title: Case C-478/99: Action brought on 16 December 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Sweden

text:
C 63/12                 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                          4.3.2000
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            Action brought on 16 December 1999 by the Commission
                                                                       of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
1. Declare that, by failing to adopt all the rules, regulations                                       Sweden
     and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Com-
     mission Directive 95/30/EC of 30 June 1995 adapting to
     technical progress Council Directive 90/679/EEC on the
     protection of workers from risks related to exposure to                                     (Case C-478/99)
     biological agents at work (seventh individual Directive
     within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive
     89/391/EEC) (1) into national law within the prescribed
     period, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its                                     (2000/C 63/24)
     obligations under the EC Treaty;
2. Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
                                                                       An action against the Kingdom of Sweden was brought
                                                                       before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        16 December 1999 by the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities, represented by Leo Parpal and Paolo Stancanelli,
                                                                       of the Commission’s Legal Service, both acting as Agents, with
The pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those in             an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlo
Case C-460/99 (2) the period for transposition prescribed in           Gómez de la Cruz, of the Commission’s Legal Service, Wagner
Article 2 of Directive 95/30/EC expired on 30 November                 Centre, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
1996.
(1) OJ 1995 L 155, p. 41.
(2) See p. 11 of this Official Journal.                                The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       1. Declare that the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its
                                                                             obligations under Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993
                                                                             on unfair terms in consumer contracts by not adopting the
                                                                             laws and other provisions required to transpose the annex
                                                                             referred to in Article 3(3) of the directive into national law;
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberverwal-
tungsgericht Rheinland-Pfalz by order of that court of
8 December 1999 in the case of Ambulanz Glöckner                       2. Order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.
against Landkreis Südwestpfalz, joined as third parties:
1. Arbeiter-Samariter-Bund Landesverband Rheinland-
Pfalz e.V., 2. Deutsches Rotes Kreuz Landesverband
Rheinland-Pfalz e.V., participant: representative of the
                       public interest, Mainz
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
                           (Case C-475/99)
                            (2000/C 63/23)                             The Commission considers that it is important for the Directive
                                                                       to be implemented in such a way that the requirement for
                                                                       legal certainty is ensured and that the legal situation is clear to
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 individuals so that they can become acquainted with all their
European Communities by order of the Oberverwaltungs-                  rights.
gericht Rheinland-Pfalz (Rhineland-Palatinate Higher Adminis-
trative Court) of 8 December 1999, received at the Court
Registry on 15 December 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Ambulanz Glöckner against Landkreis Südwestpfalz,              Article 8 of the Directive establishes that the directive has
joined as third parties: 1. Arbeiter-Samariter-Bund Landesver-         minimal character whilst Article 3(3) refers to an indicative list
band Rheinland-Pfalz e.V., 2. Deutsches Rotes Kreuz Landes-            in the annex. Member States can add new conditions, formulate
verband Rheinland-Pfalz e.V., participant: representative of the       conditions more strictly (so as to make them more restrictive
public interest, Mainz, on the following question:                     for traders) or alter the ‘scope’ defined in point 2(a)2 of the
                                                                       list. On the other hand, they cannot exclude terms or formulate
Is the concession of a monopoly for the provision of ambu-             them in a way less favourable for consumers. The fact that
lance services over a defined geographical area compatible             Article 3(3) refers to the list and that the seventeenth recital of
with Article 86(1) and Article 81 of the EC Treaty?                    the preamble states that the scope of the terms referred to may
                                                                       only be the subject of amplification or more restrictive editing
                                                                       by the Member States in their national laws also leads to the
                                                                       conclusion that the list must be enacted in national legislation.
 ---pagebreak--- 4.3.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 63/13
The Commission considers that the list in the annex to                  Appeal brought on 20 December 1999 by Gerry Plant
Directive 93/13 is designed to establish a functioning internal         and 16 others against the order made on 29 September
market and to improve consumer protection, based inter alia             1999 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First
on information for consumers. This is to be achieved by                 Instance of the European Communities in joined cases
amplifying and specifying the general criteria indicated in             T-148/98 between J.G. Evans and others and the Com-
Article 3(1) of the Directive. This increases legal certainty for       mission of the European Communities and T-162/98
both Swedish and foreign economic agents and consumers                  between South Wales Small Mines Association and the
whilst at the same time the various authorities apply the law                    Commission of the European Communities
in a more uniform way. The Commission also believes that the
list is of invaluable assistance for traders when they draw up
their standard terms and conditions and that the number of                                      (Case C-480/99 P)
possible disputes can be reduced in this way. In the Com-
mission’s view, these aims, and the particular argument                                            (2000/C 63/26)
concerning clarity and information, can only be achieved if
the list in the annex to the Directive is made generally known
by being published as a part of the legal act by which the              An appeal against the order made on 29 September by the
directive is implemented.                                               Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                        Communities in joined cases T-148/98 (1) between J.G. Evans
                                                                        and others and the Commission of the European Communities
(1) OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.                                                and T-162/ 98 (2) between South Wales Small Mines Associ-
                                                                        ation and the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                        Communities on 20 December 1999 by Gerry Plant and
                                                                        16 others, established in the United Kingdom, represented by
                                                                        Barbara Hewson, of the Bar of England and Wales, and Thomas
                                                                        Graham, Solicitors, with an address for service in Luxembourg
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht                 at the Chambers of Nathan & Noesen, 18, rue des Glacis.
Düsseldorf by order of that court of 8 December 1999 in
the case of Vobis Microcomputer AG against Haupt-
                         zollamt Aachen                                 The Appellants claim:
                         (Case C-479/99)                                1. that the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                            29 September 1999 be set aside;
                          (2000/C 63/25)
                                                                        2. that the Application to annul is admissible and that the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      Court of First Instance should deal with the substance of
European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Düssel-                  the Application;
dorf (Düsseldorf Finance Court) of 8 December 1999, received
at the Court Registry on 16 December 1999, for a preliminary
                                                                        3. alternatively, that the issue of admissibility should be
ruling in the case of Vobis Microcomputer AG against
                                                                            referred back to a freshly constituted Court of First
Hauptzollamt Aachen on the following questions:
                                                                            Instance, and that the Appellants should first have the
1.      Is the Combined Nomenclature, as amended by Annex I                 opportunity to have knowledge of, and to comment on,
to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1153/97 of 24 June                         all evidence adduced or observations filed by SWSMA;
1997 (1) amending Annex 1 to Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on            4. that the Commission pay the costs of this appeal and the
the Common Customs Tariff, to be interpreted as meaning that                application below.
electronic assemblies which enable automatic data-processing
equipment and units thereof to process audio signals (sound
cards) must be classified under heading 8471, 8473 or 8543?
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
2.      Are Commission Regulation (EC) No 1153/97 of 24 June
1997 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2086/97 of
4 November 1997 (2) amending Annex I to Council Regulation              The Appellants bring this appeal against the contested order
(EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature             on the basis of a breach of the procedure before the Court of
and on the Common Customs Tariff valid in so far as, in                 First Instance which adversely affects the interest of the
accordance with them, the sound cards described at 1 are                Appellants and/or infringements of Community law by the
covered by heading 8543 of the Combined Nomenclature?                   Court of First Instance, in particular:
                                                                        1. The Court of First Instance failed to apply the relevant law
(1) OJ 1997 L 168, p. 35.
(2) OJ 1997 L 312, p. 1.
                                                                            in that it failed to find that the Appellants were concerned
                                                                            by the Commission’s decision under Article 33 ECSC and
                                                                            were entitled to notification of the Decision as persons
                                                                            concerned by the Decision under Article 15 ECSC;


title: Case C-80/10: Order of the President of the Court of 12 November 2010 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

text:
               19.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/13

         Order of the President of the Court of 12 November 2010 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-80/10) (1)

   2011/C 89/25
   Language of the case: Greek
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.


title: Case T-52/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2008 — Knauf Gips v Commission (Competition — Cartels — Plasterboard market — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Access to the file — Single and continuous infringement — Liability — Fine — Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Cooperation during the administrative procedure)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/40

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2008 — Knauf Gips v Commission
   (Case T-52/03) (1)

   (Competition - Cartels - Plasterboard market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Access to the file - Single and continuous infringement - Liability - Fine - Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Cooperation during the administrative procedure)
   (2008/C 209/68)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Knauf Gips KG, formerly Gebrüder Knauf Westdeutsche Gipswerke KG (Iphofen, Germany) (represented initially by M. Klusmann and F. Wiemer, and subsequently by M. Klusmann, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by F. Castillo de la Torre and S. Rating, and subsequently by F. Castillo de la Torre and R. Sauer, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2005/471/EC of 27 November 2002 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] against BPB plc, Gebrüder Knauf Westdeutsche Gipswerke KG, Société Lafarge SA and Gyproc Benelux NV (Case No COMP/E-1/37.152 — Plasterboard) (OJ 2005 L 166, p. 8), or, in the alternative, reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Knauf Gips KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 124, 24.5.2003.


title: Case T-304/08: Action brought on 5 August 2008 — Smurfit Kappa Group v Commission

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/30

         Action brought on 5 August 2008 — Smurfit Kappa Group v Commission
   (Case T-304/08)
   (2008/C 272/57)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Smurfit Kappa Group plc (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: T. R. Ottervanger, E. V. A. Henny, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               To annul the decision of the Commission in accordance with Article 230 EC;

               —

               To order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the applicants in the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks pursuant to Article 230 EC annulment of Commission decision N 582/2007 of 2 April 2008 (Case ‘Aid to Propapier PM2 GmbH & Co. KG-LIP’ C(2008) 1107) in which the Commission approved the State aid notified by the German State to Propapier PM2 GmbH & Co. KG.
   The applicant, an Irish based international packaging company, lodged an informal complaint to the Commission against the grant of a substantial subsidy for the construction (in the Region of Brandenburg-Nordost in Germany) of what would be, according to the applicant, the largest paper mill in the European Union. The applicant submits that although there were clear indications that the subsidised investment would have serious and disproportionate effects on it and on the sector as a whole, the Commission considered that no formal investigation was necessary as the regional aid did not meet the market share and capacity increase thresholds laid down in paragraph 68 under (a) and (b) of the Guidelines on national aid for 2007-2013 (1) (‘The Regional Aid Guidelines’) and, consequently declared the aid compatible with the Treaty.
   The applicant, being a direct competitor of the aid beneficiary, challenges the Commission's decision not to open the formal procedure provided for in Article 88(2) EC on the basis of the following grounds:
   First, according to the applicant, the Commission should have initiated the formal procedure under Article 88(2) EC and Article 4(4) of Council Regulation No 659/1999 (2) and examined the aid more thoroughly in light of the doubts arising in connection with the structural difficulties of the market and in accordance with a more appropriate assessment of the market. The applicant claims that the Commission mistakenly confined itself to applying the rigid thresholds of paragraph 68 of the Regional Aid Guidelines and made a manifest error of assessment when calculating the capacity increase.
   Second, the applicant submits that the Commission infringed Article 87(3) EC and the Regional Aid Guidelines in as much as the contested decision (i) does not contain any analysis of the adverse effect of the aid on trading conditions and (ii) misinterprets the Regional Aid Guidelines. On that basis, it is submitted that, rather than balancing the benefits of the region against the repercussions of substantial aid for the sector as a whole, the Commission simply applied a per se 5 % capacity increase test while refraining from an economic analysis. Also, it is submitted that the application of the test laid down in paragraph 68 of the Regional Aid Guidelines is contrary to the EC Treaty since the said provision does not require the Commission to automatically approve all aid measures that follow below the thresholds set therein.
   Third, according to the applicant, the contested decision is vitiated by errors of fact and manifest errors of assessment in respect of market definition and capacity increase.
   Fourth, it is submitted that the Commission infringed Article 87(3) EC and the Regional Aid Guidelines in so far as the contested decision contains a manifest error of assessment as to the qualification of the aid measure.
   Fifth, the decision is also vitiated, allegedly, by serious errors of law in so far as it considers the Regional aid Map 2007-2013 of Germany to be compatible with the EC treaty, allowing the Region Brandenburg-Nordost to be eligible for regional aid pursuant to the derogation laid down in Article 87(3)(a) EC for the whole period of 2007-2013. In addition the contested decision is flawed since it ignores other aid concerning the same project.
   Finally, the applicants argue that the Commission infringed its obligations in relation to the preliminary investigation to state adequate reasons on which it based its decision.

      (1)  OJ 2006 C 54, p. 13.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).


title: Case T-64/15: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2015 — Shoe Branding Europe v OHIM (two parallel stripes on pants) (Community trade mark — Application for a Community trade mark consisting of two parallel stripes on pants — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/49

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2015 — Shoe Branding Europe v OHIM (two parallel stripes on pants)
   (Case T-64/15) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for a Community trade mark consisting of two parallel stripes on pants - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 048/56)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Shoe Branding Europe BVBA (Oudenaarde, Belgium) (represented by: J. Løje, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially by P. Geroulakos, and subsequently by D. Gája, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 December 2014 (Case R 2563/2013-5), concerning an application for registration of a sign consisting of two parallel stripes on pants as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Shoe Branding Europe BVBA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 107, 30.3.2015.


title: Case C-668/13: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Suceava — Romania) — Casa Judeţeană de Pensii Botoşani v Evangeli Paraskevopoulou (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Identical question referred — Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 7(2)(c) — Applicability of social security conventions between Member States — Repatriated refugee whose country of origin is a Member State — Completion of periods of employment in the territory of another Member State — Application for grant of an old-age benefit — Refusal)

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/12

         Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Suceava — Romania) — Casa Judeţeană de Pensii Botoşani v Evangeli Paraskevopoulou
   (Case C-668/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Identical question referred - Social security for migrant workers - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 7(2)(c) - Applicability of social security conventions between Member States - Repatriated refugee whose country of origin is a Member State - Completion of periods of employment in the territory of another Member State - Application for grant of an old-age benefit - Refusal))
   (2015/C 213/17)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Suceava

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Casa Judeţeană de Pensii Botoşani

      Defendant: Evangeli Paraskevopoulou

      Operative part of the order

   Article 7(2)(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1992/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that a bilateral agreement, relating to the social security benefits of nationals of one of the signatory States having had the status of political refugees in the territory of the other signatory State, concluded on a date when one of the two signatory States had not yet acceded to the European Union and not appearing in Annex III to that regulation, does not continue to apply to the situation of political refugees repatriated to their State of origin before the bilateral agreement was concluded and that regulation entered into force.

      (1)  OJ C 85, 22.3.2014.


title: Case F-3/07: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 5 December 2007 — Moschonaki v European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (EUROFOUND)

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/58

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 5 December 2007 — Moschonaki v European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (EUROFOUND)
   (Case F-3/07) (1)

   (2008/C 22/112)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 56, 10.3.2007, p. 43.


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 20 December 2001 in Case T-214/01 R: Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft AG v Commission of the European Communities (Proceedings for interim measures — Competition — Access to documents — Admissibility — Urgency — Weighing of interests)

text:
29.6.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 156/25
1.   The application is dismissed as inadmissible.                       ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                                                                                INSTANCE
2.   The applicant shall bear the costs.
                                                                                of 20 December 2001
                                                                         in Case T-214/01 R: Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft AG v
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
(1) OJ C 173 of 16.6.2001.
                                                                         (Proceedings for interim measures — Competition — Access
                                                                         to documents — Admissibility — Urgency — Weighing of
                                                                                interests)
                                                                                (2002/C 156/49)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                           INSTANCE                                      In Case T-214/01 R: Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft AG,
                                                                         established in Vienna, represented by H.J. Niemeyer, lawyer,
                                                                         against Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
                     of 20 December 2001                                 S. Rating), — application principally for suspension of the
                                                                         operation of the Commission’s decision COMP/D-1/36.571 of
                                                                         25 July 2001 and, in the alternative, for an order restraining
in Case T-213/01 R: Österreichische Postsparkasse AG v                  the Commission from disclosing to the Freiheitliche Partei
        Commission of the European Communities                           Österreichs the statement of objections of 10 September 1999
                                                                         and the further statement of objections of 21 November 2000
                                                                         in Case COMP/36.571, — the President of the Court of First
(Proceedings for interim measures — Competition — Access                 Instance has made an order on 20 December 2001 in which
to documents — Admissibility — Urgency — Weighing of                     he:
                             interests)
                                                                         1.    Dismisses the application for interim measures.
                         (2002/C 156/48)
                                                                         2.    Reserves the costs.
                  (Language of the case: German)
In Case T-213/01 R: Österreichische Postsparkasse AG, estab-
lished in Vienna, represented by M. Klusmann, F. Wiener and                    ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
A Reidlinger, lawyers, against Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: S. Rating), — application principally for                                      of 21 March 2002
suspension of the operation of the Commission’s decision
COMP/D-1/36.571 of 9 August 2001 and, in the alternative,
for an order restraining the Commission from disclosing to               in Case T-218/01: Laboratoire Monique Remy SAS against
the Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs the statement of objections             the Commission of the European Communities (1)
of 10 September 1999 and the further statement of objections
of 21 November 2000 in Case COMP/36.571, — the President                 (Action for annulment — Time-limits — Manifest inadmis-
of the Court of First Instance has made an order on 20 Decem-                                           sibility)
ber 2001 in which he:
                                                                                (2002/C 156/50)
1.   Dismisses the application for interim measures.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
2.   Reserves the costs.
                                                                         In Case T-218/02: Laboratoire Monique Remy SAS, established
                                                                         in Grasse (France), represented by J.-F. Pupel, lawyer, v
                                                                         Commission of the European Communities (Agent: A. Bordes)


title: Case C-458/07: Action brought on 10 October 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/30

         Action brought on 10 October 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-458/07)
   (2007/C 297/48)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Andrade and G. Braun, Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               a declaration that the Portuguese Republic, by failing to ensure in practice that at least one comprehensive telephone directory and at least one comprehensive telephone directory enquiry service are available to all end-users, as laid down in Articles 5(1) and (2) and 25(1) and (3) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (1), has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               an order that the Portuguese Republic should pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In Portugal, subscribers to Vodafone who expressed their wish to have their names included in the universal service directory are still not included in it.
   The regulator, ANACOM, has not yet decided on the form and procedure for supplying the information in question. The present legal situation is the responsibility of the Portuguese Republic.

      (1)  OJ L 108, p. 51.


title: Case C-283/08: Order of the President of the Court of 17 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/35

         Order of the President of the Court of 17 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-283/08) (1)

   2009/C 141/66

      Language of the case: Dutch

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

      (1)  OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.


               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/1

         (2008/C 92/01)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 79, 29.3.2008

   Past publications

      OJ C 64, 8.3.2008

      OJ C 51, 23.2.2008

      OJ C 37, 9.2.2008

      OJ C 22, 26.1.2008

      OJ C 8, 12.1.2008

      OJ C 315, 22.12.2007

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Case C-363/03: Action brought on 21 August 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
1.11.2003             EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                       C 264/21
Action brought on 21 August 2003 by the Commission                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
of the European Communities against the Republic of
                             Austria
                                                                       1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt or to notify the Com-
                                                                             mission of the laws, regulations and administrative pro-
                        (Case C-362/03)                                      visions necessary to transpose Directive 2000/30/EC of
                                                                             the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 June
                        (2003/C 264/34)                                      2000 on the technical roadside inspection of the road-
                                                                             worthiness of commercial vehicles circulating in the
                                                                             Community (1), the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil
                                                                             its obligations under that directive;
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                       2.    Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the
on 21 August 2003 by the Commission of the European
                                                                             proceedings.
Communities, represented by Arnaud Bordes and Gerald
Braun, Members of the Legal Service of the European Com-
mission, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            Pleas in law and main arguments
1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt or to notify the Com-
      mission of the laws, regulations and administrative pro-
      visions necessary to transpose Council Directive 1999/           The period for transposition expired on 10 August 2002.
      74/EC of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards
      for the protection of laying hens (1), the Republic of
      Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
                                                                       (1) OJ 2000 L 203, p. 1.
      directive;
2.    Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the
      proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The period for transposition expired on 1 January 2002.
                                                                       Action brought on 9 September 2003 by the Commission
                                                                       of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
(1) OJ 1999 L 203, p. 53.                                                                           Belgium
                                                                                (Case C-377/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 264/36)
Action brought on 21 August 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Republic of
                             Austria
                        (Case C-363/03)                                An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
                                                                       before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                       9 September 2003 by the Commission of the European
                        (2003/C 264/35)                                Communities, represented by C. Giolito and G. Wilms, acting
                                                                       as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                The Commission of the European Communities claims that
on 21 August 2003 by the Commission of the European                    the Court should:
Communities, represented by Wouter Wils, Member of the
Legal Service of the European Commission, with an address
for service in Luxembourg.                                             1.    Declare that,


title: Case C-446/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 April 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Solgar Vitamin’s France, Valorimer SARL, Christian Fenioux, L’Arbre de Vie SARL, Source Claire, Nord Plantes EURL, RCS Distribution, Ponroy Santé, Syndicat de la Diététique et des Compléments Alimentaires v Ministre de l’Économie, des Finances et de l’Emploi, Ministre de la Santé, de la Jeunesse et des Sports, Ministre de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche (Directive 2002/46/EC — Approximation of laws of the Member States relating to food supplements — Vitamins and minerals which may be used in the manufacture of food supplements — Maximum amounts — Harmonisation at European Union level — None — Competence of the Member States — Rules to be complied with and criteria to take into consideration when setting those amounts — National legislation setting those amounts — Setting the amount at zero)

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/8

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 April 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Solgar Vitamin’s France, Valorimer SARL, Christian Fenioux, L’Arbre de Vie SARL, Source Claire, Nord Plantes EURL, RCS Distribution, Ponroy Santé, Syndicat de la Diététique et des Compléments Alimentaires v Ministre de l’Économie, des Finances et de l’Emploi, Ministre de la Santé, de la Jeunesse et des Sports, Ministre de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche
      (Case C-446/08) (1)

      (Directive 2002/46/EC - Approximation of laws of the Member States relating to food supplements - Vitamins and minerals which may be used in the manufacture of food supplements - Maximum amounts - Harmonisation at European Union level - None - Competence of the Member States - Rules to be complied with and criteria to take into consideration when setting those amounts - National legislation setting those amounts - Setting the amount at zero)
      (2010/C 161/10)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Conseil d’État

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Solgar Vitamin’s France, Valorimer SARL, Christian Fenioux, L’Arbre de Vie SARL, Source Claire, Nord Plantes EURL, RCS Distribution, Ponroy Santé, Syndicat de la Diététique et des Compléments Alimentaires

         Defendants: Ministre de l’Économie, des Finances et de l’Emploi, Ministre de la Santé, de la Jeunesse et des Sports, Ministre de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche

         Intervener in support of the defendant: Syndicat de la Diététique et des Compléments Alimentaires

         Re:

      Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d’État (France) — Interpretation of Directive 2002/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to food supplements (OJ 2002 L 183, p. 51) and, in particular, Articles 5(4) and 11(2) thereof — Competence of Member States to determine the maximum amounts of vitamins and minerals permitted in food supplements in the absence of Community legislation on this matter — Criteria to be taken into account when setting maximum contents — Total ban on fluoride imposed by the authorities of a Member State without regard to the rules contained in Article 12 of the above Directive — Quantitative restriction on trade in breach of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC.

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Directive 2002/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to food supplements must be interpreted as meaning that, without prejudice to the EC Treaty, the Member States remain competent to adopt legislation on the maximum and minimum amounts of vitamins and minerals which may be used in the manufacture of food supplements so long as the European Commission has not laid down those amounts in accordance with Article 5(4) of that directive.

                  2.

                  In addition to the obligation to respect Articles 28 EC and 30 EC, the Member States must also be guided by the criteria laid down in Article 5(1) and (2) of Directive 2002/46, including the requirement for a risk assessment based on generally accepted scientific data in setting the maximum amount of vitamins and minerals which may be used in the manufacture of food supplements, while waiting for the European Commission to lay down the amounts pursuant to Article 5(4).

                  3.

                  Directive 2002/46 must be interpreted as meaning that in a situation such as that in the main proceedings where, when setting the maximum amount of a mineral which may be used in the manufacture of food supplements, it is impossible to calculate precisely the intake of that mineral from other dietary sources, and so long as the European Commission has not laid down the maximum amounts of vitamins and minerals which may be used in the manufacture of food supplements in accordance with Article 5(4) of that directive, a Member State may, if there is a genuine risk that that intake will exceed the upper safe limit established for the mineral in question, and provided that Articles 28 EC and 30 EC are respected, set the maximum amount at a zero level without resorting to the procedure laid down in Article 12 of that directive.

                  4.

                  Article 5 of Directive 2002/46 must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that appropriate labelling might dissuade the group of consumers to which it is addressed from using a nutrient beneficial to them in small doses is not a relevant criterion for setting the maximum amounts of vitamins and minerals which may be used in the manufacture of food supplements. Taking account of the varying degrees of sensitivity of different consumer groups allows a Member State to apply a maximum amount appropriate for a specific group of consumers, such as children, to the whole population only if that measure is limited to what is necessary to protect the health of the persons belonging to that group and only if that measure is proportionate to the objective it pursues, and only if that objective cannot be attained by measures which are less restrictive to trade within the European Union, which is a matter to be ascertained by the national court.

                  5.

                  Directive 2002/46 must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes the setting of maximum amounts of vitamins and minerals which may be used in the manufacture of food supplements where, in the absence of a genuine risk to human health, upper safe limits have not been established for those vitamins and minerals, unless such a measure is justified in accordance with the precautionary principle, if a scientific risk assessment reveals that scientific uncertainty persists as regards the existence or extent of genuine risks to human health. After the upper safe limits have been established, the possibility of setting such maximum amounts at a level significantly lower than those limits cannot be excluded if the setting of those maximum amounts can be justified by taking into account the criteria in Article 5(1) and (2) of Directive 2002/46 and that it complies with the principle of proportionality. That assessment is a matter for the national court and must be carried out on a case-by-case basis.

         (1)  OJ C 327, 20.12.2008.


title: Case C-527/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden lodged on 27 December 2006 — R.H.H. Renneberg v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden lodged on 27 December 2006 — R.H.H. Renneberg v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-527/06)
   (2007/C 56/35)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: R.H.H. Renneberg

      Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   Question referred
   Must Articles 39 EC and 56 EC be interpreted as precluding, either individually or jointly, a situation in which a taxpayer who, in his country of residence, has (on balance) negative income from a dwelling owned and occupied by him and obtains all of his positive income, specifically work-related income, in a Member State other than that in which he resides is not permitted by that other Member State (the State of employment) to deduct the negative income from his taxed work-related income, even though the State of employment does allow its own residents to make such a deduction?


title: Case C-203/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 8 June 2009 — Volvo Car Germany GmbH v Autohof Weidensdorf GmbH

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/34

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 8 June 2009 — Volvo Car Germany GmbH v Autohof Weidensdorf GmbH
   (Case C-203/09)
   2009/C 180/59
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Volvo Car Germany GmbH

      Defendant: Autohof Weidensdorf GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 18(a) of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents to be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a commercial agent (1) is not entitled to an indemnity in the event of contractual termination of the contract by the principal if a serious ground for immediate termination of the contract because of the agent’s default existed at the date of contractual termination but was not the cause of the termination?

               2.

               If such national legislation is consistent with the Directive:
               Does Article 18(a) of the Directive preclude the application by analogy of the national legislation concerning the exclusion of the indemnity claim to a case where a serious ground for the immediate termination of the contract because of the agent’s default arose only after contractual notice of termination was given and the principal became aware of that ground only after the contract ended, so that he was no longer able to give a further notice of immediate termination of the contract based on the agent’s default?

      (1)  OJ 1986 L 382, p. 17.


title: Case C-404/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 28 September 2006 — Quelle AG v Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände

text:
               16.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 310/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 28 September 2006 — Quelle AG v Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände
   (Case C-404/06)
   (2006/C 310/09)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesgerichtshof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Defendant, appellant and respondent: Quelle AG

      Plaintiff, respondent and appellant: Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherbände
   Question referred
   Are the provisions of Article 3(2) in conjunction with the first subparagraph of Article 3(3) and Article 3(4), or of the third subparagraph of Article 3(3) of Directive 1999/44/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides that, where consumer goods are brought into conformity with the contract by means of delivery of replacement goods, the seller may require compensation from the consumer for use of the goods originally delivered, which were not in conformity with the contract?

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 171, p. 12.


title: Case C-199/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 15 May 2008 — Dr. Erhard Eschig v UNIQA Sachversicherung AG

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 15 May 2008 — Dr. Erhard Eschig v UNIQA Sachversicherung AG
   (Case C-199/08)
   (2008/C 197/16)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Oberster Gerichtshof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Dr. Erhard Eschig

      Defendant: UNIQA Sachversicherung AG
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 4(1) of Council Directive 87/344/EC of 22 June 1987 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to legal expenses insurance (1) to be interpreted to the effect that it precludes a clause, contained in the standard terms and conditions of insurance of a legal expenses insurer, which entitles the insurer, in respect of insurance claims concerning losses suffered by a large number of insured persons as a result of the same event (for example the insolvency of an investment services undertaking), to select a legal representative and which thereby restricts the right of the individual insured person to choose his own lawyer (so-called ‘mass torts clause’)?

               2.

               If the first question is answered in the negative:
               What are the requirements for the existence of a ‘mass tort’ which, in accordance with (or as a complement to) Directive 87/344/EEC, confers on the insurer instead of the insured person the right to select the legal representative?

      (1)  OJ 1987 L 185, p. 77.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 24 June 2004 in Case C-350/02: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector — Articles 6 and 9 of Directive 97/66/EC — Requirement for specific statement of grounds of complaint in the reasoned opinion)

text:
               7.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 201/4

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 24 June 2004
   in Case C-350/02: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector - Articles 6 and 9 of Directive 97/66/EC - Requirement for specific statement of grounds of complaint in the reasoned opinion)
   (2004/C 201/07)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-350/02: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. Shotter and W. Wils) v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agent: S. Terstal ) — application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose into national law Articles 6 and 9 of Directive 97/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the telecommunications sector (OJ 1998 L 24, p. 1) or, at least, by not communicating those provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola, S. von Bahr, R. Silva de Lapuerta and K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 June 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by incompletely transposing Article 6 of Directive 97/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the telecommunications sector, in that, first, Article 11(5)(1) of the Wet houdende regels inzake de telecommunicatie (Telecommunicatiewet) refers to a general administrative measure which was not communicated to the Commission of the European Communities and in that, second, the implementing provisions mentioned in Article 11(5)(3) of the Telecommunicatiewet were not communicated to the Commission, and by incompletely transposing Article 9 of that directive, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear, in addition to its own costs, three quarters of the Commission's costs;

               4.

               Orders the Commission, as to the remainder of the action to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 323, 21.12.2002.


title: Case F-11/06: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 22 November 2006 — Larsen v Commission

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/88

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 22 November 2006 — Larsen v Commission
   (Case F-11/06) (1)

   (2006/C 326/177)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 74, 25.3.2006, p. 35.


title: Case T-276/03: Action brought on 7 August 2003 by Azienda Agricola "Le Canne" srl against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
4.10.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 239/25
The present action is directed against Commission Regulation               Action brought on 7 August 2003 by Azienda Agricola
(EC) No 1065/97 of 12 June 1997 supplementing the Annex                    ‘Le Canne’ srl against the Commission of the European
to Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 on the registration of geo-                                            Communities
graphical indications and designations of origin under the
procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2081/92 ( 1), insofar as it concerns the rules governing the                                     (Case T-276/03)
use of the PGI ‘Prociutto di Norcia’ adopted by the Commission.
                                                                                (2003/C 239/46)
The applicant points out, first and foremost, that Regulation                                  (Language of the case: Italian)
No 1065/97 contains no reference to the rules which the
Commission adopted and which govern the production of
‘Prosciutto di Norcia’. As regards raw materials, the rules
merely provide, in Article 3, that the meat must come from                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
farms rearing cross-bred selected white race pigs, with no                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
reference to where such farms must be situated. The rules were             European Communities on 7 August 2003 by Azienda Agrico-
published in the Official Journal of the Italian Republic.                 la ‘Le Canne’ srl, represented by G. Carraro and F. Mazzonetto.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
The national authorities competent in the matter have, how-
ever, enjoined the company which prepares and ages the                     —     declare, in accordance with Article 232 of the Treaty,
prosciutto to halt any processing of meat from farms outside                     that, by failing to adopt all the measures and to take all
Italy on the basis that the text of the scheme approved by the                   the steps required to comply with the judgment of
Commission for the PGI in question lays down a similar                           5 March 2002 (Case T-241/00) of the Court of First
prohibition.                                                                     Instance, the Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                                under Community law;
                                                                           —     order the Commission to pay damages which the appli-
                                                                                cant alleges it has sustained in a sum not less than the
In support of its claim, the applicant argues:                                   unpaid amount of the subsidy, together with interest at
                                                                                the rate charged to the applicant by the banking system
                                                                                from the date of the last part payment of the subsidy to
—     Infringement of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of                     the date when the balance due is paid;
      14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indi-
      cations and designations of origin for agricultural prod-
                                                                           —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
      ucts and foodstuffs (2);
—     Infringement of Articles 28 and 29 of the EC Treaty on
      the freedom of imports and of the rules for the protection           Pleas in law and main arguments
      of the functioning of the internal market (Articles 3 and
      4 of the Treaty);
                                                                           The present action was brought because of a reduction in the
                                                                           amount of the contribution paid by the Community to help
—     breach of the principles of free competition and breach              finance various works of modernisation and organisation of
      of the prohibition on introducing measures which favour              the applicant’s fish farms. The reduction was annulled by
      national undertakings;                                               judgment of the Court of Justice in Case T-10/98 P (1). By
                                                                           judgment of 5 March 2002 ( 2) a further decision reducing the
                                                                           amount of the contribution was annulled on the ground that
                                                                           the Commission had failed to assess whether the project
—     the existence of defects in the inquiry procedure which
                                                                           actually carried out could be regarded as productive and
      led the Commission to approve the rules.
                                                                           consistent with initial plans.
                                                                           The applicant asserts that after the second judgment had
( 1) OJ L 156 of 13.6.1997, p. 5.
                                                                           acquired the authority of a final decision the Commission
( 2) OJ L 208 of 24.7.1992, p. 1.
                                                                           endeavoured to conduct the necessary assessment, making an
                                                                           inspection in loco. However, after making its inspection on 16
                                                                           and 17 September 2002 the Commission failed to express a
                                                                           position and deferred sine dine payment of the balance of the
                                                                           subsidy.
 ---pagebreak--- C 239/26                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           4.10.2003
The applicant argues in this connection that, in this case, the            The applicant states in that regard that the contested decision
facts of the dispute, which dates back to 1995, are brought                replaces another decision which the Court of First Instance
before the Community court for a third time, yet the Com-                  of the European Communities annulled by judgment of
mission has still not properly completed what it ought to have             20 September 2001 (1).
done in 1995, namely to conduct an assessment of whether
ascertained variations from the object, structure and purpose
of the original subsidised project are in conformity.                      In support of here claims, the applicant puts forward the
                                                                           following pleas:
( 1) ECR I-6831.
( 2) Case T-241/00 ECR II-1251.                                            —      Breach of the rights of defence, given the absence of a
                                                                                complete file.
                                                                           —      Manifest error in the assessment of the facts and, in
                                                                                particular, in the assessment of the place of main
                                                                                occupation or habitual residence during the reference
                                                                                period. In the alternative, the applicant claims that the
                                                                                Commission ignored the fact that the applicant’s stay in
Action brought on 8 August 2003 by Lucía Recalde                                  Brussels never exceeded the reference period and, further
Langarica against Commission of the European Com-                                 in the alternative, that it did not apply the ‘work done for
                              munities                                            another State’ exception in Article 4 of Annex VII to the
                                                                                Staff Regulations.
                          (Case T-283/03)
                                                                           (1 ) Case T-344/99 Recalde Langarica v Commission [2001] ECR-SC
                                                                                IA-183; II-833).
                          (2003/C 239/47)
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 8 August 2003 by Lucía Recalde                     Action brought on 18 August 2003 by S.I.M. SA. srl
Langarica, residing in Brussels, represented by D. Ramón                      against the Commission of the European Communities
García-Gallardo and M. Dolores Domínguez Pérez, lawyers.
                                                                                (Case T-287/03)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (2003/C 239/48)
—      annul the Decision of 8 May 2003 rejecting the applicant’s
       complaint seeking formal and definitive annulment of
       the decision withdrawing her entitlement under the                                       (Language of the case: Italian)
       Staff Regulations to the expatriation allowance and
       confirmation of her entitlement to that allowance and
       also to other related allowances; and
—      order the defendant to pay all the costs.                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 18 August 2003 by S.I.M. SA. srl,
                                                                           represented by M.A. Calabrese.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
The present action is brought against the decision whereby the
appointing authority rejected the applicant’s complaint seeking            —      annul the Commission’s letter of 30 April 2002 D/52107,
formal and definitive annulment of the decision refusing her                      COMP/G1/D(02)400 PI/cpb, of which the applicant has
entitlement under the Staff Regulations to the expatriation                       not had sight, whereby the Commission consulted the
allowance and confirmation of her entitlement to that allow-                      Italian authorities, inviting them to express their assent
ance, together with other related allowances, such as, specifi-                   or dissent to the release to a party other than the applicant
cally, the allowance for the costs of installation at her present                 of the documents of which the applicant has requested
place of work.                                                                    copies;


title: Case T-307/06: Action brought on 13 November 2006 — Air Products and Chemicals v OHIM — Messer Group (ALUMIX)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/63

         Action brought on 13 November 2006 — Air Products and Chemicals v OHIM — Messer Group (ALUMIX)
   (Case T-307/06)
   (2006/C 326/134)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Air Products and Chemicals Inc. (Allentown, USA) (represented by: S. Heurung, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Messer Group GmbH (Sulzbach, Germany)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 12 September 2006 of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM in joined Cases R 1225/2005-2 and R 1397/2005-2;

               —

               reject the contested application for registration of the trade mark ‘ALUMIX’ CTM 3 190 022 in its entirety;

               —

               send the decision of the Court of First Instance to OHIM;

               —

               order Messer Group to pay all the costs and expenses.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: Messer Group GmbH

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ALUMIX’ for goods in classes 1 and 4 — application No 3 190 022

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

      Mark or sign cited: The Community word mark ‘ALUMIX’ for goods in class 1

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in respect of all goods in class 1; opposition rejected in respect of all goods in class 4

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal brought by the applicant (R 1225/2005-2) dismissed; appeal brought by Messer Group GmbH (R 1397/2005-2) upheld

      Pleas in law: Violation of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal among others:

               —

               overestimated the knowledge and awareness of non professional consumers of welding gas;

               —

               erroneously assumed that the trade mark ‘ALUMIX’ was inherently weak;

               —

               did not pay sufficient attention to the fact that the goods in question are partially identical, partially highly similar; and

               —

               failed to consider the overall impression of the marks as a whole.


               5.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/13

         Action brought on 9 March 2011 by the VTM Fundmanagement AG against the EFTA Surveillance Authority
   (Case E-6/11)
   2011/C 135/07
   An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 9 March 2011 by the VTM Fundmanagement AG, represented by Dr Michael Sánchez Rydelski, Rechtsanwalt, of Steptoe & Johnson LLP, Avenue Louise 240, BE-1050 Brussels, Belgium and Dr Hans-Michael Pott, Rechtsanwalt, of Sernetz Schäfer Rechtsanwälte, Berliner Allee 10, 40212 Düsseldorf, Germany.
   The VTM Fundmanagement AG requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               annul the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 416/10/COL of 3 November 2010 on the taxation of investment undertakings under the Liechtenstein Tax Act;

               2.

               in the alternative, declare void Articles 3 and 4 of the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 416/10/COL of 3 November 2010, to the extent that they order the recovery of the aid referred to in Article 1 of that Decision;
               and

               3.

               order the EFTA Surveillance Authority to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 416/10/COL of 3 November 2010 declared that the aid measure implemented by the Liechtenstein authorities in favour of investment companies, and which were repealed with effect from 30 June 2006, were not compatible with Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority further decided that the alleged aid constituted unlawful aid subject to recovery from investment companies receiving it from 15 March 1997 until the date in which beneficiaries last benefited from the tax exemptions following their repeal in 2006.

               —

               The applicant claims that the EFTA Surveillance Authority:

                           —

                           incorrectly applied Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement,

                           —

                           erred in ordering the recovery of the alleged aid,

                           —

                           did not provide adequate reasoning as required by Article 16 of the Surveillance and Court Agreement.


title: Case T-78/17: Action brought on 30 January 2017 — Jumbo Africa v EUIPO — ProSiebenSat.1 Licensing (JUMBO)

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/60

         Action brought on 30 January 2017 — Jumbo Africa v EUIPO — ProSiebenSat.1 Licensing (JUMBO)
   (Case T-78/17)
   (2017/C 104/84)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Jumbo Africa, SL (L’Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain) (represented by: M. Buganza González and E. Torner Lasalle, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ProSiebenSat.1 Licensing GmbH (Unterföhring, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘JUMBO’ — European Union trade mark No 10 492 131

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 October 2016 in Case R 227/2016-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the contested decision;

               —

               Order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7 of Regulation No 207/2009. The applicant claims, in particular, that the trade mark ‘JUMBO’ is not subject to any of the prohibitions set out in Article 7(1) of that regulation. That mark is not descriptive of the products which it designates.


title: Case F-81/07: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 8 October 2008 — Barbin v Parliament (Staff case — Officials — Promotion — 2006 promotion procedure — Consideration of comparative merits)

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/58

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 8 October 2008 — Barbin v Parliament
   (Case F-81/07) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Promotion - 2006 promotion procedure - Consideration of comparative merits)
   (2008/C 313/104)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Florence Barbin (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė and R. Ignătescu, Agents, and, subsequently, by C. Burgos, A. Lukošiūtė and R. Ignătescu, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the decision of the European Parliament not to promote the applicant to grade AD 12 pursuant to the 2006 promotion procedure.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the European Parliament of 20 November 2006 not to promote Ms Barbin pursuant to the 2006 promotion procedure;

               2.

               Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 247, 20.10.2007, p. 43.


title: Case T-54/15: Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2016 — Jääkiekon SM-liiga v EUIPO (Liiga) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark Liiga — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/49

      Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2016 — Jääkiekon SM-liiga v EUIPO (Liiga)
      (Case T-54/15) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark Liiga - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
      (2016/C 211/62)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Jääkiekon SM-liiga Oy (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: L. Laaksonen, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: A. Schifko and E. Śliwińska, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 December 2014 (Case R 576/2014-2) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign Liiga as an EU trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Jääkiekon SM-liiga Oy to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 107, 30.3.2015.


title: Case C-234/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 25 April 2016 — Asociación Nacional de Grandes Empresas de Distribución (ANGED) v Consejería de Hacienda y Sector Público de la Administracíon del Principado de Asturias

text:
               18.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/22

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 25 April 2016 — Asociación Nacional de Grandes Empresas de Distribución (ANGED) v Consejería de Hacienda y Sector Público de la Administracíon del Principado de Asturias
   (Case C-234/16)
   (2016/C 260/28)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo, Sección Segunda

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Asociación Nacional de Grandes Empresas de Distribución (ANGED)

      Respondent: Consejería de Hacienda y Sector Público de la Administracíon del Principado de Asturias

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 49 TFEU and Article 54 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a regional tax levied on the operation of large retail establishments with a public display and sales area equal to or exceeding 4 000 m2 on account of their impact on the territory, environment and urban trading area of that region, but which applies regardless of whether the retail establishments are actually situated inside or outside the consolidated urban area and is borne in most cases by undertakings of other Member States, bearing in mind that the tax (i) does not affect traders who own several retail establishments, whether of an individual or collective nature, with a public display and sales area of less than 4 000 m2 irrespective of the total public display and sales area of all their establishments; and (ii) is not levied on large retail establishments of an individual nature, with a public display and sales area not exceeding 10 000 m2, which solely and exclusively pursue the business of a garden centre or of selling vehicles, construction materials, machinery or industrial supplies?

               2.

               Must Article 107(1) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the following constitutes State aid prohibited under that provision: the non-imposition of Asturian IGEC on retail establishments, individual or collective, with a public display and sales area of less than 4 000 m2 and individual large retail establishments, with a public display and sales area not exceeding 10 000 m2, which solely and exclusively pursue the business of a garden centre or of selling vehicles, construction materials, machinery or industrial supplies?


title: Joined Cases C-184/13 to C-187/13, C-194/13, C-195/13 and C-208/13: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 September 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — API -Anonima Petroli Italiana SpA v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Ministero dello Sviluppo economico (C-184/13), ANCC-Coop — Associazione Nazionale Cooperative di Consumatori and Others v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti and Others (C-185/13), Air Liquide Italia SpA and Others v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Ministero dello Sviluppo economico (C-186/13), Confetra — Confederazione Generale Italiana dei Trasporti e della Logistica and Others v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti — Osservatorio sulle Attività di Trasporto, Ministero dello Sviluppo economico (C-187/13), Esso Italiana Srl v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Ministero dello Sviluppo economico (C-194/13), Confindustria — Confederazione generale dell’industria italiana and Others v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Ministero dello Sviluppo económico (C-195/13), Autorità garante della concorrenza e del mercato v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Ministero dello Sviluppo económico (C-208/13) (Requests for a preliminary ruling — Road transport — Amount of the minimum operating costs determined by a body representing the operators concerned — Association of undertakings — Restriction of competition — Public interest objective — Road safety — Proportionality)

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/12

      Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 September 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — API -Anonima Petroli Italiana SpA v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Ministero dello Sviluppo economico (C-184/13), ANCC-Coop — Associazione Nazionale Cooperative di Consumatori and Others v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti and Others (C-185/13), Air Liquide Italia SpA and Others v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Ministero dello Sviluppo economico (C-186/13), Confetra — Confederazione Generale Italiana dei Trasporti e della Logistica and Others v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti — Osservatorio sulle Attività di Trasporto, Ministero dello Sviluppo economico (C-187/13), Esso Italiana Srl v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Ministero dello Sviluppo economico (C-194/13), Confindustria — Confederazione generale dell’industria italiana and Others v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Ministero dello Sviluppo económico (C-195/13), Autorità garante della concorrenza e del mercato v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Ministero dello Sviluppo económico (C-208/13)
      (Joined Cases C-184/13 to C-187/13, C-194/13, C-195/13 and C-208/13) (1)

      ((Requests for a preliminary ruling - Road transport - Amount of the minimum operating costs determined by a body representing the operators concerned - Association of undertakings - Restriction of competition - Public interest objective - Road safety - Proportionality))
      (2014/C 395/15)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

         Parties to the main proceedings

      (Case C-184/13)

         Applicant: API — Anonima Petroli Italiana SpA

         Defendants: Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Ministero dello Sviluppo economico

         Intervening parties: FEDIT — Federazione Italiana Trasportatori, Bertani Remo di Silvio Bertani e C. Srl, Transfrigoroute Italia Assotir, Confartigianato Trasporti
      (Case C-185/13)

         Applicants: ANCC-Coop — Associazione Nazionale Cooperative di Consumatori, ANCD — Associazione Nazionale Cooperative Dettaglianti, Sviluppo Discount SpA, Centrale Adriatica Soc. coop., Coop Consorzio Nord Ovest Soc. cons. arl, Coop Italia Consorzio Nazionale non Alimentari Soc. coop., Coop Centro Italia Soc. coop., Tirreno Logistica Srl, Unicoop Firenze Soc. coop., Conad — Consorzio Nazionale Dettaglianti Soc. coop., Conad Centro Nord Soc. coop., Commercianti Indipendenti Associati Soc. coop., Conad del Tirreno Soc. coop., Pac2000A Soc. coop., Conad Adriatico Soc. coop., Conad Sicilia Soc. coop., Sicilconad Mercurio Soc. coop.

         Defendants: Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Ministero dello Sviluppo economico, Consulta generale per l’autotrasporto e la logistica, Osservatorio sulle attività di autotrasporto, Autorità garante della concorrenza e del mercato

         Intervening parties: Unatras — Unione Nazionale Associazioni Autostrasporto Merci, Brt SpA, Coordinamento Interprovinciale FAI, FIAP — Federazione Italiana Autotrasporti Professionali
      (Case C-186/13)

         Applicants: Air Liquide Italia SpA and Others, Omniatransit Srl, Rivoira SpA, SIAD — Società Italiana Acetilene e Derivati SpA

         Defendants: Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Ministero dello Sviluppo economico,

         Intervening parties: TSE Group Srl
      (Case C-187/13)

         Applicants: Confetra — Confederazione Generale Italiana dei Trasporti e della Logistica, Fedespedi — Federazione Nazionale delle Imprese di Spedizioni Internazionali, Assologistica — Associazione Italiana Imprese di Logistica Magazzini Generali Frigoriferi Terminal Operators Portuali, FISI — Federazione Italiana Spedizionieri Industriali, Federagenti — Federazione Nazionale Agenti Raccomandatari Marittimi e Mediatori Marittimi, Assofer — Associazione Operatori Ferroviari e Intermodali, Anama — Associazione Nazionale Agenti Merci Aeree, ACA Trasporti Srl, Automerci Srl, Eurospedi Srl, Safe Watcher Srl, Sogemar SpA, Number 1 Logistic Group SpA

         Defendants: Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti — Osservatorio sulle Attività di Trasporto, Ministero dello Sviluppo economico,

         Intervening parties: Legacoop Servizi, Mancinelli Due Srl, Intertrasporti Srl, Confartigianato Trasporti
      (Case C-194/13)

         Applicant: Esso Italiana Srl

         Defendants: Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Ministero dello Sviluppo economico,

         Intervening parties: Autosped G SpA, Transfrigoroute Italia Assotir, Confartigianato Trasporti
      (Case C-195/13)

         Applicants: Confindustria — Confederazione generale dell’industria italiana, Unione Petrolifera, AITEC — Associazione Italiana Tecnico Economica del Cemento, ANCE — Associazione Nazionale Costruttori Edili, ANFIA — Associazione Nazionale Filiera Industria Automobilistica, Assocarta — Associazione Italiana Fra Industriali della Carta Cartoni e Paste per Carta, Assografici — Associazione Nazionale Italiana Industrie Grafiche Cartotecniche e Trasformatrici, Assovetro — Associazione Nazionale degli Industriali del Vetro, Confederazione Italiana Armatori, Confindustria Ceramica, Federacciai — Federazione imprese siderurgiche italiane, Federalimentare — Federazione Italiana Industria Alimentare, Federchimica — Federazione Nazionale Industria Chimica, Italmopa — Associazione Industriale Mugnai d’Italia, Burgo Group SpA, Cartesar SpA, Carteria Lucchese SpA, Cartiera del Garda SpA, Cartiera Modesto Cardella SpA, Eni SpA, Polimeri Europa SpA, Reno De Medici SpA, Sca Packaging Italia SpA, Shell Italia SpA, Sicem Saga SpA, Tamoil Italia SpA, Totalerg SpA

         Defendants: Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Ministero dello Sviluppo economico,

         Intervening parties: FEDIT — Federazione Italiana Trasporti, Autosped G SpA, Consorzio Trasporti Europei Genova, Transfrigoroute Italia Assotir, Coordinamento Interprovinciale FAI, FIAP — Federazione Italiana Autotrasporti Professionali, Semenzin Fabio Autotrasporti, Conftrasporto, Confederazione generale italiana dell’artigianato
      (Case C-208/13)

         Applicant: Autorità garante della concorrenza e del mercato

         Defendants: Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Ministero dello Sviluppo economico,

         Intervening parties: Legacoop Servizi, Mancinelli Due Srl, Intertrasporti Srl, Roquette Italia SpA, Coordinamento Interprovinciale FAI, Conftrasporto, Confartigianato Trasporti, Transfrigoroute Italia Assotir, FIAP — Federazione Italiana Autotrasporti Professionali

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 101 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which the price of haulage services for hire and reward may not be lower than minimum operating costs, which are fixed by a body composed mainly of representatives of the economic operators concerned.

         (1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.


title: Case T-480/16: Action brought on 30 August 2016 — Lidl Stiftung v EUIPO — Amedei (For you)

text:
               31.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/50

         Action brought on 30 August 2016 — Lidl Stiftung v EUIPO — Amedei (For you)
   (Case T-480/16)
   (2016/C 402/59)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: A. Berger, M. Wolter, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Amedei Srl (Pontedera, Italy)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘For you’ — Application for registration No 12 267 571

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 April 2016 in Case R 851/2015-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision and reject Opposition No B 2 342 452 filed against the EUTM application No 12 267 571;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings;

               —

               order the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings before the EUIPO.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case T-317/14: Action brought on 7 May 2014 — Klement/OHIM — Bullerjan (Form of an oven)

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/24

         Action brought on 7 May 2014 — Klement/OHIM — Bullerjan (Form of an oven)
   (Case T-317/14)
   2014/C 261/47
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Toni Klement (Dippoldiswalde, Germany) (represented by: J. Weiser, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bullerjan GmbH (Isernhagen-Kirchhorst, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 27 February 2014 in Case R 1656/2013-1 so that the appeal brought by the applicant is upheld and Community trade mark 4 0 87  731 is revoked in its entirety;

               —

               Alternatively, annul the contested decision;

               —

               Order OHIM and, as the case may be, the Community trade mark proprietor/possible intervener to pay the costs for these proceedings and of the proceedings before OHIM.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: Three-dimensional mark representing an oven, for goods in Class 11 — Community trade mark registration No 4 0 87  731

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Bullerjan GmbH

      Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the application for revocation

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 15 of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case T-354/04: Action brought on 25 August 2004 by Gaetano Petralia against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/58

         Action brought on 25 August 2004 by Gaetano Petralia against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-354/04)
   (2004/C 262/106)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 25 August 2004 by Gaetano Petralia, represented by Carlo Forte, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment of 7 October 2003 to classify him in Grade B 5, step 3;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicant in the present case, who was engaged on the basis of the notice for the recruitment of temporary agents in as IT and management assistants in technical research and development, category B, COM/R/B/02/1999, contests the decision of the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment definitively classifying him in Grade B 5, step 3.
   The applicant took part in the selection procedure on the presumption that he would be engaged as a member of the temporary staff on the basis of his professional experience and, therefore, in Grade B3 or B4, step 3, relying on the second paragraph of Title VIII of the notice.
   In support of his claims, the applicant alleges error of assessment of his own professional merits.
   He further alleges breach of the principle of legitimate expectations and of the obligation to provide a statement of reasons for acts of the administration.


title: Case C-514/14 P: Appeal brought on 14 November 2014 by Éditions Odile Jacob SAS against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 5 September 2014 in Case T-471/11 Odile Jacob v Commission

text:
               26.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/14

         Appeal brought on 14 November 2014 by Éditions Odile Jacob SAS against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 5 September 2014 in Case T-471/11 Odile Jacob v Commission
   (Case C-514/14 P)
   (2015/C 026/19)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Éditions Odile Jacob SAS (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, O. Fréget and L. Eskenazi, avocats)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Lagardère SCA, Wendel

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that the present appeal is admissible and well founded;

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 5 September 2014 in Case T-471/11 Editions Odile Jacob SAS v European Commission and itself adjudicate the dispute;

               —

               grant the forms of order sought by Éditions Odile Jacob at first instance and accordingly annul Decision SG-Greffe (2011) D/C(2011)3503 of 13 May 2011, adopted in Case COMP/M.2978 Lagardère/Natexis/VUP following the judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2010 in Case T-452/04 Éditions Odile Jacob v Commission, by which the Commission once again approved Wendel as purchaser of the assets transferred in accordance with the commitments attached to the Commission’s decision of 7 January 2004 authorising the concentration Lagardère/Natexis/VUP;

               —

               order the European Commission and the interveners to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal, including those relating to the interim proceedings and the rectification proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant relies on three grounds of appeal.
   First, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law by failing to find that the Commission had infringed Article 266 TFEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. As that flaw tainted the lawfulness of the first approval decision, it also vitiated the contested decision, since the latter did not remedy the effects of the agent’s lack of independence throughout his mission. Consequently, according to the appellant, the Commission’s adoption of the contested decision constitutes a breach of the rules governing the right to a fair hearing and negates the effectiveness of any judicial review of the measures taken by that institution.
   Secondly, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in finding that the conditional authorisation decision could constitute a legal basis for a new approval decision.
   Lastly, the appellant submits that the General Court disregarded the legal criteria for assessing the independence of the transferee of the assets sold in relation to the transferor; that it erred in law; and that it distorted the facts relating to that assessment.