiia Oporokipeftikon Filippos AE, Panellinia Enosi Konservopoion, Elliniki Etairia Konservon AE, Anonimos Viomichaniki Etairia Konservon D. Nomikos, Italagro — Indústria de Transformação de Produtos Alimentares SA, Kopaïs AVEE Trofimon & Poton, Serraïki Konservopoiia Oporokipeftikon Serko AE, Sociedade de Industrialização de Produtos Agrícolas — Sopragol SA, Sugalidal — Indústrias de Alimentação SA, Sutol — Indústrias Alimentares Lda, ZANAE Zymai Artopoiias Nikoglou AE Viomichania Emporio Trofimon, AIT — Associação dos Industriais de Tomate (represented by: S. Estima Martins and R. Oliveira, advogados), Confederazione Cooperative Italiane, Cooperativas Agro-Alimentarias, Fédération française de la coopération fruitière, légumière and horticole (Felcoop), VOG Products Soc. agr. coop., Consorzio Padano Ortofrutticolo (CO.PAD.OR.) Soc. agr. coop., Consorzio Casalasco del Pomodoro Soc. agr. coop., ARP Agricoltori Riuniti Piacentini Soc. agr. coop., Orogel Fresco Soc. agr. coop., Conserve Italia Soc. agr. coop.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Anicav and Others v Commission (T-454/10 and T-482/11, EU:T:2013:282) in that it declared admissible the actions brought in Cases T-454/10 and T-482/11 which seek the annulment of the second subparagraph of Article 52(2a) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules of Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 687/2010 of 30 July 2010, and Articles 50(3) and 60(7) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors;

               2.

               Dismisses the actions for annulment brought in Cases T-454/10 and T-482/11 as inadmissible;

               3.

               Orders Associazione Nazionale degli Industriali delle Conserve Alimentari Vegetali (Anicav), Agrupación Española de Fabricantes de Conservas Vegetales (Agrucon), Associazione Italiana Industrie Prodotti Alimentari (AIIPA), Campil-Agro-Industrial do Campo do Tejo Lda, Evropaïka Trofima AE, FIT — Fomento da Indústria do Tomate SA, Konservopoiia Oporokipeftikon Filippos AE, Panellinia Enosi Konservopoion, Elliniki Etairia Konservon AE, Anonymos Viomichaniki Etaireia Konservon D. Nomikos, Italagro — Indústria de Transformação de Produtos Alimentares SA, Kopaïs AVEE Trofimon & Poton, Serraïki Konservopoiia Oporokipeftikon Serko AE, Sociedade de Industrialização de Produtos Agrícolas — Sopragol SA, Sugalidal — Indústrias de Alimentação SA, Sutol — Indústrias Alimentares Lda, and ZANAE Zymai Artopoiias Nikoglou AE Viomichania Emporio Trofimon to pay the costs incurred at first instance and/or in the appeals by Confederazione Cooperative Italiane, Cooperativas Agro-Alimentarias, Fédération française de la coopération fruitière, légumière et horticole (Felcoop), the European Commission in Case C-457/13 P, the Italian Republic, Sociedad Cooperativa de Exportación de Frutos Cítricos Anecoop (Anecoop) S. Coop, Cooperativa Agrícola Nuestra Señora del Oreto (CANSO) Coop. V., Cooperativa Agrícola ‘Sant Bernat’ (Carlet) Coop. V., Cooperativa Agrícola SCJ (COPAL) Coop. V., Grupo AN S. Coop., Acopaex S. Coop., Las Marismas de Lebrija Sociedad Cooperativa Andaluza (Las Marismas), Associació de Cooperatives Agràries de les Terres de Lleida (ACTEL), Unió Corporació Alimentária (UNIO) SCCL, Union Coopérative Agricole France Prune (France Prune), Agrial SCA, Triskalia, Union Fermière Morbihannaise (UFM), VOG Products Soc. agr. coop., Consorzio Padano Ortofrutticolo (CO.PAD.OR.) Soc. agr. coop., Consorzio Casalasco del Pomodoro Soc. agr. coop., Agricoltori Riuniti Piacentini (ARP) Soc. agr. coop., Orogel Fresco Soc. agr. coop., Conserve Italia Soc. agr. coop., Fruttagel Soc. agr. coop. and Unione Nazionale tra le Organizzazioni di Produttori Ortofrutticoli, Agrumari e di Frutta in Guscio (Unaproa);

               4.

               Orders AIT — Associação dos Industriais de Tomate and the French Republic to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.

      OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.

      OJ C 352, 30.11.2013.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 October 1999 in Case C-430/98: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 94/45/EC — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
5.2.2000                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 34/3
1. Article 36(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 222/77 of                  Nana Dafniou and I. Chalkias) — application for a declaration
    13 December 1976 on Community transit, as amended by                   that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws,
    Council Regulation (EEC) No 474/90 of 22 February 1990                 regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply
    with a view to abolishing lodgement of the transit advice note on      with Council Directive 93/43/EEC of 14 June 1993 on the
    crossing an internal frontier of the Community, in conjunction         hygiene of foodstuffs (OJ 1993 L 175, p. 1), the Hellenic
    with Article 11a(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC)                     Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive
    No 1062/87 of 27 March 1987 on provisions for the                      — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn,
    implementation of the Community transit procedure and for              acting as President of the Sixth Chamber, G. Hirsch and
    certain simplifications of that procedure, as amended by Com-          H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate Gen-
    mission Regulation (EEC) No 1429/90 of 29 May 1990, is to              eral; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 October
    be interpreted as meaning that the Member State to which the           1999, in which it:
    office of departure belongs may recover duty on import only if it
    has indicated to the principal that he has three months in which       1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the
    to prove where the offence or irregularity was actually committed          laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
    and such proof has not been provided within that period.                   comply with Council Directive 93/43/EEC of 14 June 1993 on
                                                                               the hygiene of foodstuffs, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil
2. The third subparagraph of Article 36(3) of Regulation                       its obligations under that directive;
    No 222/77 as amended by Regulation No 474/90 is to be
    interpreted as not applying to a case in which the Member State        2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
    to which the office of departure belongs has recovered duty in
    respect of goods cleared for the Community transit procedure even
    though the principal has not been set a time-limit for furnishing      (1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.
    proof of the place where the offence or irregularity was actually
    committed, in accordance with Article 11a(2) of Regulation
    No 1062/87 as amended by Regulation No 1429/90, and in
    such a case the refund of the duty irregularly recovered is not
    subject to the condition that the duty due from the principal has
    been paid in the Member State where the offence was committed.
(1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.                                                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 21 October 1999
                                                                           in Case C-430/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                           (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                           Directive 94/45/EC — Failure to transpose within the
                        of 21 October 1999                                                          prescribed period)
in Case C-391/98: Commission of the European Communi-                                                (2000/C 34/06)
                    ties v Hellenic Republic (1)
(Failure by a member State to fulfil its obligations —                                         (Language of the case: French)
Directive 93/43/EEC — Failure to transpose within the
                         prescribed period)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                           (2000/C 34/05)                                                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           In Case C-430/98: Commission of the European Communities
                     (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                           (Agents: P.J. Kuijper and N. Yerrell) v Grand Duchy of Luxem-
                                                                           bourg (Agent: P. Steinmetz) — application for a declaration
                                                                           that, by failing to adopt and/or to communicate to the
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     Commission the laws, regulations and administrative pro-
                   in the European Court Reports)                          visions necessary to comply with Council Directive 94/45/EC
                                                                           of 22 September 1994 on the establishment of a European
In Case C-391/98: Commission of the European Communities                   Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertak-
(Agent: Maria Condou-Durande) v Hellenic Republic (Agents:                 ings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the
 ---pagebreak--- C 34/4                    EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           5.2.2000
purposes of informing and consulting employees (OJ 1994                      were concluded before 6 February 1996 but which on 7 March
L 254, p. 64), alternatively by failing to ensure the introduction           1996 had still not been performed or could reasonably have
by management and labour of the required provisions by                       been cancelled, has failed to fulfil its obligations under
way of agreement, and thus by failing to take and/or to                      Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the
communicate to the Commission the measures required to                       coordination of procedures for the award of public works
guarantee the results to be achieved under that directive, the               contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54) and Council Directive
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations               89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the
under the EC Treaty — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed                    laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the
of: P.J.G. Kapteyn, acting as President of the Sixth Chamber,                application of review procedures to the award of public supply
G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger,                   and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33) as well as
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment                  under Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
on 21 October 1999, in which it:                                             Article 28 EC) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez
                                                                             Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, D.A.O. Edward
1. Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and          and L. Sevón (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann (Rappor-
    administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council               teur), J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann. and M. Wathelet,
    Directive 94/45/EC of 22 December 1994 on the establishment              Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,
    of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale            Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
    undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for              on 28 October 1999, in which it has ruled that:
    the purposes of informing and consulting employees, alternatively
    by failing to ensure the introduction by management and labour           1. In connection with the building at Sankt Pöllten of the new
    of the required provisions by way of agreement, and thus by                  administrative and cultural centre for the Land of Lower Austria,
    failing to take the measures required to guarantee the results to            the Republic of Austria, in awarding the contracts which were
    be achieved under the Directive, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg               concluded before 6 February 1996 but which on 7 March 1996
    has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;                   had still not been performed or could reasonably have been
                                                                                cancelled, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council
2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.                        Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordi-
                                                                                nation of procedures for the award of public works contracts,
                                                                                under Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on
(1) OJ C 20 of 23.1.1999.                                                        the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                                provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the
                                                                                award of public supply and the public works contracts and under
                                                                                Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28
                                                                                EC);
                                                                             2. The Republic of Austria is ordered to pay the costs.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                             (1) OJ C 354 of 23.11.1996.
                         of 28 October 1999
in Case C-328/96: Commission of the European Communi-
                   ties v Republic of Austria (1)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Public                                         (Sixth Chamber)
works contracts — Admissibility — Compatibility with
Community law of conditions governing invitations to tender                                         of 28 October 1999
— Failure to publish a contract notice in the Official Journal
                  of the European Communities)                               in Case C-6/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart): Arbeitsgemeinschaft
                             (2000/C 34/07)                                  Deutscher Rundfunkanstalten (ARD) v PRO Sieben Media
                                                                                AG(1)
                    (Language of the case: German)                           (Television broadcasting — Limitation on transmission time
                                                                                allocated to advertising)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                                 (2000/C 34/08)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
In Case C-328/96: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: H. van Lier and C. Schmidt) v Republic of Austria                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Agent: W. Okresek) — application for a declaration that in                                     in the European Court Reports)
connection with the building at Sankt Pölten of a new
administrative and cultural centre for the Land of Lower                     In Case C-6/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
Austria the Republic of Austria, in awarding contracts which                 the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Oberlandesgericht


title: Case T-879/16: Action brought on 14 December 2016 — Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe/EUIPO — Marpefa (Vieta)

text:
               20.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 53/34

         Action brought on 14 December 2016 — Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe/EUIPO — Marpefa (Vieta)
   (Case T-879/16)
   (2017/C 053/43)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Marpefa, SL (Barcelona, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘VIETA’ — EU trade mark No 1 790 674

      Procedure before EUIPO: Revocation proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 October 2016 in Case R 1010/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO and the other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 65(6) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of the principle of clarity and precision of trade mark terms.


title: Case C-251/03: Action brought on 11 June 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic

text:
C 184/26               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            2.8.2003
Action brought on 10 June 2003 by the Commission of the                   Commission. Since the defendant did not produce the evidence
European Communities against (1) ‘TASEIS TRENDS’                          needed to overturn the audit's conclusions, the Commission
(Transport Environment Development Systems) and (2)                       considered the contracts to be terminated and sought reimbur-
                  Marios Kontaratos and Others                            sement of the sums overpaid.
                          (Case C-249/03)                                 The Commission pleads:
                          (2003/C 184/46)                                 —     in support of its principal claim: Article 8,2 of Annex II
                                                                                to the contracts, which provides that the Commission
                                                                                may terminate the contract inter alia if, in order to obtain
                                                                                the financial contribution of the Commission, or any
An action against (1) ‘TASEIS TRENDS’ (Transport Environ-                       other advantage under the contract, a contractor has
ment Development Systems) and (2) Marios Kontaratos and                         made false or incomplete statements for which it may
Others was brought before the Court of Justice of the                           properly be held responsible;
European Communities on 10 June 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities, represented by Maria Patakia, of             —     in support of the principal head of claim regarding
its Legal Service, Maria Bra, of the Brussels Bar, and                          payment of interest: the second subparagraph of
K. Kapoutzidou, of the Athens Bar, with an address for service                  Article 8,4 of Annex II to the contracts, which provides
in Luxembourg.                                                                  that interest is due from the date on which the payments
                                                                                in question were received, at the rate applied by the
                                                                                European Monetary Cooperation Fund (now the European
The Commission claims that the Court should:                                    Central Bank) increased by two percentage points;
—     allow the application in its entirety;                              —     in support of the alternative head of claim regarding
                                                                                payment of interest: Article 94 of Commission Regulation
—     order the defendant partnership ‘TASEIS TRENDS’ and the                   No 3418/93 of 9 December 1993 laying down detailed
      defendants who are members thereof to reimburse to the                    rules for the implementation of certain provisions of the
      Commission the entire amount of the wrongly made                          Financial Regulation of 21 December 1977 (2).
      advance payments received by the defendant partnership
      from the Community in respect of the contracts at issue,
      that is to say the sum of EUR 195 435, together with                (1) OJ L 206, 30.7.1988, p. 1.
                                                                          (2) OJ L 315, 16.12.1993, p. 1.
      contractual interest in respect of the period from the date
      of mispayment, the interest calculated in that way
      amounting on 30 September 2002 to EUR 84 489,14
      and thereafter EUR 35,45 (29,17 plus 6,28) per day until
      the defendant's debt has been fully discharged, or, in the
      alternative, interest for late payment under Article 94 of
      Commission Regulation No 3418/93 on the whole sum
      of EUR 195 345, at a rate of 5,50% from 31 December
      1998 (when the period laid down by the order for                    Action brought on 11 June 2003 by the Commission of
      payment expired) until the defendant's debt has been fully          the European Communities against the Portuguese
      discharged, amounting up until 30 September 2002 to                                                Republic
      EUR 40 315,83 and thereafter EUR 29,45 per day;
                                                                                (Case C-251/03)
—     order the defendants to pay the costs.
                                                                                (2003/C 184/47)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
                                                                          the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 11 June
The defendant ‘TASEIS TRENDS’ is a civil-law partnership                  2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
governed by Greek law, which has as its object the promotion              represented by António Caeiros and Gregorio Valero Jordana,
of research and the dissemination of information on proble-               acting as Agents.
matical issues in relation to the environment, development,
town planning, transport and so forth. It concluded with the              The applicant claims that the Court should:
Commission, within the framework of Council Decision 88/
416/EEC of 29 June 1988 on a Community programme in the
                                                                          —     declare that, by failing to adopt the necessary measures to
field of road transport informatics and telecommunications
                                                                                ensure that water intended for human consumption meets
(Drive) (1), the following contracts: (i) Contract BATT — V
                                                                                the requirements laid down in Annex I to Council Direc-
2029 (implementation of the project ‘BATT — Behaviour and
                                                                                tive 80/778/EEC of 15 July 1980 relating to the quality of
ATT’) and (ii) Contract MIRO — V 2060 (implementation of
                                                                                water intended for human consumption, the Portuguese
the project ‘Mobility impact, reactions and opinions’).
                                                                                Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7
                                                                                (6) of that directive; and
Serious financial contraventions on the part of the defendant
were found following audits by the Court of Auditors and the              —     order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 2.8.2003               EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 184/27
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            fisheries sector (EC/Argentina Agreement) so far as
                                                                           concerns the legal basis of the contested decision.
The Portuguese authorities failed to take any measures to                  According to the Court of First Instance, the Commission
ensure that, within various parameters, water intended for                 was competent to take Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 and
human consumption met the requirements laid down in                        in particular on Article 24 thereof as the legal basis for
Annex I to Directive 80/778/EEC and, therefore, the Portuguese             the decision to reduce financial aid. However, the EC/
Republic has failed to fulfil, within the prescribed period, its           Argentina Agreement lays down a specific legal system
obligations under Article 7(6) thereof. The fact that the Portu-           for joint enterprises established within its framework, so
guese Republic has or is about to take steps or measures                   that provisions of general application are not applicable
which, according to the Portuguese authorities, have as their              where the Agreement makes no express reference thereto;
main objective to reach the quality levels for water intended              such reference is made only in relation to the submission
for human consumption laid down by Community law does                      of projects for approval and requests and procedure for
not justify that Member State having failed to fulfil its obliga-          payment.
tions.
                                                                       —   Infringement of the EC/Argentina Agreement so far as
                                                                           concerns the role played by the Joint Committee and the
                                                                           Argentinian authorities. The Court of First Instance
                                                                           considers that the Commission was not required to
                                                                           consult either the Joint Committee or the Argentinian
Appeal brought on 13 June 2003 by Eduardo Vieira SA                        authority before reducing financial aid. Thus it disregards
against the judgment delivered on 3 April 2003 by the                      the institutional structure established by the Agreement.
Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-126/01 between
Eduardo Vieira SA and Commission of the European
                            Communities                                —   Infringement of the EC/Argentina Agreement so far as
                                                                           concerns application of the procedure provided for by
                         (Case C-254/03 P)                                 Article 44 of Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86, repealed
                                                                           from 1 January 1994 and thus inapplicable in the present
                                                                           case, to the procedure for reducing financial aid. Accord-
                          (2003/C 184/48)                                  ingly, there was no legal basis for the consultation with
                                                                           the Standing Committee for the Fishing Industry.
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 3 April 2003 by
the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-126/01 between Eduardo                  —   Infringement of the EC/Argentina Agreement so far as
Vieira SA and Commission of the European Communities was                   concerns application of Regulation (EC) No 3699/93
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Commu-                 when assessing the amount of the reduction of the
nities on 13 June 2003 by Eduardo Vieira S.A., represented by              financial assistance. The Commission ought to have
Ramón García-Gallardo and Mª Dolores Domínguez Pérez,                      applied a reduction based on that regulation but only
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                                 within the framework of the EC/Argentina Agreement and
                                                                           having regard to its scale of assessment. The application
                                                                           of the scale of assessment established in Regulation
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           No 3699/93 entails an additional sanction on the bene-
                                                                           ficiary.
1.    declare the present appeal admissible;
2.    set aside the judgment delivered on 3 April 2003 by the
      Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the              —   Infringement of Community law as regards force majeure.
      European Communities in Case T-126/01 between                        The Court of First Instance disregards the obligation on
      Eduardo Vieira SA and Commission of the European                     the Commission so far as concerns the legal classification
      Communities;                                                         of certain events as force majeure.
3.    order the European Commission to pay the entire costs of
      proceedings before the Court of Justice as well as those
      incurred at first instance.                                      —   Infringement of the EC/Argentina Agreement so far as
                                                                           concerns the need to seek Commission approval before
                                                                           leaving Argentinian fishing waters. The Court of First
                                                                           Instance considers that the appellant was required to
                                                                           inform the Commission of difficulties in carrying out the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            project and could not leave the Argentinian exclusive
                                                                           economic zone without the prior approval of the
The appellant claims that the Court of First Instance infringed            Commission. Nevertheless, if an ‘international component’
Community law. The appellant relies on six pleas in law:                   is acknowledged to exist, authorisation by the Argentinian
                                                                           authority should suffice.
—     Infringement of the Agreement between the Community
      and the Argentinian Republic on relations in the sea


title: Case F-61/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 10 July 2008 — Cathy Sapara v Eurojust (Staff cases — Members of the temporary staff — Recruitment — Probationary period — Extension of probationary period — Dismissal at the end of the probationary period — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Rights of the defence — Manifest error of assessment — Psychological harassment)

text:
               11.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/19

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 10 July 2008 — Cathy Sapara v Eurojust
   (Case F-61/06) (1)

   (Staff cases - Members of the temporary staff - Recruitment - Probationary period - Extension of probationary period - Dismissal at the end of the probationary period - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Rights of the defence - Manifest error of assessment - Psychological harassment)
   (2008/C 260/35)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Cathy Sapara (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented by: G. Vandersanden and C. Ronzi, lawyers)

      Defendant: Eurojust (represented by: L. Defalque, lawyer)
   Re:
   Staff case — First, annulment of the decision by EUROJUST of 6 July 2005 terminating her applicant's temporary agent contract at the end of her probationary period and, secondly, a claim for damages.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 165, 15.7.2006, p. 35.


title: Action brought on 25 April 1996 by Jean-Louis Burban against the European Parliament (Case T-59/96)

text:
No C 180/38           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   22 . 6 . 96
— order that interest be paid on all the above sums at the          Action brought on 25 April 1996 by Jean-Louis Burban
    rate of 8 % from the date of the application to the time of                   against the European Parliament
     payment ,                                                                             ( Case T-59/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/90 )
— order the defendant to pay the costs .
                                                                                (Language of the case: Frencb)
Contentions       and   principal  arguments      adduced     in
support:                                                            An action against the European Parliament was brought
                                                                    before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                    Communities on 25 April 1996 by Jean-Louis Burban,
The applicant, an official in the Commission' scientific and        residing in Paris, represented by Jean-Pierre Spitzer, of the
technical services at the Joint Research Centre, Ispra ,            Paris Bar, with an adress for service at the Chambers of
maintains that it is unlawful to refuse to pay him the              Aloyse May , 31 Grand-Rue .
installation allowance and daily subsistence allowance on
his return from a period of external service with the
International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna . The contested          The applicant claims that the Court should:
decision is based on the view that the applicant would              — award compensation in the sum of ECU 100 000 for the
neither encounter particular difficulties in resettling into the        material damage, and ECU 100 000 for the
environment which he had earlier left or nor need to effect
                                                                        non-material damage, suffered by the applicant,
removals again, having returned to his own dwelling in
Italy.                                                              — order the defendant to pay all of the costs .
According to the applicant, the provisions of the Staff             Pleas in law and main arguments:
Regulations concerning the installation allowance relate
only to the objective fact that the person concerned is             The applicant, a grade A 4 official of the European
obliged to change his place of residence in order to comply         Parliament, seeks reparation for the material and
with Article 20 of the Staff Regulations . The latter provision     non-material damage suffered by him by reason of the delay
lays down no further requirement and takes account of no            in drawing up his staff reports for the periods 1991 — 1992
other factor .                                                      and 1993—1994 .
                                                                    He considers that the defendant has not only breached the
It is true that the case-law has clarified the scope of the         principle whereby staff reports are to be drawn up on a
provisions of the Staff Regulations, but it has done so in          regular and periodic basis, but has also failed to adopt any
factual circumstances where legal preconditions were not            measure in lieu capable of remedying the absence of such
fulfilled ( failure to move house or be accompanied by              reports at the time when consideration of the comparative
members of one's family, transfers at one's own request and         merits of internal candidates took place .
for personal reasons, and so on ) or else in relation to
conduct intended to evade legal provisions . That case-law          The applicant draws attention in that regard to the
has nothing to do with this case, where the applicant and his       questionable nature of the only report, relating to 1989 , on
family both duly moved to another State, a residence was            the basis of which the appointing authority examined all of
rented in Austria and there was a compulsory transfer back          the applicant's applications from 1990 onwards . He
to Italy .                                                          contends that, in drawing up that report, the former head of
                                                                    the defendant's Information Office for France misused his
As regards the return to the applicant's dwelling in Italy,         powers as reporting officer, with a view to being replaced in
which involved a genuine financial sacrifice for the applicant      his post as Assistant Director not by the applicant, his
since — both because of the certain date of his return and the      natural successor, but by a personal friend outside the
legal difficulties of regaining possession of the dwelling in       European Parliament, by means of an external
Italy after renting it out — he had to bear throughout the          competition .
period in question the financial burdens and operating
expenses of two residences .
As regards the refusal to pay him the daily subsistence
allowance, the applicant maintains that the payment of such         Action brought on 30 April 1996 by José Francisco Meoro
allowances is based on the very circumstances described                    Avilés against Commission of the European
above, in other words a change of residence by an official in                                 Communities
order to comply with his obligations under Article 20 of the
                                                                                ( Case T-61 /96 )
Staff Regulations . The only difference from the 'case of the
installation allowance lies in the fact that the daily                                       ( 96/C 180/91 )
subsistence allowance is paid until removal or for a
maximum period of six months . The difference is thus only a                      (Language of the case: Spanisb)
question of time .
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    Instance on 30 April 1996 by José Francisco Meoro Avilés,