title: Case T-330/17: Action brought on 16 May 2017 — Ceobus and Others v Commission

text:
               17.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 231/52

         Action brought on 16 May 2017 — Ceobus and Others v Commission
   (Case T-330/17)
   (2017/C 231/67)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Ceobus (Génicourt, France), Compagnie des transports voyageurs du Mantois interurbains — CTVMI (Mantes-la-Jolie, France), SA des Transports de St Quentin en Yvelines (Trappes, France), Les cars Perrier (Trappes), Tim Bus (Magny-en-Vexin, France), Transports Voyageurs du Mantois (TVM) (Mantes-la-Jolie) (represented by: D. de Combles de Nayves, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               principally, annul Commission Decision SA.26763 of 2 February 2017 relating to presumed aid granted to public transport undertakings by the Île-de-France region in so far as it considers that the Île-de-France aid scheme established from 1984 and until 2008 constitutes a new aid scheme which was ‘unlawfully implemented’;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Commission Decision SA.26763 of 2 February 2017 relating to presumed aid granted to public transport undertakings by the Île-de-France region in so far as it considers that the individual aid derived from the Île-de-France aid scheme between May 1994 and 25 November 2008 constitutes new aid which was ‘unlawfully implemented’.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, raised in the context of the first head of claim, alleging infringement of Article 108 TFEU, of Article 1(b) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘Regulation No 2015/1589’) (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9), and infringement of the principle of res judicata inherent to judgments rendered following a response to a reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union.

               2.

               Second plea in law, raised in the context of the second head of claim, alleging infringement of Article 17 of Regulation No 2015/1589, in so far as the Commission classified as a measure interrupting the limitation period a measure which did not respect the qualification criteria for that category of measure provided for by that article.

               3.

               Third plea in law, raised in the context of the second head of claim, alleging infringement of the procedural rights of interested third parties, in so far as the Commission considered in its opening decision that the limitation period had been interrupted not by the initiation of an action before the administrative courts, but by the Commission’s first request for information dated 25 November 2008.


title: Case C-105/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Firenze by order of that Court of 3 February 2003 in the criminal proceedings against Maria Pupino

text:
C 146/16                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                      21.6.2003
2.    Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
                                                                           Firenze by order of that Court of 3 February 2003 in the
                                                                                criminal proceedings against Maria Pupino
                                                                                (Case C-105/03)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (2003/C 146/27)
—     Provisions designed to transpose Article 6(3) of the
      directive are to be evaluated in terms of whether they
      require an assessment of the implications in the case of
      all projects likely to have a significant effect on special
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      areas of conservation. Whether a particular effect may be
      significant cannot be decided solely by reference to                 European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Firenze
      the project, but only by taking into consideration the               (District Court, Florence) — Office of the Magistrate in charge
                                                                           of preliminary enquiries — of 3 February 2003, received at
      conservation aims of each individual area of conservation
      which may be affected and the nature and extent of the               the Court Registry on 5 March 2003, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                           in the criminal proceedings against Maria Pupino on the
      habitats and species present in each individual area.
      However, the definition of ‘projects’ contained in Para-             following question:
      graph 10(1)(11)(b) and (c) of the Bundesnaturschutzge-
      setz (Federal Law on Nature Conservation) does not take
      into account areas of conservation. Even if theoretical              Are Articles 2, 3 and 8 of Council Framework Decision 220
      evidence is produced to show that, despite the restrictions          of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal
      contained in the definition, all conceivable projects likely         proceedings to be interpreted as precluding national legislation
      to have a significant effect on special areas of conservation        such as that in Articles 392(1a) and 398(5a) of the Italian
      are in fact covered, there would still be no guarantee that          Code of Criminal Procedure, which do not provide that, in
      projects with atypical effects of, in principle, a less              respect of offences other than sexual offences or those with a
      apparent nature would be covered if they were likely to              sexual background, the testimony of witnesses who are minors
      be significant in an actual individual case. In particular,          under 16 may be heard at the stage of the preliminary
      small habitats containing unusual species may react much             enquiries, in a Special Inquiry (‘incidente probatorio’) and
      more sensitively to influences than may be anticipated               under special arrangements, for example for the recording of
      by provisions concerning projects, which standardise                 testimony using audiovisual and sound recording equipment.
      categories.
—     It is contrary to Article 6(3) and (4) of the directive for
      regard not to be had to pollution by noxious substances
      outside a (not clearly defined) area where the effects of a
      project are felt, which is the position under Paragraph 36
      of the Bundesnaturschutzgesetz.
                                                                           Appeal brought on 27 February 2003 by fax, confirmed
                                                                           by original lodged on 7 March 2003, by Védial SA against
—     Restricting the protection of sites where animals nest,              the judgment delivered on 12 December 2002 by the
      breed, live or find refuge to cases where there are                  Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
      deliberate effects (Paragraph 43(4) of the Bundesnatur-              European Communities in Case T-110/01 between Védial
      schutzgesetz) is not consistent with Article 12(1)(d) of             SA and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
      the directive, the clear wording of which indicates that             Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), the other
      intention is not necessary in the context of the prohibition                       party being France Distribution
      concerning deterioration or destruction of breeding sites
      or resting places.
                                                                                (Case C-106/03 P)
—     Paragraph 43(4) of the Bundesnaturschutzgesetz also
      provides for derogations from the provisions concerning                                      (2003/C 146/28)
      the protection of species in favour of intervention or
      measures already authorised, without taking into account
      the fact that at the time of authorisation it may not yet
      have been known that a protected species is affected.                An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 December
                                                                           2002 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                           the European Communities in Case T-110/01 between Védial
                                                                           SA and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
( 1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
                                                                           (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), the other party being
                                                                           France Distribution, was brought before the Court of Justice of
                                                                           the European Communities on 27 February 2003 by fax,
                                                                           confirmed by original lodged on 7 March 2003, by Védial SA.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 12 December 1996 in Case T-358/94: Compagnie Nationale Air France v. Commission of the European Communities (State aid - Air transport - Airline company in a critical financial situation)

text:
No C 74/ 18             EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       8 . 3 . 97
          Removal from the register of C-290/96 ( ')                              Removal from the register of C-3 14/94 (')
                               97/C 74/36 )                                                           ( 97/C 74/37)
                                                                         By order of 18 December 1996 the President of the Court
By order of 27 November 1996 the President of the Court                  of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the                  removal from the register of Case C-3 14/94 ( reference for
removal from the register of Case C-290/96 : Commission                  a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia
of the European Communities v. Ireland.                                 del Pais Vasco ( Sala de lo Social )): Maria Luisa Alonso
                                                                        Bernardez ( widow of Edelmiro Nunez Santos ) v. Instituto
 (') OJ No C 318 , 26 . 10 . 1996 .
                                                                        Nacional de la Seguridad Social and Tesoreria General de
                                                                        la Seguridad Social .
                                                                         (') OJ No C 386 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                     of 12 December 1996                                                      of 12 December 1996
in Case T-358/94: Compagnie Nationale Air France v.                     in Case T-130/95 : X v. Commission of the European
        Commission of the European Communities H                                                  Communities H
(State aid — Air transport — Airline company in a critical              (Officials   —     Promotion         —    Consideration of     the
                        financial situation)                            candidates ' comparative merits — Staff report — Delay in
                                                                          drawing it up — Action for annulment and for damages)
                             ( 97/C 74/38 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 74/39 )
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-358/94 : Compagnie Nationale Air France,
having its registered office in Paris, represented by                   In Case T-130/95 : X, an official of the Commission of the
Dominique Borde and Andre Moquet, of the Bars of Paris                  European Communities, represented by Carlo Revoldini,
and Brussels, with an address for service in Luxembourg                 of the Luxembourg Bar, 180 route de Longwy, with an
at the Chambers of Guy Harles, 8-10 rue Mathias Hardt,                  address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of the
against Commission of the European Communities                          latter, against Commission of the European Communities
( Agents: Ben Smulders and Ami Barav) — application for                 ( Agents: Ana Maria Alves Vieira and Alberto dal Ferro ) —
annulment of Commission Decision 94/662/EC of 27 July                   application for annulment of the decision of the
1994 concerning the subscription by CDC-Participations                  Commission not to promote the applicant to Grade A 4
to bonds issued by Air France ( OJ No L 258 , 6 . 10 . 1994,            under the 1994 promotion procedure and for damages —
p. 26 ) — the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber,                the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of
Extended Composition ), composed of: H. Kirschner,                      B. Vesterdorf, President, and C. P. Briet and A. Potocki,
President, B. Vesterdorf,              C. W.       Bellamy, A.         Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the
Kalogeropoulos and A. Potocki, Judges; J. Palacio                      Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 December 1996, the
Gonzalez, Administrator, gave a judgment on 12 December                 operative part of which is as follows:
1996, the operative part of which is as follows :
                                                                        1 . The application is dismissed.
1 . The application is dismissed.
                                                                       2 . The Commission is ordered to pay its own costs and
2 . The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.                               those of the applicant.
H OJ No C 370, 24 . 12 . 1994 .                                         (') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .


title: Case T-273/10: Action brought on 18 June 2010 — Olive Line International v OHIM — O. International (O·LIVE)

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/56

         Action brought on 18 June 2010 — Olive Line International v OHIM — O. International (O·LIVE)
   (Case T-273/10)
   ()
   2010/C 221/89
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Olive Line International, S.L. (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: P. Koch Moreno, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: O. International, S.r.l (Spoleto, Italy)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 April 2010 in case R 4/2009-4;

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings; and

               —

               Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, should it become an intervening party in this case.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘O·LIVE’, for goods and services in classes 3 and 44 — Community trade mark application No 5715008

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited: Community trade mark registration No 5086657 of the figurative mark ‘Olive Line’, for goods in classes 3, 29 and 30; Spanish trade mark registration No 2741533 of the figurative mark ‘Olive Line’, for goods in classes 3, 29 and 30; Spanish trade mark registration No 2525564 of the word mark ‘Olive Line’, for goods in class 3

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed that there was not a likelihood of confusion between the concerned trade marks.


title: Case T-331/04: Action brought on 11 August 2004 by Stephen Stork against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               20.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 284/20

         Action brought on 11 August 2004 by Stephen Stork against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-331/04)
   (2004/C 284/40)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 11 August 2004 by Stephen Stork, Chaumont-Gistoux (Belgium), represented by Bernd Arians, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission's decision of 5 May 2004 on the applicant's complaint and the Commission's decision of 10 December 2003 classing the applicant in Grade A7;

               —

               require the Commission to adopt a new decision on the applicant's grade, including a full statement of reasons;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicant contests the Commission's decision to class him in Grade A7, Step 3. He alleges errors of assessment in the application of Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations.
   The applicant submits that the contested decision fails to take account of facts relating to the quality of the applicant's professional experience which are of fundamental relevance to classification and that there was a failure to recognise the relevance of those facts in recruiting the applicant to his first post and to take proper account of the defendant's recruitment needs.
   Moreover, the applicant alleges a failure to exercise discretion, infringement of the principles of protection of legitimate expectations and of equal treatment, procedural errors and failure to give a proper statement of reasons.


title: Case F-140/11: Action brought on 22 December 2011 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               3.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/25

         Action brought on 22 December 2011 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-140/11)
   2012/C 65/49
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: Ph.-E. Partsch, E. Raimond, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the Director General of OLAF issuing a final invitation to the applicant to be heard in an internal enquiry and stating that a final report on the enquiry was to be adopted on the basis only of the information gathered and analysed unilaterally by OLAF if the applicant did not comply with that invitation and the letter rejecting the applicant’s claim

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 28 October 2011;

               —

               Annul the decision of 2 December 2011 ruling on the claim of 21 November 2011;

               —

               Award the applicant the sum of EUR 7 000 in respect of compensatory damages;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 24 November 1999 in Case T-109/98: A.V.M. v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Time-limits for bringing proceedings — Effect of an application for legal aid — Inadmissibility)

text:
18.3.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 79/25
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 26 November 1999
                        of 27 January 2000
                                                                          in Case T-253/97: Kurt Giegerich v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
in Case T-49/97: TAT European Airlines SA v Commission
               of the European Communities (1)                            (Officials — Refusal to promote — Action for annulment
                                                                               and claim for damages — Manifestly inadmissible)
(State aid — Air transport — Authorisation of aid payable                                          (2000/C 79/55)
in three tranches — Action brought against the decision
authorising payment of the third tranche — Adoption of a
fresh decision authorising the aid in implementation of an                                  (Language of the case: German)
annulling judgment — No need to adjudicate — Conditions)
                                                                          In Case T-253/97: Kurt Giegerich, former official of the
                                                                          Commission of the European Communities, residing in
                           (2000/C 79/54)                                 Osmate (Italy), represented by Bernd Potthast, Hans-Josef
                                                                          Rüber and Albert Potthast, Rechtsanwälte, Cologne, with an
                                                                          address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest
                                                                          Arendt, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, against the Commission of
                    (Language of the case: French)                        the European Communities (Agents: Christine Berardis-Kayser
                                                                          and Bertrand Wägenbaur) — application for annulment of the
                                                                          decision of the Commission of 18 October 1996 expressly
In Case T-49/97: TAT European Airlines SA, established at                 rejecting the applicant’s application for promotion and his
Tours (France), represented by Romano Subiotto, Solicitor,                claim for damages — the Court of First Instance (Fourth
Robbert Snelders, of the Brussels Bar, and Stephanie Hallouët,            Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, President, R.M. Moura Ramos
of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at            and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
the Chambers of Elvinger, Hoss and Prussen, 15 Côte d’Eich,               26 November 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:
against the Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: Nicholas Kahn and Ami Barav), supported by the                   1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
French Republic (Agents: Kareen Rispal-Bellanger and Frédérik
Million) and Compagnie Nationale Air France, established in               2. The parties shall bear their own costs.
Paris, represented by Olivier d’Ormesson and Anne Wachs-
man, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxem-              (1) OJ 1998 C 55.
bourg at the Chambers of Katia Manhaeve, 58 Rue Charles
Martel — application for the annulment of the Commission
Decision of 27 July 1996 authorising the payment of the third
tranche of the restructuring aid to Air France (OJ 1996 C 374,
p. 9) — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended
Composition), composed of J. Pirrung, President of the Chamb-
er, J. Azizi, A. Potocki, M. Jaeger and A.W.H. Meij, Judges;                    ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 27 January 2000, the
operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                                of 24 November 1999
1. There is no need to adjudicate on the action.                          in Case T-109/98: A.V.M. v Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities (1)
2. The Commission is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay one
                                                                          (Officials — Time-limits for bringing proceedings — Effect
    third of the costs incurred by the applicant. The latter is ordered
                                                                                of an application for legal aid — Inadmissibility)
    to bear two thirds of its own costs.
                                                                                (2000/C 79/56)
3. Each intervener is ordered to bear its own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(1) OJ C 142 of 10.5.1997.                                                In Case T-109/98: A.V.M., an official of the Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities, residing in Brussels, represented
                                                                          by Olivier Eben, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
                                                                          in Esch-sur-Alzette at the Chambers of Jean Tonnar, 29 rue du
                                                                          Fossé, against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                          (Agent: Julian Currall) — application for annulment of the
 ---pagebreak--- C 79/26                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      18.3.2000
decision of the Commission of 10 October 1997 imposing on                      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
the applicant the disciplinary measure of downgrading him
from grade D 1, step 8, to grade D 2, step 8, for failure to fulfil                         of 23 November 1999
his obligations under the Staff Regulations — the Court of First
Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas,            in Case T-173/98: Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v
President, P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,                        Council of the European Union (1)
made an order on 24 November 1999, the operative part of
which is as follows:                                                                       (Manifestly inadmissible)
1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.                                                 (2000/C 79/58)
2. The parties shall bear their own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
(1) OJ 1998 C 312.                                                      In Case T-173/98: Unión de Pequeños Agricultores, established
                                                                        in Madrid, represented by Javier Ledesma Bartret and José-Mar-
                                                                        ia Jiménez Laiglesia y de Oñate, of the Madrid Bar, with an
                                                                        address for service in Luxembourg at the address of Concep-
                                                                        ción Llasser Moyano, 22 Rue Wenkelhiel, Dalheim, against
                                                                        Council of the European Union (Agents: Ignacio Dı́ez Parra
                                                                        and Antonio Tanca) — application for annulment in part of
                                                                        Council Regulation (EC) No 1638/98 of 20 July 1998
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              amending Regulation No 136/66/EEC on the establishment of
                                                                        a common organisation of the market in oils and fats (OJ
                                                                        1998 L 210, p. 32) — the Court of First Instance (Third
                      of 8 December 1999                                Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi and
                                                                        M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 23 Nov-
in Case T-161/98: Henri de Compte v European Parlia-                    ember 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:
                              ment (1)
                                                                        1. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
(Officials — Annulment of a disciplinary measure — Action               2. The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by
manifestly inadmissible — Action manifestly unfounded in                     the Council.
                                law)
                                                                        3. The Diputación Provincial de Jaén, the Junta de Comunidades de
                                                                             Castilla-La Mancha, the Consejo de Gobierno de la Comunidad
                         (2000/C 79/57)                                      Autónoma de Andalucı́a and the Commission shall bear their
                                                                             own costs.
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        (1) OJ 1999 C 71.
In Case T-161/98: Henri de Compte, former official of the
European Parliament, residing in Longeville-lès-Metz (France),
represented by Henri Ferretti, of the Thionville Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of André
Lutgen, 1 Rue J.-P. Brasseur, against European Parliament
(Agents: Manfred Peter, Yannis Pantalis and Denis Waelbroeck)                  ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
— application for annulment of the decision of the President
of the European Parliament of 18 January 1988 downgrading                                    of 8 December 1999
him from grade A 3, step 8, to grade A 7, step 6 — the Court
of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of V. Tiili,               in Case T-79/99, Euro-Lex European Law Expertise GmbH
President, R.M. Moura Ramos and P. Mengozzi, Judges;                    against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 8 December 1999, the                             Market (trade marks and designs) (1)
operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                        (Community trade mark — Representation by a lawyer who
1. The application is dismissed.                                                 is a manager of the applicant — Inadmissible)
2. The parties shall bear their own costs.                                                       (2000/C 79/59)
(1) OJ 1998 C 378.                                                                        (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        In Case T-79/99, Euro-Lex European Law Expertise GmbH,
                                                                        established in Emmerich (Germany), represented by Eckhard


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 May 2003 in Case T-82/01: VOF Josanne and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Inland waterway transport — Community fleet capacity — Conditions for putting new vessels into service ("old-for-new" rule) — Exemption)

text:
19.7.2003               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 171/23
 of the European Communities (Agents: C. Berardis-Kayser and                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
B. Wägenbaur) — application for annulment of the decision
of 17 April 2000 of the selection board for Open Competition                                          of 10 April 2003
COM/A/12/98 not to include the applicant on the list of
successful candidates in that competition — the Court of First
Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. García-Valdecasas,                 in Case T-186/01, Nicole Robert v European Parliament (1)
President, P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; D. Christensen,
Administrator, for the Registrar; has given a judgment on                        (Officials — Actions — Deadlines — Inadmissibility)
20 May 2003 in which it:
                                                                                (2003/C 171/35)
1.     Dismisses the application;
2.     Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                                              (Language of the case: French)
( 1) OJ C 186, 30. 6. 2001.
                                                                            In Case T-186/01: Nicole Robert, an official of the European
                                                                            Parliament, resident in Strassen (Luxembourg), represented by
                                                                            A. Lorang, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
                                                                            against European Parliament (Agents: H. von Hertzen and
                                                                            D. Moore) — application for annulment of the decision of the
                                                                            Parliament not to promote the applicant to Grade B 1 in the
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                promotion year 1999 — the Court of First Instance (Fifth
                                                                            Chamber), composed of R. García-Valdecasas, President, and
                            of 8 May 2003                                   P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for
                                                                            the Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 April 2003, in
in Case T-82/01: VOF Josanne and Others v Commission                        which it:
                of the European Communities ( 1)
                                                                            1.     Dismisses the application as inadmissible;
(Inland waterway transport — Community fleet capacity —
Conditions for putting new vessels into service (‘old-for-new’              2.     Orders each of the parties to bear its own costs.
                        rule) — Exemption)
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 317 of 10.11.01.
                           (2003/C 171/34)
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
In Case T-82/01, VOF Josanne, established in Papendrecht
(Netherlands), Pieter van Wijnen, resident in Papendrecht,                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Adrianus Jacobus van Wijnen, resident in Papendrecht, Anigje
Veen, resident in Meerkerk (Netherlands), represented by J. van                                       of 22 May 2003
Dam and Y. Ooykaas, lawyers, v Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: H. van Vliet and W. Wils): Application
for the annulment of Commission Decision SG (2001) D/                       in Case T-249/01: Marc Boixader Rivas against European
286100 of 9 February 2001 refusing the applicants’ request                                              Parliament (1)
for the exemption of the vessel Josanne from the scope of
Council Regulation (EC) No 718/1999 of 29 March 1999 on a                   (Officials — Competitions — Notice — Conditions for
Community-fleet capacity policy to promote inland waterway                  admission — Licenciatura degree or equivalent — Degree in
transport (OJ 1999 L 90, p. 1), the Court of First Instance                 technical engineering — Knowledge of a second official
(Third Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi              language — Evidence — Action for annulment — Decision
and M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Plingers, Registrar, has given a                  of the selection board — Objection of illegality of the notice
judgment on 8 May 2003, in which it has ruled:                                                         of competition
1.     Dismisses the application;                                                                     (2003/C 171/36)
2.     Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and pay those of
       the Commission.                                                                         (Language of the case: Spanish)
( 1) OJ C 186 of 30.6.2001.
                                                                            In Case T-249/01: Marc Boixader Rivas, technical engineer, of
                                                                            Spanish nationality, residing in Madrid, represented by


title: Case T-717/13: Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2014 — Chair Entertainment Group v OHIM — Libelle (SHADOW COMPLEX) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark SHADOW COMPLEX — Earlier Community word mark BusinessShadow — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               15.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 198/37

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2014 — Chair Entertainment Group v OHIM — Libelle (SHADOW COMPLEX)
   (Case T-717/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark SHADOW COMPLEX - Earlier Community word mark BusinessShadow - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 198/49)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Chair Entertainment Group LLC (Provo, Utah, United States) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Libelle AG (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: E. Strauß, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 October 2013 (Case R 776/2011 2), relating to opposition proceedings between Libelle AG and Chair Entertainment Group LLC.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Declares that Chair Entertainment Group LLC is to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);

               3.

               Declares that Libelle AG is to pay its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.


title: Case T-268/10 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2015 — PPG and SNF v ECHA (REACH — Identification of acrylamide as a substance of very high concern — Intermediates — Action for annulment — Whether directly concerned — Admissibility — Proportionality — Equal treatment)

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2015 — PPG and SNF v ECHA
   (Case T-268/10 RENV) (1)

   ((REACH - Identification of acrylamide as a substance of very high concern - Intermediates - Action for annulment - Whether directly concerned - Admissibility - Proportionality - Equal treatment))
   (2015/C 389/24)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Polyelectrolyte Producers Group GEIE (PPG) (Brussels, Belgium) and SNF SAS (Andrézieux-Bouthéon, France) (represented by: R. Cana, D. Abrahams and E. Mullier, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä, W. Broere and T. Zbihlej, acting as Agents, and by J. Stuyck and A.-M. Vandromme, lawyers)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: B. Koopman, acting as Agent); and European Commission (represented by: D. Kukovec, E. Manhaeve and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of ECHA (EC No 201-173-7) identifying acrylamide as a substance fulfilling the criteria referred to in Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006, concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1), in accordance with Article 59 thereof.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Polyelectrolyte Producers Group GEIE (PPG) and SNF SAS to pay their own costs and those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA);

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 9.10.2010.


title: Case C-323/11: Order of the President of the Court of 29 March 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of Denmark

text:
               4.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/12

         Order of the President of the Court of 29 March 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of Denmark
   (Case C-323/11) (1)

   2012/C 235/26
   Language of the case: Danish
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du Travail de Liège (7th Chamber) by judgment of that court of 17 June 1998 in the case of Marie-Nathalie D'Hoop against the Office National de l'Emploi (Case C-224/98)

text:
C 258/28                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    15.8.98
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kantongerecht              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du
te Groningen by judgments of that court of 20 May 1998                 Travail de LieÁge (7th Chamber) by judgment of that court
in the case of Hendrik Van der Woude against Stichting                 of 17 June 1998 in the case of Marie-Nathalie D'Hoop
                             Beatrixoord                                           against the Office National de l'Emploi
                          (Case C-222/98)                                                      (Case C-224/98)
                            (98/C 258/45)                                                       (98/C 258/47)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Kantongerecht
                                                                       European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal du
te Groningen (Cantonal Court, Groningen) of 20 May
                                                                       Travail de LieÁge (7eÁme chambre) (LieÁge Labour Court Ð
1998, received at the Court Registry on 17 June 1998, for
                                                                       7th Chamber) of 17 June 1998, received at the Court
a preliminary ruling in the case of Hendrik Van der
                                                                       Registry on 22 June 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the
Woude against Stichting Beatrixoord on the following
                                                                       case of Marie-Nathalie D'Hoop against the Office
question:
                                                                       National de l'Emploi on the following question:
Are Article II(G) of the CAO (1) (which prohibits any
departure from the terms of that collective labour                     Given that the Court of Justice has already interpreted
agreement (2)) and Article 32 thereof (which lays down the             Article 48 of the EC Treaty and Article 7 of Regulation
medical expenses insurance rules (3)), read in conjunction             No 1612/68 (1) to mean that Article 36 of the Royal
with each other, contrary to Articles 85 and 86 of the EC              Decree of 25 November 1991 cannot prevent a dependent
Treaty?                                                                child of a Community migrant worker who has completed
                                                                       his secondary education in an establishment in a Member
(1) Collectieve Arbeidsovereenkomst voor het ziekenhuiswezen           State other than Belgium from being eligible to receive the
    (Collective Labour Agreement relating to medical treatment).       tideover allowance, are those provisions to be interpreted
(2) may not . . . agree with the employee any conditions of           as meaning that Article 36 of the aforesaid royal decree
    employment which are not regulated by this CAO'.                   also cannot prevent a Belgian student who has completed
(3) Employees (and former employees) may be members of the             his secondary education in an establishment in a Member
    IZZ collective medical expenses insurance scheme. In               State other than Belgium and is seeking his first
    accordance with that article, Beatrixoord pays 50 % of the
                                                                       employment from being eligible to receive the tideover
    premium due from Mr Van der Woude in respect of the
    collective (individual) IZZ Medical Expenses Scheme.               allowance?
                                                                       (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968
                                                                           relating to the free movement of workers within the
                                                                           Community (OJ L 257 of 19.10.1968, p. 2).
Reference for a preliminary ruling by Kammarrätten,
Stockholm by order of 16 June 1998 in the case of
           Arlanda Customs Authority v Adidas AG
                          (Case C-223/98)
                                                                       Action brought on 22 June 1998 by the Commission of
                            (98/C 258/46)
                                                                         the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                                (Case C-225/98)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 16 June 1998 from                                              (98/C 258/48)
Kammarrätten, Stockholm (Administrative Court of
Appeal, Stockholm), which was received at the Court
Registry on 18 June 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the              An action against the French Republic was brought before
case of Arlanda Customs Authority v Adidas AG on the                   the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
following question:                                                    22 June 1998 by the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities, represented by Michael Nolin, of its Legal
                                                                       Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Does Council Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 (1) constitute a
                                                                       Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of
bar to application of rules of national law under which
                                                                       its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
the names of declarers or consignees of imported goods,
which the trade-mark owner has found to be counterfeit,
may not be disclosed to the trade-mark owner?                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 of 22 December 1994
    laying down measures to prohibit the release from free             Declare that, in the course of the various procedures for
    circulation, export, re-export or entry for a suspensive           the award of public service contracts for the construction
    procedure of counterfeit and pirated goods (OJ L 341 of            and maintenance of school buildings conducted by the
    30.12.1994, p. 8).                                                 Nord-Pas de Calais Region and the DeÂpartement du Nord
                                                                       over a period of three years, the French Republic has
                                                                       failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 59 of the EC


title: Case T-7/09: Judgment of the General Court of 21 April 2010 — Schunk v OHIM (Presentation of part of a chuck) (Community trade mark — Application for a Community trade mark in the form of a presentation of part of a chuck with three grooves — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Lack of distinctive character acquired by use — Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 April 2010 — Schunk v OHIM (Presentation of part of a chuck)
   (Case T-7/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for a Community trade mark in the form of a presentation of part of a chuck with three grooves - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Lack of distinctive character acquired by use - Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2010/C 148/52
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Schunk GmbH & Co KG Spann- und Greiftechnik (Lauffen am Neckar, Germany) (represented by: C. Koppe-Zagouras, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 October 2008 (Case R 1109/2007-1) concerning the registration of the sign in the form of a presentation of part of a chuck with three grooves as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Schunk GmbH & Co KG Spann- und Greiftechnik to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 21.3.2009.


title: Case C-532/09 P: Appeal brought on 18 December 2009 by Vladimir Ivanov against the order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) delivered on 30 September 2009 in Case T-166/08 Ivanov v Commission

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/22

         Appeal brought on 18 December 2009 by Vladimir Ivanov against the order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) delivered on 30 September 2009 in Case T-166/08 Ivanov v Commission
   (Case C-532/09 P)
   2010/C 51/36
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Vladimir Ivanov (represented by: R. Rollinger, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare the appeal admissible;

               —

               declare the appeal well founded;

               —

               annul the order of the Court of First Instance of 30 September 2009;

               —

               decide the case in accordance with the application initiating the proceedings;

               —

               order the opposing party to pay the costs of both instances.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant relies on three grounds in support of his appeal:
   By his first ground, which is made up of two parts, the appellant claims that the Court of First Instance should not have used abuse of process to justify the inadmissibility of his action for non-contractual liability, since the very limited scope of abuse of process extends only to exceptional cases in which the object of the action for damages is payment of a sum identical to that which the appellant would have obtained if he had succeeded in an action for annulment. In the present case, the action for damages brought by the appellant is entirely independent, the appellant wishing to render the Commission non-contractually liable for the conduct adopted in his regard, rather than to achieve a financial situation identical to that which he would have had in the event of the annulment of the Commission decisions.
   In that context, the appellant claims, moreover, that the Court was not entitled to raise abuse of process of its own motion, since the burden of proof for abuse of process rests on the defendant.
   By his second ground, the appellant claims that the Court erred in law by requiring a finding of unlawful conduct on the part of the Commission as a precondition for it to be rendered non-contractually liable, although unlawful conduct of the Community institution is no longer one of the grounds in the most recent case-law of the Court on which the institutions can be rendered liable.
   By his third ground, the appellant claims, lastly, that, in ruling that an action for annulment was more appropriate than an action for damages, the contested order adversely affected his right to an effective remedy, as recognised by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.


title: Case T-74/11: Judgment of the General Court of 30 May 2013 — Omnis Group v Commission (Competition — Abuse of dominant position — Market for the provision of Enterprise Resource Planning software (ERP) and Enterprise Application Software (EAS) — Decision rejecting a complaint — No European Union interest)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/66

         Judgment of the General Court of 30 May 2013 — Omnis Group v Commission
   (Case T-74/11) (1)

   (Competition - Abuse of dominant position - Market for the provision of Enterprise Resource Planning software (ERP) and Enterprise Application Software (EAS) - Decision rejecting a complaint - No European Union interest)
   2013/C 225/147
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Parties

      Applicant: Omnis Group Srl (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: D.-A.-F. Tarara, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, A. Biolan and J. Bourke, subsequently by A. Biolan and C. Hödlmayr, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Microsoft Corp. (Redmond, Washington, United States) (represented by: A.-M. Baciu and G. Harapcea, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 8529 of 1 December 2010 rejecting the complaint (Case COMP/39.784 — Omnis/Microsoft) concerning alleged infringements of Articles 101 TFEU, 102 TFEU and 106 TFEU by Microsoft Corp. on the market for Enterprise Application Software, referred to as ‘Enterprise Application Software/Enterprise Resource Planning’ systems.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Omnis Group Srl to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 26.3.2011.


title: Case T-503/10: Judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2012 — IDT Biologika v Commission (Public supply contracts — Call for tenders — Supply in Serbia of rabies vaccines — Rejection of a submitted tender — Award of the contract to another tenderer)

text:
               8.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 379/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2012 — IDT Biologika v Commission
   (Case T-503/10) (1)

   (Public supply contracts - Call for tenders - Supply in Serbia of rabies vaccines - Rejection of a submitted tender - Award of the contract to another tenderer)
   2012/C 379/37
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: IDT Biologika GmbH (Dessau-Roßlau, Germany) (represented by: R. Gross, T. Kroupa, T. Drosdziok and F. Ahr, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher and T. Scharf, agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the decision dated 10 August 2010 of the European Union delegation in the Republic of Serbia (OJ 2010/S 192-293332) awarding the contract in the call for tenders EuropeAid/129809/C/SUP/RS for the supply of rabies vaccines for vaccination campaigns in Serbia to the consortium directed by the company Bioveta a.s. and rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The General Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders IDT Biologika GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.


title: Action brought on 10 July 1995 by Proderec - Formação e Desenvolvimento de Recursos Humanos, ACE - against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-145/95)

text:
No C 268/24             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   14 . 10 . 95
Second,      the  Commission         determined    the  reduction       The applicant claims that the Court should:
coefficients without first preparing a supply balance for
1995 , as required by Article 16 of Council Regulation ( EEC )          — annul the decision of the Commission notified to
No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 establishing the common                       the applicant by letter No 5445 from DAFSE
organization of the market in bananas ( 2 ). Failure to prepare             ( Departamento para Asuntos do Fundo Social Europeu
such a supply balance amounts to a procedural irregularity                  — the Portuguese European Social Fund Agency ) of
entailing the illegality of any determination of the reduction              11 May 1995 , amending, changing and reducing the
coefficients by reference to the quota .                                    amount which had been initially approved and granted
                                                                            by another Commission decision approving file Nos
Third, in determining the reduction coefficient, the                        881311 PI and 880249 P3 ,
Commission infringed the principles of fairness,
reasonableness and good administration . The applicants                 — order the Commission to pay the costs .
maintain that the coefficients of 57, 15 and 28 % , applied by
the Commission to quantities of bananas handled by                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
primary importers, secondary importers and ripeners
respectively, are quite arbitrary . Moreover, those three               The application alleges the following defects vitiate the
categories of operators have not been clearly defined in such           legality of the Commission's decision which considers the
a way as to prevent the same bananas from being counted                 expenditure ineligible and orders the repayment of the
more than once in each of the three categories of operators .           amounts received by the applicant by way of initial
The Commission should have drawn up rules of                            advance :
administration to eliminate or reduce the risks of double
counting, but failed to do so, with the result that the                 — the decision which has now been notified to the
category of secondary importer has been wrongfully                          applicant is, even now, non-existent in its view because it
extended by some Member States . Furthermore, by reason                     has no knowledge of its actual content,
of a contradiction between the provisions of Articles 4 ( 3 )
and 7 of Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 1442/93 of                    — the decision is unlawful inasmuch as it infringes Council
10 June 1993 laying down detailed rules for the application                 Decision 83/516/EEC of 17 October 1983 on the tasks
of the arrangements for importing bananas into the                          of the European Social Fund, Council Regulation ( EEC )
Community ( 3 ), the criteria for entitlement to a quota                    No 2950/83 of 17 October 1983 on the implementation
allocation have been more strictly applied in some Member                   of Decision 83/516/EEC and Commission Decision
States than in others . In addition, the Commission has not                  83/673/EEC of 22 December 1983 on the management
required operators to keep adequate records of the source of                 of the European Social Fund,
their fruits, with the serious consequence that bananas
imported otherwise than under category A licences appear                — the decision infringes the initial decision approving the
to have been taken into account as part of the category A                    files, which imposes only one condition : implementation
reference quantities .                                                       of the operations . The condition imposed on the
                                                                             applicant was fulfilled and the operations were
(') OJ No L 310 , 3 . 12 . 1994 .
                                                                             implemented,
 ( 2 ) OJ No L 47, 25 . 2 . 1993 .
 (•') OJ No L 142 , 12 . 6 . 1993 .                                     — the decision is fundamentally contradictory in view of
                                                                             the contents of the letter from DAFSE notifying it, thus
                                                                             infringing the applicant's rights of defence,
                                                                        — the decision also infringes essential procedural
                                                                             requirements inasmuch as it lacks a statement of reasons
                                                                             or at least is based on assumptions which are erroneous,
                                                                             obscure and inconsistent, which, in the view of the
Action brought on 10 July 1995 by Proderec — Formaçâo e                      applicant, constitute insufficient grounds.
 Desenvolvimento de Recursos Humanos, ACE — against
         the Commission of the European Communities
                           ( Case T-145/95 )
                             ( 95/C 268/52 )
                                                                         Action brought on 13 July 1995 by Giorgio Bernardi against
               (Language of tbe case: Portuguese)                                            the European Parliament
                                                                                ( Case T-146/95 )
 An action against the Commission of the European                                                  ( 95/C 268/53 )
  Communities was brought before the Court of First
  Instance of the European Communities on 10 July 1995 by                                 (Language of tbe case: Frencb)
  Proderec — Formaçâo e Desenvolvimento de Recursos
  Humanos, ACE, whose registered office is at 7B Avenida 25
  de Abril, S/loja, Almada , represented by Manuel Rodrigues,            An action against the European Parliament was brought
  of the Lisbon Bar, with an address for service in                      before the Court of First Instance of the European
  Luxembourg at 2 place Virchow, 2671 Luxembourg.                        Communities on 13 July 1995 by Giorgio Bernardi, residing


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Aachen by order of that court of 6 November 1996 in the administrative penalty proceedings against Hermann Josef Goerres (Case C-385/96)

text:
No C 26 /6                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      25 .  . 97
       before the entry into force of the Regulation to the                   on the approximation of the laws of the Member
       common organization of the market and are not                           States relating to the labelling, presentation and
       caused by a lack of care on the part of the traders                    advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate
       concerned.                                                             consumer (!), if he puts foodstuffs on the market in
                                                                              the Federal Republic of Germany which are labelled in
2 . The EC Treaty does not authorize national courts to                       Italian, French or English ?
       order provisional measures in proceedings for the
      grant of interim relief until such time as the                     2 . If not, does the trader satisfy the requirements of
       Commission has adopted an act with legal effect to                     Article 14 of Council Directive 79/ 112/EEC at least if
      deal, in accordance with Article 30 of Regulation                       he places a supplementary sign in his shop at the
       (EEC) No 404/93 , with cases of hardship affecting                     location of the goods in question, containing the
      traders .
                                                                              prescribed particulars in German ?
(!) OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 .
                                                                         (') OJ No L 33 , 8 . 2 . 1979 , p . 1 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 47, 25 . 2 . 1993 , p . 1 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal du                    Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Svea Hovratt
Travail, Charleroi, by judgment of that court of                         by order of that court of 22 November 1996 in the case of
7 November 1996 in the case of Louisette Cordelle                                      Anders Sjoberg v. Public Prosecutor
                against Office National des Pensions                                               ( Case C-387/96)
                           ( Case C-366/96 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 26/11 )
                              ( 97/C 26/09 )
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   European Communities by an order of the Svea Hovratt
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal du                      ( Svea Court of Appeal ) of 22 November 1996, which was
Travail ( Labour Court), Charleroi, of 7 November 1996,                  received at the Court Registry on 27 November 1996, for
received at the Court Registry on 21 November 1996, for                  a preliminary ruling in the case of Anders Sjoberg v.
a preliminary ruling in the case of Louisette Cordelle                   Public Prosecutor on the following questions:
against Office National des Pensions on the following
question:
                                                                         1 . Is the derogation contained in Article 13 ( 1 ) ( b ) of
Having regard to the benefits paid in accordance with                         Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3820/85 of 20 December
French law by the Caisse regionale d'assurance maladie                        1985 on the harmonization of certain social legislation
Nord Picardie and to the retirement pension payable                           relating to road transport ( ! ) applicable to the services
under Belgian law, is the rule preventing the overlapping                     run by Stockholm Lan Council using SL Buss AB ?
of benefits laid down by Article 52 of the Royal Decree of
21 December 1967 applicable in the light of the                          2 . According to Article 14 ( 5 ), drivers on services
Community rules ?                                                             mentioned in paragraph ( 1 ) must carry an extract
                                                                              from the duty roster and a copy of the service
                                                                              timetable. Is it sufficient for the extract from the duty
                                                                              roster to cover only the journeys made on the day in
                                                                              question ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht                  (!) OJ No L 370, 31 . 12. 1985 , p. 1 .
Aachen by order of that court of 6 November 1996 in the
administrative penalty proceedings against Hermann Josef
                                 Goerres
                           ( Case C-385 /96 )
                              ( 97/C 26/ 10 )
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwal
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   tungsgericht by order of that court of 25 September 1996
European Communities by an order of the Amtsgericht                      in the case of Aher-Waggon GmbH against the Federal
Aachen ( Aachen Local Court) of 6 November 1996 ,                                               Republic of Germany
which was received at the Court Registry on 28 November                                            ( Case C-389/96 )
1996, for a preliminary ruling in the administrative                                                  ( 97/C 26/ 12 )
penalty proceedings against Hermann Josef Goerres on the
following questions:
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
1.    Does a trader act in accordance with Article 14 of                 the European Communities by order of the Bundes
      Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December 1978                   verwaltungsgericht ( Federal Administrative Court) of


title: Case C-183/08 P: Order of the Court of 5 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Provincia di Imperia (Appeal — Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure — Conditions governing the admissibility of an action for annulment — Interest in bringing an action — Call for proposals regarding the financing of innovative actions under the European Social Fund — Dismissal — Benefit for the applicant arising from a possible annulment of the contested act)

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/17

         Order of the Court of 5 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Provincia di Imperia
   (Case C-183/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure - Conditions governing the admissibility of an action for annulment - Interest in bringing an action - Call for proposals regarding the financing of innovative actions under the European Social Fund - Dismissal - Benefit for the applicant arising from a possible annulment of the contested act)
   2009/C 113/34
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Martin and L. Flynn, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Provincia di Imperia (represented by: K. Platteau and S. Rostagno, avocats)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 14 February 2008 in Case T-351/05 Provincia di Imperia v Commission, by which the Court of First Instance declared admissible (but unfounded) the action brought by the applicant, seeking the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 30 June 2005 to refuse to grant a subsidy in the context of a call for proposals concerning innovative measures under the European Social Fund — Infringement of the conditions governing the admissibility of an action for annulment — The notion of an interest in bringing an action — No benefit for the applicant arising from a possible annulment of the contested act

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed as manifestly unfounded.

               2.

               The Commission of the European Communities shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 15.8.2008.


title: Case T-172/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Stahlwerk Bous v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate — Action for annulment — Application to amend the form of order sought — No new information — Inadmissibility)

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/50

         Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Stahlwerk Bous v Commission
   (Case T-172/14) (1)

   ((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate - Action for annulment - Application to amend the form of order sought - No new information - Inadmissibility))
   (2015/C 294/60)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Stahlwerk Bous GmbH (Bous, Germany) (represented by: H. Höfler, C. Kahle and V. Winkler, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by C. Renner, lawyer)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: EFTA Surveillance Authority (represented by: initially X. Lewis, M. Schneider, M. Moustakali and C. Perrin, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.

               2.

               The application seeking that the form of order sought in the present action be amended to cover Commission decision C (2014) 8786 final of 25 November 2014 relating to State Aid SA. 33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users is rejected as inadmissible.

               3.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications for intervention submitted by Flachglas Torgau GmbH and Saint-Gobain Isover G+H AG, by Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG and Kronoply GmbH, by Bayer MaterialScience AG, by Sabic Polyolefine GmbH, by Ineos Manufacturing Deutschland GmbH, Ineos Phenol GmbH and Ineos Vinyls Deutschland GmbH, and by Advansa GmbH, Akzo Nobel Industrial Chemicals GmbH, Aurubis AG, CBW Chemie GmbH, CFB Chemische Fabrik Brunsbüttel GmbH & Co. KG, Clariant Produkte (Deutschland) GmbH, Dralon GmbH, Hahl Filaments GmbH, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Siegen, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Salzgitter, Nabaltec AG, Siltronic AG and Wacker Chemie AG.

               4.

               Stahlwerk Bous GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

               5.

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.


title: Case T-191/99: Action brought on 25 August 1999 by David Petrie, Victoria Jane Primhak, David Verzoni and A.L.L.S.I. (Associazione Lettori di Lingua Straniera in Italia) against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
30.10.1999               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 314/11
Action brought on 20 August 1999 by Euroalliages against                   Action brought on 25 August 1999 by David Petrie,
        the Commission of the European Communities                         Victoria Jane Primhak, David Verzoni and A.L.L.S.I. (Asso-
                                                                           ciazione Lettori di Lingua Straniera in Italia) against the
                          (Case T-188/99)                                           Commission of the European Communities
                          (1999/C 314/25)                                                           (Case T-191/99)
                     (Language of the case: French)                                                 (1999/C 314/26)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on                                        (Language of the case: Italian)
20 August 1999 by Euroalliages (Comité de Liaison des
Industries de Ferro-Alliages), an association established in
Brussels, represented by Dominique Voillemot and Olivier
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Prost, of the Paris Bar.
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 25 August 1999 by David Petrie,
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:              Victoria Jane Primhak, David Verzoni and A.L.L.S.I. (Associa-
                                                                           zione Lettori di Lingua Straniera in Italia), with Professor
— annul the sole article of the Commission’s decision of                   Lorenzo Picotti and Claude Medernach, of the Verona and
      4 June 1999 terminating the anti-dumping proceeding                  Luxembourg Bars, with an address for service in Luxembourg
      concerning imports of ferro-silicon originating in Egypt             at the latter’s Chambers, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
      and Poland;
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            — annul the European Commission’s refusal or failure
                                                                                — evident both from the letters of 3 May 1999 and 20 July
By the contested decision of 4 June 1999, the Commission                        1999, and from its neglectful conduct — to recognise the
declared that the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports                    applicants’ right of access to documents in its possession
of ferro-silicon falling within CN codes 7202 21 10,                            relating to the infringement procedure under Article 169
7202 21 90 and 7202 29 90 originating in Egypt and Poland                       of the EEC Treaty concerning the Italian Republic
was terminated.                                                                 (No 96/2208); and, in particular, annul the Commission’s
                                                                                decision of 20 July 1999, together with all other entailed
                                                                                or related measures or actions and as a consequence order
That decision had already been the subject of an initial                        the Commission to allow such access and to pay the costs
publication under number 1999/366/EC (1). Three days later,                     of the proceedings.
it was stated that that initial publication was ‘to be considered
void’ (2).
The contested decision was then published anew under number                Pleas in law and main arguments
1999/426/EC (3) and notified to the applicant.
The applicant considers:                                                   The applicants take issue with the Commission’s refusal of
                                                                           access to documents in its possession relating to the infringe-
— that that decision disregards the arguments which it                     ment procedure under Article 226 of the EEC Treaty concern-
      submitted in writing and orally to the Commission in                 ing the discriminatory character of the Italian legislation
      opposition to that termination; and                                  serving as the basis for the recruitment of university language
                                                                           assistants of foreign mother tongue — in particular, of
— that, in adopting that decision, the Commission committed                Article 28 of DPR 382/80 — and of the rules applying to
      a manifest error of assessment as regards the likelihood of          temporary teaching posts.
      a recurrence of injury within the meaning of Article 11(2)
      of the basic regulation (4).
                                                                           The contested decision is based on two different grounds. In
( 1) OJ L 142 of 5.6.1999, p. 36.
                                                                           respect of one group of documents, the pretext for refusing
(2) OJ L 144 of 9.6.1999, p. 37.                                           access was the fact that, whereas the code of conduct adopted
(3) OJ L 166 of 1.7.1999, p. 91.                                           by the Commission in 1994 refers solely to ‘own’ documents,
(4) Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on               the documents requested were for internal circulation within
     protection against dumped imports from countries not members          the Italian administration. As regards the second group of
     of the European Community (OJ L 56 of 6.3.1996, p. 1).                documents, on the other hand, the Commission dismissed the
                                                                           possibility of access on grounds of protection of the public
                                                                           interest, since they concern the infringement procedure
                                                                           initiated in respect of Italy.
 ---pagebreak--- C 314/12              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    30.10.1999
In support of the forms of order sought, the applicants allege:         — in the alternative, to annul the said decision purportedly
                                                                            taken by the Management Committee;
— infringement of Article 253 (formerly Article 190) and
    Article 255 (formerly Article 191a) of the EC Treaty, as
    amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam;                                 — further or in the alternative, to annul the decision taken by
                                                                            the Board of Directors of the European Investment Bank
                                                                            on 23 February 1999;
— breach of the code of conduct of 6 December 1993,
    adopted by Commission Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Eura-
    tom, on public access to Commission documents; and                  — further to annul the payslips issued to the applicants in
                                                                            respect of their remuneration for the month of January
— breach of the principles of logical coherence, rationality                1999 and for successive months;
    and proper balancing of interests, which must direct the
    exercise of any discretion conferred upon the Commission
    in such matters.                                                    — to order the payment to the applicants by the Bank, with
                                                                            interest, of the difference between the amounts which the
                                                                            applicants have received by way of remuneration since
The above code of conduct refers, when stating general                      1 January 1999, and the amounts which they would have
principles, to ‘Commission and Council documents’, and                      received if the ‘special conversion rate’ had been applied;
defines ‘document’ as ‘any written text ... which ... is held by
the Commission or the Council’. However, a decision such as
the contested decision does not meet the requirement of                 — order the payment by the Bank of the applicants’ costs of
transparency laid down by the Treaty of Amsterdam. Lastly,                  these proceedings.
according to the applicants, it does not appear that any of the
documents relating to the procedure under Article 226 of the
Treaty is covered by the exemption based or public law. In any
event, the exemption does not operate on the basis of
indiscriminate blanket coverage, but requires a specific state-         Pleas in law and main arguments
ment of reasons in respect of each individual document.
                                                                        The dispute which is the subject of these proceedings relates
                                                                        to action taken by the European Investment Bank in connec-
                                                                        tion with the introduction, as from 1 January 1999, of the
                                                                        euro as a single currency in 11 out of the 15 Member States of
                                                                        the European Union. Like the other institutions and bodies of
                                                                        the European Union, the Bank has chosen to replace the
                                                                        Belgian and Luxembourg franc (BEF/LUF) with the euro as the
Action brought on 31 August 1999 by Roderick Dunnett,                   currency in which, from January 1999, the remuneration and
Thomas Hackett, and Mateo Turró Calvet against the                     pensions of its staff are to be expressed and calculated. The
                 European Investment Bank                               impact of the change of the purchasing power of the officials
                                                                        of those other institutions and bodies is intended to be entirely
                                                                        neutral. That is in contrast to the position in which, as
                        (Case T-192/99)
                                                                        from January 1999, members of the staff of the Bank find
                                                                        themselves. Some of them have suffered a significant loss of
                        (1999/C 314/27)                                 purchasing power, as compared with their position in Decem-
                                                                        ber 1998, owing to the discontinuation of the mechanism
                                                                        known as the ‘special conversion rate’, which has been applied
                  (Language of the case: English)                       by the Bank since 1982 in respect of the portion of an
                                                                        individual’s remuneration payable in a currency other than
                                                                        BEF/LUF.
An action against the European Investment Bank was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 31 August 1999 by Roderick Dunnett, Thomas Hackett                   There appears to be no formal text of a decision of the
and Mateo Turró Calvet, represented by Professor A.A. Dash-            Management Committee abolishing this mechanism. The only
wood and Wendy Outhwaite, with an address for service in                trace of such a decision can be found in some documents
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arsène Kronshagen, 22 rue                 that refer to the adoption of a decision by the so-called
Marie Adelaïde.                                                         ‘non-opposition procedure’, which was concluded on 11 June
                                                                        1998. At its meeting of 23 February 1999, the Board of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Directors purported to confirm the Management Committee’s
                                                                        Decision to abolish the mechanism. The payslips of the
— declare that the internal note to the Management Com-                 applicants for the month of January 1999 show that the
    mittee of the European Investment Bank dated 5 June                 discontinuance of the mechanism has taken effect.
    1998 and the minutes of the decision of the Management
    Committee thereon dated 10 and 11 June 1998 do not,
    taken together, constitute a valid decision of the Manage-          The applicants consider, however, that in fact the Management
    ment Committee to abolish, as from the introduction of              Committee has not adopted a decision to abolish the mechan-
    the single currency on 1 January 1999, the so-called                ism in the context of the non-opposition procedure of June
    ‘special conversion rate’;                                          1998. In the absence of such a decision, the mechanism


title: Case T-554/10: Judgment of the General Court of 22 April 2015 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Frontex (Public procurement — Tendering procedures — Information technology services, hardware and software licences — Rejection of a tenderer’s bids — Obligation to state reasons — Selection and award criteria — Manifest error of assessment — Non-contractual liability)

text:
               8.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/8

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 April 2015 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Frontex
   (Case T-554/10) (1)

   ((Public procurement - Tendering procedures - Information technology services, hardware and software licences - Rejection of a tenderer’s bids - Obligation to state reasons - Selection and award criteria - Manifest error of assessment - Non-contractual liability))
   (2015/C 190/09)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and M. Dermitzakis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex) (represented by: S. Vuorensola and H. Caniard, acting as Agents, and by J. Stuyck and A.-M. Vandromme, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application, first, for annulment of the decisions to reject the applicant’s bids for the call for tenders Frontex/OP/87/2010 relating to a framework contract for ‘ICT Services’ in the field of management technologies and information security (OJ 2010/S 66-098323) and for the call for tenders Frontex/OP/98/2010 concerning the Eurosur big pilot project in the field of information technologies and communications (OJ 2010/S 90-134098), and also of all associated decisions, including the decisions to award the contracts to other tenderers, and, secondly, for damages for the harm allegedly sustained as a result of the contracts being awarded to those tenderers.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex) of 18 October 2010 to reject the bid of Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE, filed in response to call for tenders 2010/S 66-098323, for Lot 1 (Information systems), for the supply of informatics services, hardware and software licences;

               2.

               Annuls the decision of Frontex of 18 October 2010 to reject the bid of Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE, filed in response to call for tenders 2010/S 66-098323, for Lot 6 (Enterprise content management systems), for the supply of informatics services, hardware and software licences;

               3.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               4.

               Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to bear 50 % of its own costs and pay 50 % of the costs incurred by Frontex, and Frontex to bear 50 % of its own costs and pay 50 % of those incurred by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE.

      (1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.


title: Case T-341/12: Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2015  — Evonik Degussa GmbH v Commission (Competition — Administrative procedure — European hydrogen peroxide and perborate market — Publication of a decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Rejection of a request for confidential treatment of information given to the Commission pursuant to the latter’s Leniency Notice — Obligation to state reasons — Confidentiality — Professional secrecy — Legitimate expectations)

text:
               16.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2015 — Evonik Degussa GmbH v Commission
   (Case T-341/12) (1)

   ((Competition - Administrative procedure - European hydrogen peroxide and perborate market - Publication of a decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Rejection of a request for confidential treatment of information given to the Commission pursuant to the latter’s Leniency Notice - Obligation to state reasons - Confidentiality - Professional secrecy - Legitimate expectations))
   (2015/C 089/17)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Evonik Degussa GmbH (Essen, Germany) (represented by: C. Steinle, M. Holm-Hadulla and C. von Köckritz, avocats)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito, M. Kellerbauer and G. Meessen, Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 3534 final of 24 May 2012 refusing Evonik Degussa’s request for confidential treatment under Article 8 of Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen Peroxide and Perborate).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Evonik Degussa GmbH to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings for interim relief.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 13.10.2012.