title: Appeal brought on 3 December 1998 (received at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 30 November 1998) by Sari Jouhki against the judgment delivered on 16 September 1998 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-215/97 between Sari Jouhki and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-435/98 P)

text:
C 20/26              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                23.1.1999
European Investment       Bank,  100    Boulevard     Konrad       Appeal brought on 3 December 1998 (received at the
Adenauer.                                                          Registry of the Court of First Instance on 30 November
                                                                   1998) by Sari Jouhki against the judgment delivered on
                                                                   16 September 1998 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   of First Instance of the European Communities in Case
                                                                   T-215/97 between Sari Jouhki and the Commission of the
Ð set aside the judgment of the Court    of First Instance of                        European Communities
    30 September 1998 in Case            T-13/97 between
                                                                                (Case C-435/98 P)
    Antoinette Losch and the Court       of Justice of the
    European Communities, supported      by the Council of                                (1999/C 20/44)
    the European Union and the           Kingdom of the
    Netherlands;
                                                                   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 16 September
Ð in its discretion, make the appropriate order as to the          1998 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First
    costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice.          Instance of the European Communities in Case T-215/97
                                                                   between Sari Jouhki and the Commission of the European
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in             Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
Case C-432/98 P.                                                   the European Communities on 3 December 1998 (received
                                                                   at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on
                                                                   30 November 1998) by Sari Jouhki, represented by Harri
                                                                   Ojala, lawyer, of Ojala & Urpelainen, Isokatu 16 B 16,
                                                                   90100 Oulu, Finland.
Appeal brought on 1 December 1998 by the Council of
                                                                   The appellant claims that the Court should:
the European Union against the judgment delivered on
30 September 1998 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities in Case
T-164/97 between S. Busacca and Others and the Court               Ð set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance in
         of Auditors of the European Communities                       so far as it dismissed Ms Jouhki's action against the
                                                                       Commission;
                     (Case C-434/98 P)
                       (1999/C 20/43)
                                                                   Ð annul the decision of the selection board for
                                                                       Commission competition COM/B/973 of 5 September
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 30 September
                                                                       1996 not to admit Ms Jouhki to the competition; and
1998 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities in Case T-164/97 between
S. Busacca and Others and the Court of Auditors of the
European Communities was brought before the Court of               Ð declare that Ms Jouhki was entitled to take part in
Justice of the European Communities on 1 December                      competition COM/B/973.
1998 by the Council of the European Union, represented
by Jean-Paul JacqueÂ, Director in its Legal Service, and
Diego Canga Fano and TheÂreÁse Blanchet, of its Legal              The appellant also asks the Court of Justice to rule on
Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the          costs in accordance with its Rules of Procedure.
Office of Alessandro Morbilli, Director-General of the
Legal Affairs Directorate of the European Investment
Bank, 100 Boulevard Konrad Adenauer.                               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   The selection board for the competition was bound by the
Ð set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of         wording of the competition notice as published.
    30 September 1998 in Case T-164/97 between Silvio
    Busacca and Others and the Court of Auditors of the
    European Communities;                                          The decision of the Court of First Instance breaches
                                                                   Community law, in that the selection board for the
                                                                   competition was bound by the wording of the competition
Ð in its discretion, make the appropriate order as to the
                                                                   notice as published.
    costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice.
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in             The selection board was obliged to take account of all the
Case C-432/98 P.                                                   certificates which Ms Jouhki produced before the
                                                                   time-limit fixed in the notice of competition for making
                                                                   applications.
 ---pagebreak--- 23.1.1999           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 20/27
Ms Jouhki acted in accordance with the competition rules               (a) annul Commission Decision 95/119/EC of 7 April
contained in the notice of competition in producing the                      1995 concerning certain protective measures with
required evidence of her basic training and her                              regard to fishery products originating in Japan
professional training by means of a nurse's diploma. She                     (OJ L 80, 8.4.1995, p. 56) in so far as it affects
was therefore entitled to be admitted to competition                         fisheries products in transit to the Community at
COM/B/973.                                                                   the time of publication of the decision,
The notice of competition was drawn up by the                          (b) order the European Community to pay
Commission alone and the candidates had no opportunity                       compensation in respect of the damage incurred
to influence its content or the expressions and wording                      by the appellant as detailed in the second indent
used in it.                                                                  of the application for annulment and
                                                                             compensation before the Court of First
                                                                             Instance (1),
As a Finnish candidate, Ms Jouhki should have been able
to be confident that the Finnish language notice would be
expressed and interpreted in accordance with the Finnish               (c)   order the Commission to pay the costs incurred
language. That confidence must be protected.                                 by the appellant in the proceedings before both
                                                                             Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice,
In accordance with a general principle of law, the notice
must be interpreted against its author, the Commission.            Ð in the alternative: in the event that final judgment is
                                                                       not given in the terms requested under the second
                                                                       indent owing to the status of the proceedings:
                                                                       (a) annul the contested decision in the terms set out
                                                                             under letter a) of the preceding indent,
Appeal brought on 3 December 1998 by Industria del Frío
Auxiliar Conservera SA against the order made on
15 September 1998 by the Second Chamber of the Court                   (b) refer the case back to the Court of First Instance
of First Instance of the European Communities in Case                        for it to deal with the application for
T-136/95 Industria del Frío Auxiliar Conservera SA v.                        compensation;
        Commission of the European Communities
                    (Case C-437/98 P)
                                                                       (c)   order the Commission to pay the costs incurred
                      (1999/C 20/45)                                         by the appellant in the proceedings before both
                                                                             the Court of First Instance and the Court of
                                                                             Justice to the extent to which they relate to the
                                                                             application for annulment, and direct that the
An appeal against the order made on 15 September 1998
                                                                             decision on the costs of the application for
by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                             compensation is a matter for the Court of First
the European Communities in Case T-136/95 Industria del
                                                                             Instance.
Frío Auxiliar Conservera SA v. Commission of the
European Communities was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 3 December
1998 by Industria del Frío Auxiliar Conservera SA,
                                                                   Ð In the further alternative: in the event that final
a     Spanish    company,      represented     by    Ignacio
                                                                       judgment is not given in the terms requested in the
SaÂenz-Cortabarría FernaÂndez and Marta Morales Isasi, of
                                                                       second indent owing to the status of the proceedings,
the Vizcaya Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                       refer the matter back to the Court of First Instance for
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Guy Harles, 8-10 Rue
                                                                       it to deal with both the application for annulment and
Mathias Hardt.
                                                                       the application for compensation.
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð set aside the decision of the Court of First Instance of
    15 September 1998 in Case T-136/95;
                                                                   Ð Error in law in holding that a preliminary ruling by
                                                                       the Court of Justice rejecting the grounds of alleged
                                                                       invalidity     justifies  dismissing    the    applicant's
Ð give final judgment in the case and:                                 applications and discontinuing the proceedings. A


title: Case T-415/05: Action brought on  25 November 2005  — Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               28.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/19

         Action brought on 25 November 2005 — Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-415/05)
   (2006/C 22/37)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: A. Samoni and P. Milonopoulos)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision C(2005) 2706 final of 14 September 2005 in its entirety or otherwise in part;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   When the Greek state airline Olympic Airways was privatised, the new company Olympic Airlines (‘NOA’) began operating, taking over the flying operations, while Olympic Airways — Services S.A. (‘OA’), as the old company was renamed, retained all other activities, principally ground services, maintenance and aircraft repairs. In the contested decision, the Commission held the grant to NOA and OA of State aid to be incompatible with the Treaty, by reason of:

               —

               payment by NOA, for the subleasing of aircraft, of rental payments lower than those paid for head leases, causing loss to the Greek State and to OA,

               —

               overvaluation of NOA's assets at the time when it was set up,

               —

               payment of money to OA by the Greek State, and payment by the latter, instead of OA, of certain loan instalments and rental payments on leases,

               —

               the continuous forbearance displayed by the Greek State towards OA with regard to tax debts and social security contributions.

         By its action, Greece contests first of all the part of the decision that relates to the rental payments for aircraft which NOA pays. It maintains that there is no State aid and that therefore the contested decision infringes Article 87(1) EC. According to Greece, both OA and the Greek State acted as any well-advised individual would act while, in addition, the rental payments made by NOA correspond to market prices. In the same context, Greece pleads that the duty to state reasons for the contested decision has been infringed.
   So far as concerns the part of the decision relating to the value of NOA's assets, Greece considers that the Commission's assessment was manifestly mistaken as regards quantification of the assets of OA that were transferred to NOA and that the Commission's conclusions in this regard suffer from a lack of reasoning. In any event, Greece considers that the Commission also failed to state reasons with regard to the part of the contested decision that relates to the conditions for rescue aid and for application of Article 87(3) not being met, and also submits that the Commission's legal assessment is mistaken on this point.
   Greece observes with regard to payment by the Greek State of certain loan instalments and rental payments on leases that it made those payments because of its liability as guarantor, on the basis of guarantees which had been given before adoption of a previous relevant Commission decision and are covered by that decision. According to Greece, after payment of the sums in question, the procedure provided for by Greek law for their forced recovery from OA was followed. On the basis of those submissions, Greece pleads that the reasons stated in the contested decision are inadequate, leading, in its view, to a manifestly mistaken legal assessment.
   So far as concerns the part of the decision that reaches the conclusion that NOA is OA's successor, Greece sets out a series of arguments to rebut the Commission's view and, on this basis, pleads infringement of Articles 87(1) and 88(2) EC and a failure to state reasons.
   Greece further pleads infringement of the right to be heard and of the principle of good administration, since it considers that it was not given the opportunity to set out its views on the study by the independent experts whom the Commission had instructed. Finally, it pleads infringement of the principle of proportionality and a failure to state reasons, since the contested decision seeks the recovery of aid in respect of the period from 2002 to 2004 from NOA too, although it began to operate only on 11 December 2003.


title: Case C-569/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Malmö (Sweden) lodged on 6 November 2013 — Bricmate AB v Tullverket

text:
               18.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 15/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Malmö (Sweden) lodged on 6 November 2013 — Bricmate AB v Tullverket
   (Case C-569/13)
   2014/C 15/14
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Förvaltningsrätten i Malmö

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bricmate AB

      Defendant: Tullverket

      Questions referred

   Is Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011 (1) of 12 September 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2011 L 238, p. 1) invalid on any one of the following grounds:

               1.

               that the investigation of the European Union institutions contains manifest errors of fact,

               2.

               that the investigation of the European Union institutions contains manifest errors of assessment,

               3.

               that the Commission has failed in its obligation to exercise due care and has disregarded Article 3(2) and (6) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (2) of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51),

               4.

               that the Commission has disregarded its obligations under Article 20(1) of Regulation No 1225/2009 and has disregarded the company’s rights of the defence,

               5.

               that the Commission, contrary to Article 17 of Regulation No 1225/2009, has failed to take into account the information which the company supplied, and/or

               6.

               that the Commission failed in its duty to state reasons (pursuant to Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union)?

      (1)  OJ L 238, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 343, p. 51.


title: Case C-20/15 P: Appeal brought on 19 January 2015 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 7 November 2014 in Case T-219/10 Autogrill España v Commission

text:
               9.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 81/10

         Appeal brought on 19 January 2015 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 7 November 2014 in Case T-219/10 Autogrill España v Commission
   (Case C-20/15 P)
   (2015/C 081/13)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, B. Stromsky, C. Urraca Caviedes and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Autogrill España, S.A.

      Form of order sought

   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal;

               —

               refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union; and

               —

               reserve the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The General Court erred in law by incorrectly interpreting Article 107(1) TFEU and, in particular, the concept of selectivity of State aid contained in that article.
   That single ground of appeal consists of two parts, which derive from the aforementioned error of law:

               —

               in the first place, the General Court erred by requiring, in order to demonstrate that a measure is selective, the identification of a category of undertakings with specific and inherent characteristics (identifiable ex ante); and

               —

               in the second place, the General Court incorrectly interpreted the concept of selectivity by making an artificial distinction between aid to the export of goods and aid to the export of capital.


title: Case C-13/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 8 January 2016 — Valsts policijas Rīgas reģiona pārvaldes Kārtības policijas pārvalde v Rīgas pašvaldības SIA ‘Rīgas satiksme’

text:
               29.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 111/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 8 January 2016 — Valsts policijas Rīgas reģiona pārvaldes Kārtības policijas pārvalde v Rīgas pašvaldības SIA ‘Rīgas satiksme’
   (Case C-13/16)
   (2016/C 111/13)
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākā tiesa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Valsts policijas Rīgas reģiona pārvaldes Kārtības policijas pārvalde

      Respondent: Rīgas pašvaldības SIA ‘Rīgas satiksme’

      Question referred

   Must the phrase ‘is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the … third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed’, in Article 7(f) of Directive 95/46/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, be interpreted as meaning that the National Police must disclose to Rīgas satiksme the personal data sought by the latter which are necessary in order for civil proceedings to be initiated? Is the fact that, as the documents in the case file indicate, the taxi passenger whose data is sought by the Rīgas satiksme was a minor at the time of the accident relevant to the answer to that question?

      (1)  OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31.


title: Case T-78/03: Action brought on 4 March 2003 by Haladjian Frères against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 112/36                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                       10.5.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            In support of its application, the applicant claims that the
                                                                           Commission was under an obligation to act following the
                                                                           applicant’s observations. Thus the Commission should either
This action is brought against the same Decision as has already            have initiated a procedure against the company against which
been challenged in Case T-27/03 S.P. v Commission.                         the complaint had been made or adopted a definitive decision
                                                                           rejecting the complaint.
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put
                                                                           The applicant further claims that the Commission did not
forward in that case.
                                                                           adopt a position within a reasonable period since, 16 months
                                                                           after the applicant submitted its observations and 9 years after
                                                                           the initial complaint was lodged, the Commission has still not
                                                                           adopted a definitive position.
Action brought on 4 March 2003 by Haladjian Frères
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           Action brought on 27 February 2003 by Industrie Riunite
                           (Case T-78/03)                                  Odolesi I.R.O. S.p.A. against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
                         (2003/C 112/69)
                                                                                (Case T-79/03)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (2003/C 112/70)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 4 March 2003 by Haladjian Frères,
whose registered office is in Sorgues (France), represented by             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Nicole Coutrelis, lawyer.                                                  ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 27 February 2003 by the above
                                                                           applicant, represented by Prof. A. Giardina, lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
—      declare, pursuant to Article 232 of the Treaty, that the
       Commission has failed to adopt a decision following the
       complaint submitted by the company Haladjian on                     —     annul the contested decision;
       18 October 1993;
                                                                           —     in the alternative, cancel or reduce the fine imposed on
—      order the Commission to pay the costs.                                    IRO in the decision;
                                                                           —     in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
Nearly 10 years ago, the applicant submitted a complaint to
the Commission concerning an infringement by Caterpillar of                This action is brought against the same Decision as has already
Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty. The applicant states that             been challenged in Case T-27/03 S.P. v Commission.
the inquiry into the case was unusually long and that it was
only 8 years later that the Commission sent it a letter advising
of its intention to reject the complaint. The applicant submitted          The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put
its observations on that letter and waited a year before putting           forward in that case.
the Commission on notice. It points out furthermore that the
Commission had still not adopted a position when the present
action was lodged.


title: Case T-374/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 September 2008 — Rath v OHIM — Grandel (Epican) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the Community word mark Epican — Earlier Community word mark EPIGRAN — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/41

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 September 2008 — Rath v OHIM — Grandel (Epican)
   (Case T-374/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for registration of the Community word mark Epican - Earlier Community word mark EPIGRAN - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
   (2008/C 285/75)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Matthias Rath (Cape Town, South Africa) (represented by: S. Ziegler, C. Kleiner and F. Dehn, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Dr. Grandel GmbH (Augsburg, Germany) (represented by: G. Hodapp, lawyer)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 October 2006 (Case R 1324/2005-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Dr. Grandel GmbH and Matthias Rath.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

               2.

               Matthias Rath shall bear his own costs and those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Dr. Grandel GmbH.

      (1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 21 March 1996 in Case T-376/94: Georgette Otten v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Invalidity Committee - Composition - Decision to retire an official on grounds of invalidity)

text:
4 . 5 . 96           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 133/21
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            Communities and, second, an order requiring the
                     of 21 March 1996                               Commission to pay the token sum of one ecu by way of
                                                                    compensation for the non-material damage which the
in Case T-230/94 : Frederick Farrugia v. Commission of the          applicant claims to have suffered as a result of the contested
                 European Communities ( x )                         decision — the Court of First Instance ( Fifth Chamber ),
(Action for annulment — Commission decision refusing to             composed of R. Schintgen, President, and R. Garcia
award a fellowship to the applicant — Criteria for eligibility      Valdecasas and J. Azizi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
— British Overseas citizen — Erroneous reasons —                    has given a judgment on 21 March 1996, in which it:
     Non-contractual liability — Non-material damage)
                         ( 96/C 133/47 )                            1 , annuls the decision of the Commission of 13 January
                                                                          1 994 awarding an invalidity pension to the applicant;
              (Language of the case: English)                       2 , dismisses the remainder of the application;
In Case T-230/94 : Frederick Farrugia, resident in Athens,          3 , orders the Commission to pay all of the costs.
represented by Linos Sissilianos, of the Athens Bar, v.
Commission of the European Communities ( Agents: Ana                (') OJ No C 380, 31 . 12 . 1994 .
Maria Alves Vieira and, during the oral procedure, Peter
Oliver) — application for the annullment of the
Commission decision of 26 April 1994 rejecting the
applicant's application for a research training fellowship
and for compensation for material and non-material
damage allegedly caused to the applicant by that decision —
                                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber), composed
of H. Kirschner, President, C. W. Bellamy and                                              of 21 March 1996
A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a          in Case T-10/95 : Akli Chehab v. Commission of the
judgment on 21 March 1996 , in which it:                                               European Communities (*)
                                                                    (Officials — Partial permanent invalidity — Recognition of
1 , annuls the Commission decision in its letter of 26 April                                     aggravation)
     1994;
                                                                                ( 96/C 133/49 )
2 , dismisses the claim for compensation;
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
3 , orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                    In Case T-10/95 : Akli Chehab, a retired former official of
(M OJ No C 101 , 22 . 4 . 1995 .                                    the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
                                                                    Paris, represented by Jean-Noël Louis, of the Brussels Bar,
                                                                    with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
                                                                    Fiduciaire Myson Sàrl, 1 Rue Glesener, v. Commission of
                                                                    the European Communities (Agents: Ana Maria Alves
                                                                    Vieira and Julian Currall ) — application, first, for the
                                                                    annulment of a decision whereby the Commission declined
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                    to recognize a 3% aggravation in the partial permanent
                     of 21 March 1996                               invalidity of the applicant and, second, an order requiring
in Case T-3 76/94: Georgette Otten v. Commission of the             the Commission to pay compensation for the non-material
                 European Communities ( 1 )                         damage which the applicant claims to have suffered in the
(Officials — Invalidity Committee — Composition —                   present case — the Court of First Instance ( Second
   Decision to retire an official on grounds of invalidity)         Chamber ), composed of H. Kirschner, President, and C. W.
                                                                    Bellamy and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal
                         ( 96/C 133/48 )                            Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                    21 March 1996 , in which it:
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                    1 , annuls the    decision of the Commission of 22 March
                                                                          1 994 in so far as it limits to 3% the degree of partial
In Case T-376/94 : Georgette Otten, a former official of the
                                                                          permanent    invalidity from which the applicant is
Commission of the European Communities, residing at                       recognized  to be suffering;
Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis, of the Brussels
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices       2 , dismisses the remainder of the application;
of Fiduciaire Myson Sàrl, 1 Rue Glesener, v. Commission of
the European Communities ( Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and           3 , orders the Commission to pay all of the costs.
Julian Currall ) — application, first, for the annulment
of the decision of the Commission of 13 January 1994
awarding the appplicant an invalidity pension fixed in              ( ! ) OJ No C 74, 25 . 3 . 1995 .
accordance with the third paragraph of Article 78 of
the Staff Regulations of officials of the European


title: Case C-228/09: Judgement of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 May 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 78, 79, 83 and 86 — Taxable amount — Sale of a car — Inclusion in the taxable amount of a duty applicable to non-registered cars)

text:
               17.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/2

         Judgement of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 May 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-228/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 78, 79, 83 and 86 - Taxable amount - Sale of a car - Inclusion in the taxable amount of a duty applicable to non-registered cars)
   2010/C 195/02
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Dowgielewicz, M. Jarosz and A. Rutkowska, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Articles 78, 79, 83 and 86 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Sale of a motor vehicle — Inclusion in the taxable amount of a duty payable on the registration of a vehicle

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application.

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 233 of 26.9.2009.


title: Case C-20/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 18 January 2017 — Vincent Pierre Oberle

text:
               10.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/19

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 18 January 2017 — Vincent Pierre Oberle
   (Case C-20/17)
   (2017/C 112/27)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Kammergericht Berlin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Vincent Pierre Oberle

      Question referred

   Is Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession (1) (Regulation No 650/2012) to be interpreted as meaning that it also determines exclusive international jurisdiction in respect of the granting, in the Member States, of national certificates of succession which have not been replaced by the European certificate of succession (see Article 62(3) of Regulation No 650/2012), with the result that divergent provisions adopted by national legislatures with regard to international jurisdiction in respect of the granting of national certificates of succession — such as Paragraph 105 of the Familiengesetzbuch (the Family Code) in Germany — are ineffective on the ground that they infringe higher-ranking European law?

      (1)  OJ 2012 L 201, p. 107.


title: Case T-83/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  25 October 2005  — Salazar Brier v Commission (Officials — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance — Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Work done for another State — Meaning of habitual residence — Statement of grounds — Principle of equal treatment)

text:
               24.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/18

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 October 2005 — Salazar Brier v Commission
   (Case T-83/03) (1)

   (Officials - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Work done for another State - Meaning of habitual residence - Statement of grounds - Principle of equal treatment)
   (2005/C 330/45)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Tomás Salazar Brier (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier, D. Domínguez Pérez and A. Sayagués Torres, lawyers)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall, Agent, assisted by J. Rivas Andrés and J. Gutiérrez Gisbert, lawyers)
   Application for
   annulment of the Commission's implied decision, rejecting the applicant's complaint of 24 February 2003, and its express decision to that effect of 24 March 2003, which refuse to pay the applicant the expatriation allowance under Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and the allowances associated therewith
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the application;

               2)

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 101 of 26.4.2003.


title: Case T-309/99: Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 October 2006 — Snijders Olie v Commission

text:
               16.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 310/29

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 October 2006 — Snijders Olie v Commission
   (Case T-309/99) (1)

   (2006/C 310/61)

      Language of the case: Dutch

   The President of the Second Chamber Extended Composition has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 4.3.2000.


title: Case C-101/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 September 2016 — Pilkington Group Ltd, Pilkington Automotive Ltd, Pilkington Automotive Deutschland GmbH, Pilkington Holding GmbH, Pilkington Italia SpA v European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Article 101 TFEU — Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 — European market for automotive glass — Market-sharing agreements and exchanges of commercially sensitive information — Fines — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Point 13 — Value of sales — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Second subparagraph of Article 23(2) — Statutory ceiling of the fine — Exchange rate for the calculation of the ceiling of the fine — Amount of the fine — Unlimited jurisdiction — Mono-product undertakings — Proportionality — Equal treatment)

text:
               31.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 September 2016 — Pilkington Group Ltd, Pilkington Automotive Ltd, Pilkington Automotive Deutschland GmbH, Pilkington Holding GmbH, Pilkington Italia SpA v European Commission
   (Case C-101/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 101 TFEU - Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 - European market for automotive glass - Market-sharing agreements and exchanges of commercially sensitive information - Fines - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Point 13 - Value of sales - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Second subparagraph of Article 23(2) - Statutory ceiling of the fine - Exchange rate for the calculation of the ceiling of the fine - Amount of the fine - Unlimited jurisdiction - Mono-product undertakings - Proportionality - Equal treatment))
   (2016/C 402/06)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Pilkington Group Ltd, Pilkington Automotive Ltd, Pilkington Automotive Deutschland GmbH, Pilkington Holding GmbH, Pilkington Italia SpA (represented by: S. Wisking and K. Fountoukakos-Kyriakakos, Solicitors, and by C. Puech Baron, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan, M. Kellerbauer and H. Leupold, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Pilkington Group Ltd, Pilkington Automotive Ltd, Pilkington Automotive Deutschland GmbH, Pilkington Holding GmbH and Pilkington Italia SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 81, 9.3.2015.


title: Case T-538/12: Action brought on 13 December 2012 — Optilingua holding SA v OHIM — Esposito (ALPHATRAD)

text:
               9.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/26

         Action brought on 13 December 2012 — Optilingua holding SA v OHIM — Esposito (ALPHATRAD)
   (Case T-538/12)
   2013/C 38/47
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Optilingua holding SA (Epalinges, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Rizzo, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Michele Esposito (Cava de’ Tirreni SA, Italy)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 October 2012 in Case R 444/2011-1;

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: Figurative mark including the word element ‘ALPHATRAD’ for services in Classes 35, 38, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark No 617 316

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: Esposito

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: The application for revocation is upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal is dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 15(1)(2)(a), in conjunction with Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case C-201/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessische Finanzgericht, Kassel (Germany) lodged on 16 May 2008 — Plantanol GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Darmstadt

text:
               19.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessische Finanzgericht, Kassel (Germany) lodged on 16 May 2008 — Plantanol GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Darmstadt
   (Case C-201/08)
   (2008/C 183/28)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Hessische Finanzgerichts, Kassel
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Plantanol GmbH & Co.KG

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Darmstadt
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is a national provision such as Paragraph 50(1)(1) of the Energy Tax Law (Energiesteuergesetz), as amended by the Biofuel Quota Law (Biokraftstoffquotengesetz) of 18 December 2006, which does not accord an advantage to that part of a fuel blend consisting of a biofuel composed of vegetable oil meeting the DIN V 51605 standard (as it stood in July 2006) contrary to Directive 2003/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 May 2003 on the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport (Biofuel Directive) (1), particularly in the light of recitals 10, 12, 14, 19, 22 and 27 therein?

               2.

               Does the Community law principle of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations require that it should be permissible only in wholly exceptional circumstances for a Member State which adopts rules for the implementation of that directive and, in doing so, has established a promotion scheme consisting of tax advantages spread over several years, to amend that scheme, during the time-limit laid down, to the disadvantage of an undertaking which previously enjoyed an advantage?

      (1)  OJ L 123, p. 42.


title: Case T-228/11 P: Order of the General Court of 17 December 2012 — Barbin v Parliament (Appeal — Civil Service — Officials — Death of the applicant — Non-resumption of proceedings by the successors — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               23.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/12

         Order of the General Court of 17 December 2012 — Barbin v Parliament
   (Case T-228/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil Service - Officials - Death of the applicant - Non-resumption of proceedings by the successors - No need to adjudicate)
   2013/C 55/22
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

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

      Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: S. Seyr and E. Despotopoulou, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 15 February 2011 in Case F-68/09 Barbin v Parliament ECR I-0000, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               Each party is to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 16.7.2011.


title: Case F-73/14: Action brought on 24 July 2014  — ZZ v Europol

text:
               27.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 380/27

         Action brought on 24 July 2014 — ZZ v Europol
   (Case F-73/14)
   2014/C 380/36
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

      Defendant: Europol

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the decision not to renew the applicant’s contract and compensation for the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the implied decision rejecting the request under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations, seeking to obtain the extension of the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff at Grade A7, brought on 6 December 2013, and the Director of Europol’s response to the complaint, dated 14 April 2014;

               —

               order the defendant to pay EUR 1 5 45  124 by way of damages for the material harm suffered;

               —

               order the defendant to pay EUR 40  000 by way of damages for the non-material harm suffered;

               —

               order Europol to pay the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case C-160/05: Action brought on 6 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/17

         Action brought on 6 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic
   (Case C-160/05)
   (2005/C 115/32)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the French Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by D. Maidani, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions which are necessary in order to comply with Directive 2002/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 June 2002 on financial collateral arrangements (1)and, in any event, by failing to inform the Commission of them, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               order the French Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposing the directive into national law expired on 27 December 2003.

      (1)  OJ L 168 of 27.06.2002, p. 43.


               25.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 324/13

         Action brought on 2 June 2012 by Konkurrenten.no AS against the EFTA Surveillance Authority
   (Case E-5/12)
   2012/C 324/11
   An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 2 June 2012 by Konkurrenten.no AS, represented by Jon Midthjell, advokat, Advokatfirmaet Midthjell AS, Grev Wedels plass 5, 0151 Oslo, Norway.
   The Applicant requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               Annul the contested decision; and

               2.

               Order the defendant and any intervener to bear the costs.

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

               —

               The Applicant is a privately owned company, incorporated in Norway. The company is active in the regional express bus market between the Southern and Central region in Norway.

               —

               The Applicant seeks the annulment of ESA’s decision, as notified on 5 April 2012, which denies public access to the complete statement of content in ESA Case No 60510.

               —

               The Applicant claims that the EFTA Surveillance Authority:

                           —

                           has infringed Article 2(1) RAD and Article 4(2) RAD by refusing to disclose a complete statement of content of file; and

                           —

                           has infringed Article 16 SCA insofar as the contested decision failed to state reasons.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 14 September 1995 in Joined Cases T-480/93 and T-483/93: Antillean Rice Mills and Others v. Commission of the European Communities (Association of the overseas countries and territories - Safeguard measure - Application for annnulment - Admissibility)

text:
No C 286/ 10           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    28 . 10 . 95
Germany ( Agents : Ernst Röder and Bernd Kloke ) v.                   Claude Chavance ) and Italian Republic ( Agent: Danilo Del
Commission of the European Communities ( Agents :                     Gaizo ) — application for the annulment of Commission
Antonino Abate, Bernhard Jansen, Bernard Langeheine,                  Decision 93/ 127/EEC of 25 February 1993 introducing
Claus Michael Happe and Meinhard Hilf) — application for              safeguard measures in respect of rice originating in the
annulment        of  Article   2   of   Commission      Decision      Netherlands Antilles ( OJ 1993 L 50 , p. 27 ) and of
91 /391 /EEC of 26 March 1991 on aid granted by the                   Commission Decision 93/21 1 /EEC of 13 April 1993
German Government to Deggendorf GmbH, a producer of                   modifying Decision 93/ 127/EEC ( OJ 1993 L 90 , p. 36 ), and
polyamide and polyester yarns located in Deggendorf                   for an order that the Commission make good the damage
( Bavaria ) ( OJ 1991 L 215 , p. 16 ), and of Article 2 of            which the applicants consider they have suffered and may
Commission Decision 92/330/EEC of 18 December 1991 on                 yet suffer as a result of the adoption of those decisions — the
aid by Germany to the Deggendorf textile works ( OJ 1992              Court of First Instance ( Fourth Chamber, extended
L 1 83 , p. 36 ) — the Court of First Instance ( Third Chamber,       composition ), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, R.
extended composition ), composed of J. Biancarelli,                   Schintgen, C. P. Briët, R. García-Valdecasas and C. W.
President, R. Schintgen, C. P. Briët, R. García-Valdecasas            Bellamy, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on
and C. W. Bellamy, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a            14 September 1995 , in which it:
judgment on 13 September 1995 , in which it:
                                                                      1 . annuls Article 1 ( 1 ) of Commission Decision
1 . dismisses the actions;                                                 93/127/EEC of 25 February 1993 introducing
                                                                          safeguard measures in respect of rice originating in the
                                                                           Netherlands Antilles ;
2 . orders the applicant to bear its own costs, as well as
     those of the defendant;
                                                                      2 . dismisses the remainder of the applications;
3.   the intervener shall bear its own costs.
                                                                      3.   orders the Commission to bear its own costs and
0 ) OJ No C 212 , 14 . 8 . 1991 and OJ No C 167, 4 . 7 . 1992 .
                                                                           one-third of the applicant's costs, the applicants to bear
                                                                           two-thirds of their own costs and the interveners to bear
                                                                           their own costs .
                                                                      (') OJ No C 171 , 22 . 6 . 1993 .
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                     of 14 September 1995
in Joined Cases T-480/93 and T-483/93 : Antillean Rice
Mills and Others v. Commission of the European                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                         Communities ( ] )
                                                                                of 14 September 1995
(Association of the overseas countries and territories —
                                                                      in Case T-571 /93 : Lefebvre Frères et Soeurs v. Commission
Safeguard measure — Application for annnulment —
                          Admissibility)                                             of the European Communities ( 1 )
                          ( 95/C 286/24 )                             (Agriculture — Bananas — Action for damages — Delay in
                                                                      submitting a proposal for a regulation establishing the
                                                                      common organiziation of the market — Validity of
                  (Language of the case: Dutch)                       decisions ofthe Commission based on Article 115 of the EC
                                                                                Treaty)
In Joined Cases T-480/93 : Antillean Rice Mills NV,                                              ( 95/C 286/25 )
established in Bonaire, Netherlands Antilles, and Trading &
Shipping Co. Ter Beek BV, established in Amsterdam,                                    (Language of the case: French)
represented by Paul Glazener and Winfred Knibbeler, of the
Rotterdam Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe; and                    In Case T-571 /93 : Lefebvre Freres et Soeurs, established at
T-483/93 : European Rice Brokers AW, established in                   Douai ( France ), GIE Fructifruit, established at Barentin
 Oranjestad, Aruba, Alesie Curaçao NV, established in                 ( France ), Association des Mûrisseurs Indépendants,
Willemstad, Curaçao , Netherlands Antilles, and Guyana                established at Dieppe ( France ), and Star Fruits Cie,
 Investments AW, established in Oranjestad, Aruba,                    established in Brussels, represented by Jean-Philippe Kunlin
 represented by Johan Pel, of the Amsterdam Bar, with an              and Jean-Paul Montenot, of the Paris Bar, with an address
 address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Luc             for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt &
 Frieden, 62 Avenue Guillaume, against Commission of the              Medernach , 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, v. Commission of the
 European Communities (Agents: Etienne Lasnet, Thomas                 European Communities ( agents : Gerard Rozet and Marc de
 van Rijn and Marc van der Woude ), supported by Council              Pauw ), supported by the French Republic ( agents: Catherine
 of the European Union (Agent: Guus Houttuin ), French                 de Salins and Nicolas Eybalin ) — application for damages
 Republic (Agents: Edwige Belliard, Catherine de Salins and            pursuant to Article 178 and the second paragraph


title: Case T-21/06: Action brought on  21 January 2006  — Germany v Commission

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/32

         Action brought on 21 January 2006 — Germany v Commission
   (Case T-21/06)
   (2006/C 86/65)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma, C. Schulze-Bahr, Agents, assisted by G. Quardt, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision C(2005) 3903 of 9 November 2005 on the State aid which the Federal Republic of Germany has implemented for the introduction of digital terrestrial television (DVB-T) in Berlin-Brandenburg;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant is challenging Commission Decision C(2005) 3903 final of 9 November 2005 on the State aid for the introduction of digital terrestrial television (DVB-T) in Berlin-Brandenburg. In the contested decision the Commission stated that the aid granted to the commercial broadcasters participating in DVB-T was incompatible with the common market and ordered the Federal Republic of Germany to recover from the beneficiaries the aid which was unlawfully made available to them.
   In support of its action the applicant submits, in particular, that the aid granted is compatible with the common market and complains that the Commission made numerous errors of judgment and assessment in its application of Article 87(3)(c) EC. Instead of carrying out an assessment under Article 87(3)(c) EC, the defendant used a new method of assessment of market failure which, in the way it was carried out, was not suitable to determine the compatibility or incompatibility of the aid with the common market. Furthermore, the applicant submits that the Commission did not carry out an adequate assessment under Article 87(3)(b) EC of the compatibility of the aid granted.
   In addition, the applicant claims that the Commission infringed general principles of law. It complains that the principle of sound administration and the principle of the right to be heard were infringed.


title: Case T-507/13: Order of the General Court of 14 January 2015  — SolarWorld and Others v Commission (Actions for annulment — Dumping — Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells and wafers) originating in or consigned from China — Acceptance of an undertaking offered in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding — Community industry — Absence of direct concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               9.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 81/19

         Order of the General Court of 14 January 2015 — SolarWorld and Others v Commission
   (Case T-507/13) (1)

   ((Actions for annulment - Dumping - Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells and wafers) originating in or consigned from China - Acceptance of an undertaking offered in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding - Community industry - Absence of direct concern - Inadmissibility))
   (2015/C 081/24)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: SolarWorld AG (Bonn, Germany); Brandoni solare SpA (Castelfidardo, Italy); Global Sun Ltd (Sliema, Malta); Silicio Solar, SAU (Madrid, Spain); Solaria Energia y Medio Ambiente, SA (Puertollano, Spain) (represented by: L. Ruessmann, lawyer, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, T. Maxian Rusche and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, Agents)

      Re:

   Action for the annulment of Commission Decision 2013/423/EU of 2 August 2013 accepting an undertaking offered in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells and wafers) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2013 L 209, p. 26), and of Commission Implementing Decision 2013/707/EU of 4 December 2013 confirming the acceptance of an undertaking offered in connection with the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy proceedings concerning imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China for the period of application of definitive measures (OJ 2013 L 325, p. 214).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               SolarWorld AG, Brandoni solare SpA, Global Sun Ltd, Silicio Solar, SAU and Solaria Energia y Medio Ambiente, SA shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.


title: Case T-58/09: Action brought on 11 February 2009 — Schemaventotto v Commission

text:
               4.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/34

         Action brought on 11 February 2009 — Schemaventotto v Commission
   (Case T-58/09)
   (2009/C 82/59)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Schemaventotto SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Siragusa, G. Scassellati Sforzolini, G.C. Rizza, M. Piergiovanni, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Forms of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision(s) contained in the letter of 13 August 2008, File No C(2008) 4494, from Commissioner Kroes, for and on behalf of the European Commission, to the Italian authorities, and relating to a proceeding under Article 21 of [Regulation No 139/2004] on the control of concentrations between undertakings (Case COMP/M.4388 — Abertis v Autostrade); and

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The present action contests the decision contained in Commissioner Kroes' letter of 13 August 2008, by which — according to the applicant — the Commission notified the Italian authorities of its intention not to pursue Case COMP/M.4388 Abertis v Autostrade under Article 21 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (‘the Regulation’). Indeed, the Commission approves the regulatory measures relating to the authorisation procedures for the ‘transfer’ of motorway concessions (Ministerial Directive of 2007 and Decree of 2008). However, in the above-mentioned letter, the Commission reserves its position as to whether the Italian regulatory framework relating to the authorisation procedure for the transfer of motorway concessions is compatible with the rules governing the internal market.
   In support of its claims, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 21 of the regulation on concentrations, on the following grounds:

               —

               The Commission may in no circumstances refer to amendments made to the relevant regulatory framework after 31 January 2007, the date of the preliminary assessment. Since the Commission's powers of assessment under Article 21(4) of the Regulation are closely linked to the context of the assessment of a specific concentration with a Community dimension, with which the national measures at issue are concerned, subsequent amendments to the regulations could not have any effects on the earlier conduct of the Italian authorities, which led the parties to abandon the transaction in December 2006, three months after it was authorised under Article 6(1)(b) of the Regulation.

               —

               The applicant alleges that the Commission acted ultra vires or misused its powers, in so far as the legal basis chosen for the contents of the specific Decision ‘not to pursue’ the Italian measures at issue is inadequate. It is submitted in that connection that, by deciding that the amendments which had meanwhile been made to the regulatory framework would ensure that there would be no grounds in future for the misgivings expressed in its preliminary assessment of 31 January 2007, the Commission has adopted under Article 21 of the Regulation a type of decision which that provision does not envisage. In fact, the Commission has used the powers conferred upon it under Article 21 to declare compatible with Community law certain measures of general application adopted by a Member State, which have nothing to do with the specific concentration which Italy's adoption of the national measures at issue was intended to block.

               —

               By considering that the Italian regulatory framework, as amended, has been made compatible with Community law, the Commission has failed to take into account the fresh uncertainties which have arisen in the Italian legal system as a result of those national measures, which have certainly not helped to establish a favourable environment for any future concentrations concerning the Italian market in motorway concessions. In addition, the regulations adopted by the Italian Administration in 2007 and 2008 must in any event also be said to be contrary to Article 21 [of the Regulation] in so far as they impose more extensive obligations for a ‘transfer’ of a motorway concession than those to which the interested parties would otherwise be subject.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 11 March 1996 in Case T-195/95: Guérin Automobiles v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Actions against Community institutions for failure to act and for damages - Objection of inadmissibility)

text:
No C 133/22            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    4 . 5 . 96
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              notice of initiation of anti-dumping proceedings concerning
                       of 28 March 1996                              imports of certain magnetic disks ( 3,5" microdisks )
                                                                     originating in Canada , Indonesia, Macao and Thailand ( OJ
in Case T-40/95 : V v. Commission of the European                    No C 84 , 1995 , p . 4 ) — the Court of First Instance ( Third
                        Communities ( 1 )                            Chamber, Enlarged Composition ), composed of C. P. Briët,
(Officials — Disciplinary measures — Removal from post —             President, B. Vesterdorf, P. Lindh, A. Potocki and J. D.
           Reasons — Aggravating circumstances)                      Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
                         ( 96/C 133/50 )                             14 March 1996 , the operative part of which is as
                                                                     follows :
               (Language of the case: French)                        1 . The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
In Case T-40/95 : V, a former official of the Commission of          2 . The applicants shall bear the costs.
the European Communities, residing at Arlon ( Belgium ),
represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Thierry Demaseure and                (M OJ No C 229 , 2 . 9 . 1995 .
Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
Sari , 1 Rue Glesener, v . Commission of the European
Communities ( Agent: Ana Maria Alves Vieira ) —
application for annulment of the decision of the
Commission of 18 January 1995 removing the applicant
                                                                         ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
from his post without reduction or withdrawal of
entitlement to retirement pension — the Court of First                                     of 11 March 1996
Instance ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of R. Schintgen,                in Case T-195/95 : Guérin Automobiles v. Commission of
President, and R. Garcia-Valdecasas and J. Azizi — Judges;                           the European Communities ( 1 )
L. Kintzelé-Prussen, Legal Secretary, for the Registrar, has
                                                                     (Competition — Actions against Community institutions
given a judgment on 28 March 1996 , in which it:
                                                                     for failure to act and for damages — Objection of
                                                                                inadmissibility)
1 . annuls the decision of the Commission of 18 January
     1 995 removing the applicant from his post;                                               ( 96/C 133/52 )
2 , orders the Commission to bear all of the costs, including                        (Language of the case: French)
    those incurred in the proceedings for interim
    measures .
                                                                     In Case T-195/95 : Guérin Automobiles, a company
                                                                     incorporated under French law, in liquidation, established
C ) OJ No C 87, 8 . 4 . 1995 .                                       at Alençon ( France ), represented by Jean Claude Fourgoux,
                                                                     of the Paris and Brussels Bars, with an address for service in
                                                                     Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4 Rue
                                                                     Béatrix de Bourbon, v. Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities ( Agents : Francisco Enrique Gonzalez Diaz
                                                                     and Guy Charrier ) — application for a declaration that the
                                                                     Commission has failed to notify complaints against Nissan
    ORTDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            France SA, alternatively for damages — the Court of First
                                                                     Instance ( Second Chamber, extended composition ),
                       of 14 March 1996
                                                                     composed of H. Kirschner, President, and B. Vesterdorf,
in Case T- 1 34/95 : Dysan Magnetics Ltd and Review                  C. W. Bellamy, A. Kalogeropoulos and A. Potocki, Judges;
Magnetics ( Macao ) Ltd v. Commission of the European                H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 11 March 1996 , the
                        Communities ( ! )                            operative part of which is as follows :
(Action for annulment — Notice of initiation of
        anti-dumping proceedings — Inadmissibility)                  I . the application is dimissed as inadmissible in so far as it
                                                                         seeks a declaration of failure to act on the part of the
                          ( 96/C 133/51 )                                 Commission ;
               (Language of the case: English)                       2 , as regards the forms of order sought in relation to
                                                                         damages, the Court's decision on the objection of
                                                                         inadmissibility raised by the defendant is reserved for
In Case T- 1 34/95 : Dysan Magnetics Ltd, established in                  the final judgment;
Reading, United Kingdom, and Review Magnetics ( Macao )
Ltd, established in Macao, represented by Mark Clough                3,   the costs are reserved.
and Mark Brealey, Barristers, instructed by Rosenblatt,
Solicitors, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                     (') OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, against
Commission of the European Communities ( Agent:
Nicholas Khan ) — application for the annulment of the


title: Case C-53/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 January 2012 — Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) v Nike International Ltd, Aurelio Muñoz Molina (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 58 — Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Rules 49 and 50 — Word mark R10 — Opposition — Assignment — Admissibility of an appeal — Concept of ‘person entitled to appeal’ — Applicability of the OHIM Guidelines)

text:
               10.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/5

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 January 2012 — Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) v Nike International Ltd, Aurelio Muñoz Molina
   (Case C-53/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 58 - Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Rules 49 and 50 - Word mark R10 - Opposition - Assignment - Admissibility of an appeal - Concept of ‘person entitled to appeal’ - Applicability of the OHIM Guidelines)
   2012/C 73/08
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

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

      Other parties to the proceedings: Nike International Ltd (represented by: M. de Justo Bailey, abogado), Aurelio Muñoz Molina

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 November 2010 in Case T-137/09 Nike International Ltd v OHIM — Aurelio Muñoz Molina, whereby the General Court annulled the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 21 January 2009 (Case R 551/2008-1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 24 November 2010 in Case T-137/09 Nike International v OHIM — Muñoz Molina (R10) in so far as in that judgment, the General Court, in breach of Article 58 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1891/2006 of 18 December 2006, and Rule 49 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Regulation No 40/94, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1041/2005 of 29 June 2005, held that the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), in its decision of 21 January 2009 (Case R 551/2008-1), infringed Rules 31(6) and 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95, as amended by Regulation No 1041/2005, by declaring the appeal brought by Nike International Ltd to be inadmissible;

               2.

               Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

               3.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 152, 21.5.2011.


title: Case C-566/12 P: Appeal brought on 29 November 2012 by Erusalim Baleanu against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 25 September 2012 in Case T-311/12: Baleanu v Commission

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/53

         Appeal brought on 29 November 2012 by Erusalim Baleanu against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 25 September 2012 in Case T-311/12: Baleanu v Commission
   (Case C-566/12 P)
   2013/C 225/94
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Erusalim Baleanu (represented by: R. Neagu, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
   By order of 27 June 2013 the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Case C-539/10 P: Appeal brought on 22 November 2010 by Stichting Al-Aqsa against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Seventh Chamber) on 9 September 2010 in Case T-348/07 Al-Aqsa v Council of the European Union

text:
               12.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/2

         Appeal brought on 22 November 2010 by Stichting Al-Aqsa against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Seventh Chamber) on 9 September 2010 in Case T-348/07 Al-Aqsa v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-539/10 P)
   2011/C 46/03
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Appellant: Stichting Al-Aqsa (represented by: A.M. van Eik and M.J.G. Uiterwaal, advocaten)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, Kingdom of the Netherlands, European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment delivered by the General Court on 9 September 2010 in Case T-348/07 in so far as the appellant puts forward grounds of appeal and arguments directed against the grounds of that judgment, and give a new ruling upholding the claims put forward at first instance on improved grounds as compared with those on which the judgment under appeal is based;

               —

               Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and of this appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               In its judgment of 9 September 2010 (in Case T-348/07), the General Court found that, since the Sanctieregeling (Sanctieregeling terrorisme 2003) [Regulation on sanctions for the suppression of terrorism (‘the Sanctieregeling’)] on the basis of which the appellant had been included in the list had been repealed, an order of the court hearing an application for interim measures did not provide an adequate basis for continuing to include the appellant in the list. The appellant (hereinafter also referred to as ‘Al-Aqsa’) shares those views of the General Court.

               2.

               However, the General Court included certain grounds in its judgment on the basis of which certain pleas put forward by Al-Aqsa were rejected as unfounded. Thus, the General Court held that the Sanctieregeling, in conjunction with the order of the court hearing the application for interim measures, can be regarded as a decision of a competent national authority meeting the definition contained in Article 1(4) of the CP (Common Position 2001/931). Further, the General Court found that ‘knowledge’ within the meaning of Article 1(3)(k) of the CP, and as required by Article 1(4) of Regulation No 2580/2001, (1) can be established in regard to Al-Aqsa.

               3.

               The appellant takes issue with those grounds and has therefore brought this appeal. Before setting out its grounds of appeal, the appellant addresses the admissibility of the appeal.

               4.

               The appellant’s grounds of appeal can be summarised as follows. First, the General Court exceeded its powers of review by itself determining the evidence that was to be regarded as a decision within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the CP (first ground of appeal).

               5.

               Further, the General Court erred in deciding that the Sanctieregeling — whether or not in conjunction with the order of the court hearing the application for interim measures — can be regarded as a decision within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the CP (second ground of appeal).

               6.

               Finally, the General Court exceeded its powers by itself interpreting the order, or in any event it made a manifest error of assessment in interpreting the order (third ground of appeal).

               7.

               Consequently, Al-Aqsa’s application should be granted and the contested decisions should be annulled on improved grounds as compared with those on which the judgment under appeal is based.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (OJ 2001 L 344, p. 70).


title: Case C-318/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil régional d’expression française de l’ordre des médecins vétérinaires (Belgium) lodged on 28 June 2012 — Disciplinary proceedings against Jean Devillers

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil régional d’expression française de l’ordre des médecins vétérinaires (Belgium) lodged on 28 June 2012 — Disciplinary proceedings against Jean Devillers
   (Case C-318/12)
   2013/C 108/28
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil régional d'expression française de l'ordre des médecins vétérinaires (Belgium)

      Party to the main proceedings

   Jean Devillers
   The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Conseil régional d’expression française de l’ordre des médecins vétérinaires (Belgium), by decision of 12 May 2012 (Case C-318/12), is manifestly inadmissible.


title: Case T-883/16: Action brought on 16 December 2016 — Republic of Poland v Commission

text:
               6.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/52

         Action brought on 16 December 2016 — Republic of Poland v Commission
   (Case T-883/16)
   (2017/C 038/68)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Commission of 28 October 2016 concerning amendments to the conditions of the exemption of the Opal gas pipeline from the requirements on third-party access (TPA) and tariff regulation granted under Directive 2003/55/EC;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               The first plea in law alleges infringement of Article 36(1)(a) of Directive 2009/73/EC, in conjunction with Article 194(1)(b) TFEU, and of the principle of solidarity through the granting of a new regulatory exemption for the Opal gas pipeline, even though that exemption undermines the security of gas supplies.

               2.

               The second plea in law alleges lack of competence on the part of the Commission and infringement of Article 36(1), in conjunction with Article 2(17), of Directive 2009/73/EC through the granting of a new regulatory exemption for the Opal gas pipeline, even though that pipeline is not an ‘interconnector’.

               3.

               The third plea in law alleges infringement of Article 36(1)(b) of Directive 2009/73/EC through the granting of a new regulatory exemption for the Opal gas pipeline despite the fact that there was no risk that the investment would not take place if that exemption were not granted.

               4.

               The fourth plea in law alleges infringement of Article 36(1)(a) and (e) of Directive 2009/73/EC through the granting of a new regulatory exemption for the Opal gas pipeline despite the negative impact of that exemption on competition.

               5.

               The fifth plea in law alleges infringement of international agreements binding the European Union, namely the Energy Charter Treaty, the Energy Community Treaty and the Association Agreement with Ukraine.


title: Case T-55/17: Action brought on 30 January 2017 — Healy v Commission

text:
               10.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/39

         Action brought on 30 January 2017 — Healy v Commission
   (Case T-55/17)
   (2017/C 112/54)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: John Morrison Healy (Celbridge, Ireland) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of 11 April 2016 by which the selection board excluded the applicant from participating in Competition COM/02/AST/16 (AST 2);

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging breach of the first paragraph of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations.
   The applicant is of the view that the admission condition at issue, namely that of demonstrating 42 months of service within the Commission, is not justified in view of the requirements of the positions to be filled.
   In addition, the applicant claims that Article 82(7) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants (CEOS) is incompatible with Article 27 of the Staff Regulations in so far as it excludes, in all cases, contract staff who have completed less than 36 months of service from participating in internal competitions. In the present case, the applicant maintains, the Commission took the view that 36 months was a minimum threshold which vitiated the Appointing Authority’s assessment of the admission condition at issue.


title: Case C-119/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt (Germany), lodged on 27 February 2007 — Container Service Thorsten Sperzel GmbH v Land Hessen

text:
               26.5.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 117/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt (Germany), lodged on 27 February 2007 — Container Service Thorsten Sperzel GmbH v Land Hessen
   (Case C-119/07)
   (2007/C 117/09)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Container Service Thorsten Sperzel GmbH

      Defendant: Land Hessen
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 33(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 (1) of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community to be interpreted as meaning that, when calculating the administrative costs of carrying out the notification and supervision procedure, in addition to the costs of the administrative expense actually incurred for an official act, the importance of the official act for the notifier as recipient of the official act may also be taken into account?
               Should the Court of Justice answer Question 1 in the affirmative:

               2.

               Is Article 33(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 to be interpreted as meaning that the administrative costs of carrying out the notification and supervision procedure may be regarded as ‘appropriate ’even if, in calculating the administrative costs, the item ‘Value of the importance of the official act for the notifier ’exceeds many times (in the present case, by a factor of twenty) the costs of the administrative expense actually incurred?

      (1)  OJ L 30, p. 1.


title: Case T-462/05: Action brought on  30 December 2005  — Toyoda Koki Kabushiki Kaisha/OHIM

text:
               25.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 74/27

         Action brought on 30 December 2005 — Toyoda Koki Kabushiki Kaisha/OHIM
   (Case T-462/05)
   (2006/C 74/51)
   Language of the case:English
   Parties

      Applicant: Toyoda Koki Kabushiki Kaisha (Aichi-Ken, Japan) [represented by: J. F. Wachinger, lawyer]

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the decision taken by the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 14 September 2005, in Case R 1157/2004-1 to be void and to allow the registration of the word mark application No. 003157492 ‘IFS’ for the goods ‘steering and power steering, both for vehicles and parts therefor, excluding independent front suspension’ in the international class 12, referring to the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks,

               —

               or, in the alternative, declare the decision taken by the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 14 September 2005, in Case R 1157/2004-1 to be void, to remand the case to the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market for reconsideration, and for the issuance of a new decision,

               —

               impose the costs of the proceedings on the defendant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘IFS’ for goods in class 12 — application No 3 157 492

      Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application in respect of all the designated goods

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Violation of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation No 40/94 because of amongst others a wrongful definition of the relevant public and an erroneous assumption of descriptive meaning.


title: Case F-115/13: Action brought on 29 November 2013 — ZZ v European Environment Agency (EEA)

text:
               1.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/22

         Action brought on 29 November 2013 — ZZ v European Environment Agency (EEA)
   (Case F-115/13)
   2014/C 31/40
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: A. Bertolini, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Environment Agency (EEA)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the decision not to renew the contract of the applicant and as a consequence, to reinstate the applicant to the post she held or to another suitable post or, if not, order the defendant to compensate the applicant for the material damage suffered and, in any case, the moral prejudice suffered.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the European Environment Agency dated 29 May 2013 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant on 1st May 2013

               —

               as a consequence:

                           —

                           reinstate the applicant in the post which she held or in another post suitable to her competencies within EEA by way of extension of her contract in accordance with the requirements of the regulations;

                           —

                           alternatively, and in the event that the claim for reinstatement set out above is not upheld, order the defendant to compensate the applicant for the material damage suffered, provisionally estimated ex aequo et bono at the difference between the remuneration which she received as a member of the contract agent staff within EEA at the very least for a length of time similar to that of her initial contract (three years);

               —

               in any event, order the defendant to pay a provisional ex aequo et bono sum of EUR 5 000 in compensation for the non-material damage, together with late-payment interest at the statutory rate as from the date of the judgment;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.