title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 December 2004 in Case C-226/03 P: José Martí Peix SA v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Fisheries — Community financial aid — Reduction of the aid — Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 — Articles 1 and 3 — Limitation period)

text:
               22.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/5

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 2 December 2004
   in Case C-226/03 P: José Martí Peix SA v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Appeal - Fisheries - Community financial aid - Reduction of the aid - Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Articles 1 and 3 - Limitation period)
   (2005/C 19/07)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   In Case C-226/03 P: action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 22 May 2003, between José Martí Peix SA, established in Huelva (Spain), (avocats: J.R. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier and D. Domínguez Pérez, avocats) and the other party to the proceedings being: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: S. Pardo Quintillán, avocat: J. Guerra Fernández) – the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; Múgica Azarmendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 2 December 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders José Martí Peix SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 213 of 6.9.2003.


title: Case C-301/01: Action brought on 27 July 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
15.9.2001              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 259/3
—     since the French authorities have intended to implement          The Commission also considers that the enactment of a
      the requirements flowing from Article 19(4) of the               transitional period after the date of expiry of the time-limit for
      directive by means of a ‘public information sheet’, it is        transposition of the directive is contrary to the obligations
      imperative for the sheet to include all the matters              under that directive.
      mentioned in that provision as incapable of being kept
      confidential.
                                                                       (1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.
(1) OJ L 117, 8.5.1990, p. 15.
                                                                       Action brought on 27 July 2001 by the Commission of
                                                                       the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
Action brought on 27 July 2001 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                                                                                (Case C-302/01)
                         (Case C-301/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 259/04)
                         (2001/C 259/03)
                                                                       An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                       the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 July
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before             2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 July            represented by Gotz zur Hausen, Legal Adviser, and Panos
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                    Panagiotopoulos, a national civil servant on secondment to its
represented by Gotz zur Hausen, Legal Adviser, and Panos               Legal Service.
Panagiotopoulos, a national civil servant on secondment to its
Legal Service.
                                                                       The Commission claims that the Court should:
The Commission claims that the Court should:                           —     declare that, by failing to take the necessary measures to
                                                                             ensure that waste is recovered or disposed of in the
—     declare that, by restricting the extent of public infor-               commune of Epitalio without endangering human health,
      mation to the environmental impact study, laying down                  without risk to water, air, soil and plants and animals and
      a period for public consultation which cannot exceed                   without causing a nuisance through noise or odours, by
      15 days and providing for a transitional period which                  granting a permit for the operation of a waste disposal
      expired in October 1994, the Hellenic Republic has failed              (landfill) site which does not contain the necessary
      to fulfil its obligations under Articles 6 (2) and 12 of               information and by allowing that facility to operate
      Council Directive 85/337/EEC (1) of 27 June 1985 on the                without prior approval of an environmental impact study,
      assessment of the effects of certain public and private                the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
      projects on the environment;                                           under Articles 4 and 9 of Council Directive
                                                                             75/442/EEC (1) on waste, as amended by Directive
—     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                          91/156/EEC, and Article 4 (2) of Council Directive
                                                                             85/337/EEC (2) of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the
                                                                             effects of certain public and private projects on the
                                                                             environment;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                       —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Article 6 (2) of Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the
effects of certain public and private projects on the environ-
ment provides that all the information gathered by the                 Pleas in law and main arguments
developer is to be made available to the public. Article 2 (2) of
Joint Ministerial Decision 75308/5512/90 provides for public
access to the environmental impact study only and to no other          Article 4 of Directive 75/442/EEC, as amended, provides that
information. The directive also provides that the Member               the Member States are to take the necessary measures to
States are to ensure that the public concerned is given the            protect human health and the environment from the harmful
opportunity to express an opinion before works begin. The              effects of the collection, transport, treatment, storage and
Commission takes the view that the period of 15 days set by            deposit of waste. Article 9 requires in addition that a permit
the joint ministerial decision is not in practice a reasonable         be granted by the competent authorities for every waste
period for the public to express its opinion.                          disposal installation.


title: Case C-472/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (Belgium) lodged on 24 October 2007 — Association Générale de l'Industrie du Médicament ASBL, Bayer SA, Pfizer SA, Servier Benelux SA, Sanofi-Aventis Belgium SA v Belgian State

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (Belgium) lodged on 24 October 2007 — Association Générale de l'Industrie du Médicament ASBL, Bayer SA, Pfizer SA, Servier Benelux SA, Sanofi-Aventis Belgium SA v Belgian State
   (Case C-472/07)
   (2008/C 22/41)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Conseil d'État
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Association Générale de l'Industrie du Médicament ASBL, Bayer SA, Pfizer SA, Servier Benelux SA, Sanofi-Aventis Belgium SA

      Defendant: Belgian State
   Questions referred

               1.

               Since the period for transposition of Council Directive of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the prices of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems (89/105/EEC) (1) expired on 31 December 1989, must Article 4(1) of that directive be considered to be directly applicable in the domestic legal systems of the Member States?

               2.

               May Article 4(1) of Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 be interpreted as meaning that the resumption for one year, after an absence of 18 months, of a general price freeze in respect of refundable medicinal products which had lasted eight years exempts the Member State from carrying out a review, when the freeze is resumed, of the macro-economic conditions affected by that freeze?

               3.

               Is the review of macro-economic conditions referred to in Article 4(1) of Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988, cited above, to be understood as meaning only review as to whether healthcare expenditure is manageable, or must it also extend to macro-economic conditions in the pharmaceutical industry sector whose products are liable to be made subject to a price freeze?

               4.

               May the review of macro-economic conditions referred to in Article 4(1) of Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988, cited above, be based on a general trend or trends, such as, for example, ensuring balance in healthcare, or must it be based on more specific criteria?

      (1)  OJ L 40 of 11.2.1989, p. 8.


title: Case C-156/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bergamo lodged on 1 April 2011 — Procura della Repubblica v Ibrahim Music

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bergamo lodged on 1 April 2011 — Procura della Repubblica v Ibrahim Music
   (Case C-156/11)
   2011/C 269/36
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Bergamo

      Party to the main proceedings

   Ibrahim Music
   By order of 21 June 2011 the Court of Justice removed the case from the register.


title: Case T-615/11: Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2014 — Royal Scandinavian Casino Århus v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Online games — Introduction in Denmark of taxes lower for online games than for casinos and gaming rooms — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market — Aid intended to facilitate the development of certain activities — Lack of individual concern — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Inadmissibility)

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/33

      Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2014 — Royal Scandinavian Casino Århus v Commission
      (Case T-615/11) (1)

      ((Action for annulment - State aid - Online games - Introduction in Denmark of taxes lower for online games than for casinos and gaming rooms - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - Aid intended to facilitate the development of certain activities - Lack of individual concern - Regulatory act entailing implementing measures - Inadmissibility))
      (2014/C 395/38)
      Language of the case: Danish

         Parties

         Applicant: Royal Scandinavian Casino Århus I/S (Aarhus, Denmark) (represented by: B. Jacobi, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by M. Afonso and C. Barslev, subsequently by M. Afonso and L. Grønfeldt, acting as Agents)

         Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented initially by C. Vang, subsequently by V. Pasternak Jørgensen and lastly by C. Thorning, acting as Agents, and K. Lundgaard Hansen, lawyer); Republic of Malta (represented by: P. Grech and A. Buhagiar, acting as Agents); Betfair Group plc (London, United Kingdom) and Betfair International Ltd (Santa Venera, Malta) (represented by: O. Brouwer and A. Pliego Selie, lawyers); European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C.-D. Ehlermann, J. C. Heithecker and J. Ylinen, lawyers)

         Re:

      Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2012/140/EU of 20 September 2011 on the measure C 35/10 (ex N 302/10) which Denmark is planning to implement in the form of duties for online gambling in the Danish Gaming Duties Act (OJ 2012 L 69, p. 3).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Royal Scandinavian Casino Århus I/S, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay those incurred by the European Commission, Betfair Group plc, Betfair International Ltd and the European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA).

                  3.

                  Orders the Kingdom of Denmark and the Republic of Malta to bear their own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.


title: Case C-276/03 P: Appeal brought on 25 June 2003 by Scott SA against the judgment delivered on 10 April 2003 by the Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-366/00 between Scott SA, supported by the French Republic, and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
23.8.2003             EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 200/19
   2)    order Ireland to pay the costs.                                    —     It also wrongly failed to give any, or any sufficient
                                                                                weight to the fact that it is the recipient of aid that
                                                                                particularly requires protection in cases where
                                                                                Article 15 applies.
   Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period within which the directive had to be transposed               —     The Court of First Instance should not have held that
   expired on 20 July 2002.                                                       the characterisation of the recipient of aid as merely an
                                                                                ‘information source’ in the course of the procedure
                                                                                under Article 88(2) EC supported its conclusion.
                                                                            —     The Court of First Instance wrongly failed to take
   Appeal brought on 25 June 2003 by Scott SA against                             account of the wording of Articles 14 and 15 which
   the judgment delivered on 10 April 2003 by the Fifth                           indicates that Article 15 is concerned with the liability
   Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First                           of recipients of aid.
   Instance of the European Communities in case T-366/
   00 between Scott SA, supported by the French
   Republic, and the Commission of the European                             —     The Court of First Instance wrongly failed to recognise
                             Communities                                          that the consequence of its interpretation of Article 15
                                                                                was to frustrate the purpose of that Article, that is to
                          (Case C-276/03 P)                                       say, to provide legal certainty to recipients of aid.
                           (2003/C 200/33)
                                                                            The Court of First Instance was wrong to hold that the
                                                                            absence of a ‘duty’ on the part of the Commission to ‘warn’
   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 10 April 2003                recipients of interrupting actions was relevant to the ques-
   by the Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court                 tion of whether an action of which the recipient had no
   of First Instance of the European Communities in case                    notice could interrupt the limitation period as against it.
   T-366/00 between Scott SA, supported by the French
   Republic, and the Commission of the European Commu-
   nities (1), was brought before the Court of Justice of the               The Court of First Instance was wrong to hold that
   European Communities on 25 June 2003 by Scott SA,                        Article 15 created a single limitation period that applied in
   established in Saint-Cloud (France), represented by Sir                  the same way to the Member State concerned and to ‘third
   Jeremy Lever KCMG, QC, and G. Peretz, Barristers, and                    parties’; alternatively, it was wrong to hold that such a
   A. Nourry and R. Griffith, Solicitors, with an address for               principle operated so as to exclude the application of the
   service in Luxembourg.                                                   limitation rule as sought by Scott.
   The Appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            The Court of First Instance was wrong to regard it as
   —     set aside the decision of the Court of First Instance              relevant to the application of Article 15 that Scott could
         dismissing Scott's application for annulment of                    have had no legitimate expectation that the aid was lawfully
         Article 2 of the Decision (2) in so far as Scott's                 granted originally; the purpose of Article 15 is to provide
         application alleges that the Commission infringed                  legal certainty where, ex hypothesi, the aid was not lawfully
         Article 15 of the Regulation;                                      granted.
   —     annul Article 2 of the Decision, in so far as it
         concerns the alleged aid granted in the form of a
         preferential land price referred to in Article 1 of the            The Court of First Instance wrongly disregarded the wording
         Decision; and                                                      of Article 15 and failed to address an important argument
                                                                            addressed to it by Scott, summarised by the Court of First
   —     order the Commission to pay the costs of this appeal,              Instance at paragraph 42 of the judgment.
         including the costs incurred by Scott at first instance.
                                                                            The Court of First Instance was wrong to treat it as relevant
   Pleas in law and main arguments                                          that there was no limitation rule in force on the expiry of
                                                                            10 years from the grant of the aid to Scott.
   The Appellant submits that the judgment of the Court of
   First Instance should be set aside on the following grounds:
                                                                        (1) OJ C 61, 24.02.2001, p. 16.
                                                                        (2) 2002/14/EC: Commission Decision of 12 July 2000 on the state
   The Court of First Instance was wrong to apply the newly                 aid granted by France to Scott Paper SA Kimberly-Clark (Text with
   introduced provisions of Article 15 of Regulation 659/                   EEA relevance) (notified under document number C(2000) 2183)
   99 (3)as if they were governed by the old case-law relating              (OJ L 12, 15.01.2002, p. 1).
   to the conduct of administrative procedures.                         (3) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying
                                                                            down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC
   —     The Court of First Instance should have recognised that            Treaty (OJ L 83, 27.03.1999, p. 1).
         the Regulation established a Community State aid
         regime that is, in important and relevant respects, new.


title: Case T-287/02: Action brought on 23 September 2002 by Asian Institute of Technology against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 289/32               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                  23.11.2002
Decision of the Oppo-          rejection of the application for           principle of sound administration in that it did not ascertain
sition Division:               registration                               the powers of the director of the ‘Center Energy-Environment
                                                                          Research and Development’, which is merely a department of
Decision of the Board of       rejection of the applicant’s appeal        the applicant with no legal personality.
Appeal:
Grounds of claim:              —    since the word ‘mou’ in Lao-
                                    tian and Thai means ‘porc’,
                                    the trade mark ‘MOU’ is
                                    merely descriptive and thus
                                    may not be protected;
                                                                          Action brought on 23 September 2002 by Asian Institute
                               —    registration of the trade             of Technology against Commission of the European
                                    mark ‘MOU’ would in fact                                        Communities
                                    prevent the use of a word
                                    with meaning which must be
                                    used in order to describe the                                 (Case T-288/02)
                                    nature of the product to be
                                    sold.                                                         (2002/C 289/60)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Action brought on 23 September 2002 by Asian Institute                    An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
of Technology against Commission of the European                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                          Communities                                     European Communities on 23 September 2002 by the Asian
                                                                          Institute of Technology, whose registered office is at Klong
                        (Case T-287/02)                                   Luang (Thailand), represented by Henri Teissier du Cros,
                                                                          lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                        (2002/C 289/59)
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          —     annul the decision of the European Commission of
                                                                                22 February 2002 to conclude a research contract with
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                       the alleged director of the ‘Center Energy-Environment
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                      Research and Development’ (CEERD) of the Asian Insti-
European Communities on 23 September 2002 by the Asian                          tute of Technology.
Institute of Technology, whose registered office is at Klong
Luang (Thailand), represented by Henri Teissier du Cros,
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          The Commission, by the contested decision, entered into a
—      annul the decision of the European Commission of 4 July            research contract with the ‘Center Energy-Environment
       2000 to conclude a research contract with the director of          Research and Development’, allegedly represented by its direc-
       the ‘Center Energy-Environment Research and Develop-               tor. That centre is a department of the applicant with no legal
       ment’ (CEERD) of the Asian Institute of Technology.                personality. The applicant further states that the person
                                                                          who signed the contract as director of the ‘Center Energy-
                                                                          Environment Research and Development’ left the department
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           on 31 December 2001. The contract was a follow-up contract
                                                                          to that at issue in Case T-287/02.
The Commission, by the contested decision, entered into a
research contract with the ‘Center Energy-Environment                     According to the applicant, the alleged director of the ‘Center
Research and Development’, represented by its director. That              Energy-Environment Research and Development’ had no man-
centre is a department of the applicant with no legal person-             date to conclude such a contract. The Commission thus
ality.                                                                    infringed the principle of sound administration in that it did
                                                                          not ascertain the powers of the director nor whether the
According to the applicant, the director of the ‘Center Energy-           person concerned was in fact a director.
Environment Research and Development’ had no mandate to
conclude such a contract. The Commission thus infringed the


title: Case T-284/03: Action brought on 5 August 2003 by Rosalinda Aycinena against Commission of the European Communities

text:
18.10.2003            EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 251/17
In support of her application, she relies inter alia on the              Pleas in law and main arguments
following pleas:
                                                                         The applicant submitted his candidature for a vacant post as
                                                                         counsellor at the European Anti-Fraud Office. The applicant's
—    failure to have regard to the purpose of optional observa-          candidature for the post was rejected.
     tions in so far as the fact that she was being ‘encouraged
     to resume tasks of coordination and distribution of work
     in the Pool’ is in no way a justification of the assessment         In support of his action, the application claims that there has
     of ‘very good’ under the headings concerned;                        been a breach of Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations, an abuse
                                                                         of power and of procedure, a manifest error of assessment, a
                                                                         breach of essential procedural requirements in drawing up the
                                                                         vacancy notice, a breach of the principle of institutional impar-
—    inconsistency in the marks;
                                                                         tiality and of the principle that an institution must have regard
                                                                         to the welfare of its officials, a breach of Part 1, Point 2 of the
                                                                         Commission's Decision of 21 December 2000, a breach of
—    failure to have regard to the observations of the Reports           the rights of the defence, in particular the right to be heard,
     Committee;                                                          of the principle of equality of arms, of the principle of equality,
                                                                         of the principle that an institution must have regard to the
                                                                         welfare of its officials, of the principle that officials should
—    that she was the victim of harassment at her workplace;             have reasonable career prospects and of the principle that
                                                                         a decision must contain a statement of reasons. Last, the
                                                                         applicant claims that the Director General of OLAF was not
—    that she had amply and undeniably demonstrated a                    competent to make a determination in respect of the
     capacity for mobility and versatility. It would therefore           complaint and to reject it.
     be in keeping with the Staff Regulations for that merit to
     be specifically referred to in the staff report at issue.
                                                                         Action brought on 5 August 2003 by Rosalinda Aycinena
                                                                              against Commission of the European Communities
Action brought on 8 August 2003 by Paul Ceuninck
    against Commission of the European Communities                                                  (Case T-284/03)
                        (Case T-282/03)                                                             (2003/C 251/33)
                        (2003/C 251/32)                                                       (Language of the case: French)
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
An action against the Commission of the European                         of the European Communities on 5 August 2003 by Rosalinda
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance               Aycinena, residing in Brussels, represented by Sébastien
of the European Communities on 8 August 2003 by Paul                     Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal,
Ceuninck, residing in Hertsberge (Belgium), represented by               lawyers.
G. Vandersanden and A. Finchelstein, lawyers.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —      annul the decision of 26 March 2003 revising the appli-
                                                                                cant's classification on recruitment classifying her at the
—    annul the entire selection procedure following notice of                   first step of Grade LA 6;
     vacant post COM/051/02 and annul that notice;
                                                                         —      order the defendant to pay the costs.
—    annul the decision to appoint another person taken by
     the appointing authority on 13 September 2002 and also,             Pleas in law and main arguments
     consequently, the decision rejecting the applicant's candi-
     dature for that post;                                               In support of her claims, the applicant alleges breach of the
                                                                         obligation to provide reasons for decisions, manifest error of
                                                                         assessment, breach of the principle that officials should have
—    order the Commission to pay the costs.                              reasonable career prospects (Article 5(3) of the Staff
 ---pagebreak--- C 251/18               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                          18.10.2003
Regulations) and breach of the principle of equality of treat-            Specifically, for the marketing year 2000/2001, the
ment and non-discrimination.                                              Commission took as its basis for calculating production aid
                                                                          the export prices of tomatoes from the United States, Israel
                                                                          and Turkey. It follows that the defendant did not take into
                                                                          account the export prices of China, although in 1999 it was
                                                                          the world's second largest producer of tomatoes. That basis for
                                                                          calculation significantly reduced production aid.
                                                                          In support of their claims, the applicants argue that the
Action brought on 18 August 2003 by Agraz SA and                          conditions in the Bergadem case-law are fulfilled in the present
110 others against the Commission of the European                         case.
                           Communities
                         (Case T-285/03)
                                                                          The applicants claim that that omission infringes the relevant
                         (2003/C 251/34)
                                                                          basic regulation (2), that the regulation confers rights on
                                                                          individuals and that the powers of the Commission when
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          Regulation No 1519/2000 was adopted were extremely lim-
                                                                          ited, consisting merely in identifying the reference countries
                                                                          for the purposes of calculating the amount of the aid.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 18 August 2003 by the
company Agraz SA and 110 other companies, represented                     Finally, the Commission infringed the principles of good
by J.-L. da Cruz Vilaça, R. Oliveira, M.-J. Melícias and                  administration and legitimate expectations by failing to make
D. Choussy, laywers.                                                      the effort needed to learn the Chinese prices and by refusing,
                                                                          once it was notified of those prices, to amend the regulation.
The applicants claim that the Court should:                               (1) OJ L 174 of 13.7.2000, p. 29.
                                                                          (2) OJ L 297 of 21.11.1996, p. 29.
—     order the defendant to pay each applicant company the
      balance of the production aid together with interest at a
      rate fixed by the Court of First Instance as from 12 July
      2000 (or, in the alternative, as from 13 July 2000 or,
      further in the alternative, as from 16 July 2000) and until
      the actual day of payment;                                          Action brought on 15 August 2003 by The Gillette
                                                                          Company against the Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                                Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
—     order the Commission to pay the costs, including those                                        (Case T-286/03)
      incurred by the applicants.
                                                                                (2003/C 251/35)
                                                                          (Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2) of
                                                                          the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                submitted: German)
The present application seeks recognition of the extra-contrac-
tual liability of the Community arising from the damage alleg-
edly suffered by the applicants as the result of the method used          An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
to calculate the amount of production aid for processed                   Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
tomato products for the marketing year 2000/2001 under                    Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1519/2000 of 12 July                        15 August 2003 by The Gillette Company, Boston (USA),
2000 setting for the 2000/01 marketing year the minimum                   represented by L. Kouker, lawyer. Wilkinson Sword GmbH,
price and the amount of production aid for processed tomato               Solingen (Germany), was also a party to the proceedings
products (1).                                                             before the Board of Appeal.


title: Case F-110/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 5 December 2012 — Lebedef and Others v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Remuneration — Article 64 of the Staff Regulations — First subparagraph of Article 3(5) of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations — Corrective coefficient — Act adversely affecting an official — Equal treatment)

text:
               9.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/31

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 5 December 2012 — Lebedef and Others v Commission
   (Case F-110/11) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Remuneration - Article 64 of the Staff Regulations - First subparagraph of Article 3(5) of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations - Corrective coefficient - Act adversely affecting an official - Equal treatment)
   2013/C 38/60
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Lebedef and Others (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the pay slips of the applicants for December 2010 and their pay slips of the following months to the extent that they contain no correction of the adjustment of remunerations taking account of the corrective coefficient for their place of employment.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Messrs Lebedef, Jones and Gonzales Gonzales and Mrs Lebedef-Caponi to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 7.1.2012, p. 26.


title: Case C-369/09 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 24 March 2011 — ISD Polska sp. z o.o., Industrial Union of Donbass Corp., ISD Polska sp. z o.o. (formerly Majątek Hutniczy sp. z o.o.) v European Commission (Appeals — State aid — Commission decision — Finding that aid is incompatible with the common market — Order for recovery of aid — Principles of legal certainty and non-retroactivity — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations — Determination of the ‘appropriateness’ of the interest rate applicable to the recovery of aid)

text:
               21.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/5

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 24 March 2011 — ISD Polska sp. z o.o., Industrial Union of Donbass Corp., ISD Polska sp. z o.o. (formerly Majątek Hutniczy sp. z o.o.) v European Commission
   (Case C-369/09 P) (1)

   (Appeals - State aid - Commission decision - Finding that aid is incompatible with the common market - Order for recovery of aid - Principles of legal certainty and non-retroactivity - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - Determination of the ‘appropriateness’ of the interest rate applicable to the recovery of aid)
   2011/C 152/07
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellants: ISD Polska sp. z o.o., Industrial Union of Donbass Corp., ISD Polska sp. z o.o. (formerly Majątek Hutniczy sp. z o.o.) (represented by: C. Rapin and E. Van den Haute, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: E. Gippini Fournier and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 1 July 2009 in Joined Cases T-273/06 and T-297/06 ISD Polska and Others v Commission dismissing the appellants’ actions seeking the partial annulment of Commission Decision 2006/937/EC of 5 July 2005 on State aid C-20/04 in favour of Huta Częstochowa SA (OJ 2006 L 366, p. 1) in so far as it declared certain aid incompatible with the common market and ordered the Republic of Poland to recover the aid — Principles of legal certainty and the non-retroactivity of Community acts — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations — Determination of the ‘appropriate’ nature of the interest rate applicable to the recovery of aid found to be incompatible with the common market

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal.

               2.

               Orders ISD Polska sp. z o.o. and Industrial Union of Donbass Corp. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 24 November 1998 in Case C-274/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di Bolzano, Sezione Distaccata di Silandro): Criminal proceedings against Horst Otto Bickel and Ulrich Franz (Freedom of movement for persons - Equal treatment - Language rules applicable to criminal proceedings)

text:
C 20/6                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    23.1.1999
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                    of 24 November 1998                                                      (Sixth Chamber)
in Case C-274/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                 of 25 November 1998
the Pretura Circondariale di Bolzano, Sezione Distaccata
di Silandro): Criminal proceedings against Horst Otto                       in Case C-214/96: Commission of the European
                  Bickel and Ulrich Franz (1)                                     Communities v. Kingdom of Spain (1)
(Freedom of movement for persons Ð Equal treatment Ð                 (Failure to fulfil obligations Ð Failure to transpose
     Language rules applicable to criminal proceedings)                                  Directive 76/464/EEC)
                        (1999/C 20/08)                                                        (1999/C 20/09)
                (Language of the case: Italian)                                      (Language of the case: Spanish)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-274/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty by the Pretura Circondariale di Bolzano,            In Case C-214/96: Commission of the European
Sezione Distaccata di Silandro (Italy), for a preliminary            Communities (Agents: Richard Wainwright and Fernando
ruling in the criminal proceedings before that court                 Castillo de la Torre) v. Kingdom of Spain (Agent: Paloma
against Horst Otto Bickel and Ulrich Franz Ð on the                  Plaza Garcia) Ð application for a declaration that, by
interpretation of Articles 6, 8(a) and 59 of the EC Treaty           failing to adopt and communicate the programmes for
Ð the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias,                  reducing pollution of waters by the substances set out in
President, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and         List II, as provided for in Article 7(1) of Council Directive
P. Jann, Presidents of Chambers, G. F. Mancini, J. C.                76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by
Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, H.                    certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic
Ragnemalm (Rapporteur), L. Sevón, M. Wathelet and R.                 environment of the Community (OJ L 129, 18.5.1976,
Schintgen, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; H. von            p. 23), the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
Holstein, Assistant Registrar, has given a judgment on               obligations under the EC Treaty and Article 7 of the
24 November 1998 in which it has ruled:                              directive Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
                                                                     P. J. G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch
                                                                     (Rapporteur), J. L. Murray, H. Ragnemalm and K. M.
                                                                     Ioannou, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate-General; R. Grass,
1. The right conferred by national rules to have criminal            Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 November 1998 in
     proceedings conducted in a language other than the              which it:
     principal language of the State concerned falls within
     the scope of the EC Treaty and must comply with
     Article 6 thereof.
                                                                     1. Declares that, by failing to establish programmes for
                                                                          reducing the pollution of surface waters and territorial
                                                                          sea waters by substances falling within List II of
2. Article 6 of the Treaty precludes national rules which,                Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on
     in respect of a particular language other than the                   pollution caused by certain dangerous substances
     principal language of the Member State concerned,                    discharged into the aquatic environment of the
     confer on citizens whose language is that particular                 Community, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil
     language and who are resident in a defined area the                  its obligations under Article 7 of that directive.
     right to require that criminal proceedings be
     conducted in that language, without conferring the
     same right on nationals of other Member States
     travelling or staying in that area, whose language is
     the same.                                                       2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 294, 5.10.1996.                                             (1) OJ C 247, 24.8.1996.


title: Case T-324/05: Action brought on 25 August 2005 — Republic of Estonia v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               29.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 271/24

         Action brought on 25 August 2005 — Republic of Estonia v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-324/05)
   (2005/C 271/48)
   Language of the case: Estonian
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Republic of Estonia (represented by: Lembit Uibo, Agent)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 832/2005 (OJ L 138 of 1.6.2005, p. 3)
   Pleas in law and main arguments
   The object of the application is the annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 832/2005 of 31 May 2005 on the determination of surplus quantities of sugar, isoglucose and fructose for the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia. (1)

   The applicant relies on the following claims:

               —

               The adoption of Regulation (EC) No 832/2005 was in breach of essential procedural requirements: the principle of joint responsibility, since commissioner Fischer Boel was empowered to determine the amount of sugar to be eliminated before the adoption of the regulation;

               —

               As regards the provisions in application of the EC Treaty, Regulation (EC) No 832/2005 infringes Regulation (EC) No 60/2004, which is its legal basis, since:

                           (a)

                           contrary to Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 60/2004, Regulation (EC) No 832/2005 includes, in determining the excess quantity of sugar, the quantity of sugar held in private households;

                           (b)

                           contrary to Article 6(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 60/2004, the Commission did not take into account the specific circumstances of stockpiling in Estonia;

               —

               Breach of the obligation to state reasons laid down in Article 253 EC, since in Regulation (EC) No 832/2005 no reasons are given with respect to the inclusion in the calculation of the amount of excess stocks of sugar held in private households and with respect to the failure to take into account the circumstances of stockpiling;

               —

               Breach of the principle of sound administration, since when adopting Regulation (EC) No 832/2005 the Commission did not take into account the specific circumstances of stockpiling in Estonia, including the EU's own contribution to increased imports of sugar;

               —

               Breach of the principle of good faith, since no measures of any sort were adopted to deter increased exports from the EU to Estonia, and Estonia's countermeasures were blocked;

               —

               Breach of the principle of non-discrimination, since the calculation of excess sugar stocks laid down by Regulation (EC) No 832/2005 discriminates against Estonia compared to States which have previously acceded, and any measures implementing Regulation (EC) No 832/2005 would bring about discrimination against Estonian undertakings or households compared to the corresponding groups in States which have previously acceded or compared to undertakings in the so-called old Member States;

               —

               Infringement of the right to property of undertakings and/or private households, since any measures implementing Regulation (EC) No 832/2005 would impose a restriction on them which could not be justified by a legitimate aim and would be a disproportionate interference with their rights;

               —

               Breach of the principle of proportionality, since the obligation laid down in Regulation (EC) No 832/2005 to eliminate a quantity of sugar corresponding to the amount of sugar held in private households does not fulfil a legitimate objective and is a disproportionate interference with their rights.

      (1)  OJ L 138 of 1.6.2005, p. 3.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 May 2003 in Case C-56/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): IHW Rebmann GmbH v Hauptzollamt Weiden (Free movement of goods — Trade with third countries — Procedure for returned goods — Article 187 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Reimportation of compensating products originally re-exported subsequent to an inward processing procedure — Determination of the import duty legally owed — Burden of proof in respect of the proportion of the value of the reimported products corresponding to inward processing)

text:
C 171/8                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                              19.7.2003
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (First Chamber)
                                                                                (Fourth Chamber)
                           of 22 May 2003
                                                                                of 22 May 2003
in Case C-56/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Bundesfinanzhof): IHW Rebmann GmbH v
                     Hauptzollamt Weiden (1)                                 in Case C-335/02: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg ( 1)
(Free movement of goods — Trade with third countries —
Procedure for returned goods — Article 187 of Regulation                     (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Incomplete
(EEC) No 2913/92 — Reimportation of compensating                             transposition of Directive 89/391/EEC — Safety and health
products originally re-exported subsequent to an inward                                                    of workers)
processing procedure — Determination of the import duty
legally owed — Burden of proof in respect of the proportion
of the value of the reimported products corresponding to
                                                                                (2003/C 171/11)
                         inward processing)
                           (2003/C 171/10)                                                        (Language of the case: French)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             In Case C-335/02, Commission of the European Communities
In Case C-56/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC                 (Agents: H. Kreppel and D. Martin) v Grand Duchy of
by the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in                 Luxembourg (Agent: S. Schreiner): Application for a declar-
the proceedings pending before that court between IHW                        ation that, by failing to define the necessary capabilities and
Rebmann GmbH and Hauptzollamt Weiden, on the interpret-                      aptitudes for persons designated to carry out activities related
ation of the second paragraph of Article 187 of Council                      to protection against and prevention of occupational risks, the
Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing                  Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations
the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1), the                        under Articles 10 EC and 249 EC and Article 7(8) of Council
Court (First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of                Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of
the Chamber, P. Jann and A. Rosas (Rapporteur), Judges;                      measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health
D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Princi-                of workers at work (OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1), the Court (Fourth
pal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of
22 May 2002, in which it has ruled:                                          the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and S. von Bahr (Rapporteur),
                                                                             Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
The second paragraph of Article 187 of Council Regulation (EEC)              has given a judgment on 22 May 2003, in which it:
No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community
Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that, where an
importer has provided proof that the imported goods are compensating         1.    Declares that, by failing to define the necessary capabilities and
products qualifying for application of the procedure for returned                  aptitudes for persons designated to carry out activities related to
goods under Article 848 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/                    protection against and prevention of occupational risks, the
93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of                 Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations
Regulation No 2913/92, but is unable to provide all the information                under Article 7(8) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of
necessary for calculating the duty legally owed, the administrative                12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage
cooperation procedure provided for in Articles 611(2)(b) and 613 of                improvements in the safety and health of workers at work.
Regulation No 2454/93 must be used by the customs authorities
responsible for accepting the declaration. Those authorities must
                                                                             2.    Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
therefore ask the supervising customs office, using the INF 1 sheet, to
communicate to them the amount of duty legally owed.
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 261, 26.10.2002.
( 1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.


title: Case T-699/15: Judgment of the General Court of 21 June 2017 — City Train v EUIPO (CityTrain) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark CityTrain — Procedural time limit — Unforeseeable circumstances — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               7.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 June 2017 — City Train v EUIPO (CityTrain)
   (Case T-699/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark CityTrain - Procedural time limit - Unforeseeable circumstances - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 256/22)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: City Train GmbH (Regensburg, Germany) (represented by: C. Adori, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. Kunz, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 September 2015 (Case R 843/2015-4) concerning an application for registration of figurative sign CityTrain as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders City Train GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.


title: Action brought on 12 December 1996 by Roland Bieber against the European Parliament (Case T-205/96)

text:
22 . 2 . 97              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 54/31
— declare the application of Community tax to the                     2 . There is no legal basis for the imposition of
     applicant, who works for the defendant as a freelance                Community tax on the applicant:
     interpreter, unlawful and/or declare Article 8 of the
     Agreement with A.I.I.C. null and void,                               The provisions in the Agreements with A.I.I.C. under
                                                                          which the income of freelance interpreters is made
                                                                          subject to Community tax are null and void because
— order repayment of the Community tax withheld by                        there is no legal basis which enables the defendant or
     the defendant and/or paid by the applicant since                     any of the other parties to the Agreements to deduct,
     1 January 1989 until the date of the judgment to be                  on the basis of a private agreement, Community tax
     given in this case, together with interest at the rate of            from the remuneration of the applicant.
     8 % or as prescribed by law,
— order the Commission to pay the costs of the
     applicant.
                                                                      Action brought on 12 December 1996 by Roland Bieber
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                 against the European Parliament
                                                                                ( Case T-205/96 )
The applicant explains that since 1986 she has worked as                                        ( 97/C 54/51 )
a freelance interpreter for the EC institutions . Since 1989
the Commission has deducted Community tax from the                                   (Language of the case: French)
remuneration of freelance interpreters on the basis of
agreements concluded every five years with the A.I.I.C.               An action against the European Parliament was brought
('Association       Internationale     des    Interpretes    de       before the Court of First Instance of the European
Conference '). On 23 April 1996 , the applicant requested             Communities on 12 December 1996 by Roland Bieber,
the defendant to reimburse the Community tax paid by                  residing in Brussels,            represented by Georges
her since 1989 and to declare that her income would, in               Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
the future, no longer be subject to Community tax. The                service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
request was rejected by the Commission by letter of                   Sari, 30 rue de Cessange .
29 May 1996 . An appeal against that decision lodged by
the applicant on 5 July 1996 was rejected by the                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
defendant by letter of 25 September 1996 .
                                                                      — annul the decision of the European Parliament, in its
The applicant submits that the decision contained in the                  capacity as the appointing authority, rejecting the
letter of 25 September 1996 should be annulled on the                     applicant's complaint concerning his request for
following grounds:                                                        compensation for the damage suffered as a result of
                                                                          his belated and unlawful reinstatement following a
                                                                          period of leave on personal grounds,
1.   The contested decision is based on an incorrect and
     unlawful application and          interpretation   of the        — order the European Parliament to pay compensation
     Agreements with A.II.C. :                                            estimated ( subject to subsequent finalization ) to
                                                                          amount to BFR 4 500 000 for the material damage
     — the imposition of Community tax by virtue of the                   suffered by the applicant, together with default interest
          Agreements, and more specifically Article 8                     at the rate of 8 % per annum from the date of
          thereof, in the case of the applicant is incorrect.             commencement of the present action,
          The applicant is of Swiss nationality and therefore
          falls outside of the scope of application of the            — order the European Parliament to pay all the costs .
          provisions of the Agreements, under which the sole
          criterion is the nationality of the interpreter in          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
          question,
                                                                      The applicant, an adviser to the Director responsible for
     — the defendant acted unlawfully and contrary to the             political affairs within the Directorate-General for
          provisions and the objectives of the Agreements             Research, contests the detrimental consequences resulting
          ( equality of treatment as regards the fiscal               from what he regards as delay in his reinstatement in the
          situation of all freelance interpreters engaged by          defendant institution following a period of leave on
          the Commission ) by applying the Agreements in              personal grounds .
          such a way that the applicant was obliged to pay
          Community tax on top of the national income tax             The applicant recalls that, by decision of 26 September
          paid in her country of residence, namely                    1991 , the appointing authority authorized him to take
          Switzerland, during the years 1989 to 1993 and              leave on personal grounds from 15 November 1991 until
          can obtain reimbursement of Community tax since             15 July 1992 . That leave was extended, by a series of
          1994 only under the strict conditions laid down in          decisions, until 15 November 1994 . Having heard nothing
          Article 8 ( 3 ) of the Agreement for the period 1994        from the defendant institution, the applicant approached
          to 1998 .                                                   the   Director-General      for  Personnel  and Finance   on
 ---pagebreak--- No C 54/32            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     22 . 2 . 97
21 February 1995 , in order to remind him that his leave               — annul the Commission 's decision rejecting the claim
on personal grounds had come to an end . It was not until                   for compensation for the damage suffered by the
 19 April 1996 that the applicant was reinstated, by                        applicant,
decision of the appointing authority, in the post which he
now occupies. That decision took effect from 1 June 1996 ,             — order the Commission to reinstate the applicant in
and the applicant therefore took up his duties again with                   respect of the period from 1 January 1992 to 1 July
effect from that date .                                                      1993 and to pay him the remuneration to which he is
                                                                            entitled for that period, together with default interest
The applicant states           in that regard that,       in the            at the rate of 8 % per annum as from the date on
circumstances , the defendant's conduct was unlawful .                      which the remuneration due first became payable until
In his view, the semi-unconditional nature of the                           the day on which payment is effected,
reinstatement obligation laid down in Article 40 ( 4 ) ( d ) of
the Staff Regulations has been clearly confirmed by the                — order the Commission to pay the costs .
relevant case-law, subject only to the availability of a
vacant post corresponding to the abilities required of the             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
person concerned . That obligation cannot therefore be
disregarded on account of any professional activities                  The applicant, a Commission official on leave on personal
which the official in question was pursuing on the date                grounds since 1 January 1989, asks the Commission to
when the first post fell vacant. Consequently, the claim by            pay compensation for the damage suffered through not
the appointing authority, in its decision rejecting the                being reinstated, in accordance with Article 40 ( 4 ) ( d ) of
complaint, that it took into account the applicant's                   the Staff Regulations, in the first post to fall vacant and,
inability immediately to free himself of his responsibilities          in particular, in post A 7/4 007165 , declared vacant in
as professor at the University of Lausanne in order to                 DG III/D/ 1 on 22 October 1991 . The Commission has
return to the Parliament cannot constitute a valid excuse
                                                                       failed as yet to show that it carried out a genuine and
in the circumstances . In actual fact, the applicant never             detailed    examination      of his  abilities vis-a-vis   those
put forward any obstacle to his reinstatement.                         required by the post in question . Furthermore, the
                                                                       applicant alleges that the Commission 's appraisal of his
Even if ( which is denied ) the head of the appointing                 adaptability, which led to the refusal to reinstate him in
authority was legitimately led by the applicant to believe             the first post to fall vacant, discloses a manifest error of
                                                                       assessment .
that that authority could postpone the date of his
reinstatement, it was not open to the appointing authority,
for its part, to disregard the wording and purpose of the
aforementioned provision of the Staff Regulations in order
unilaterally to evade its obligations .
                                                                       Action brought on 16 December 1996 by Margarida
                                                                       Maria Mendes Pires Afonso against the Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-2 10/96 )
Action brought on 12 December 1996 by Adam Buick                                                 ( 97/C 54/53 )
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                        ( Case T-209/96 )                                              (Language of the case: French)
                           ( 97/C 54/52
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the Europeah
                                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of First
                (Language of the case: French)                         Instance of the European Communities on 16 December
                                                                       1996 by Margarida Maria Mendes Pires Afonso, residing
                                                                       in Luxembourg, represented by Christophe Steyaert, of the
An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                       Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                       the applicant's residence, 6 rue Henri Pensis .
Instance of the European Communities on 12 December
1996 by Adam Buick, residing in Brussels, represented by
Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of               The applicant claims that the Court should:
the   Brussels   Bar,    with    an   address  for    service in
Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30                 — annul the decision of the appointing authority of
rue de Cessange .                                                           26 February 1996 in so far as it appoints the applicant
                                                                            to grade A 7, step 3 , and implicitly refuses to appoint
                                                                            her to grade A 6,
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                       — annul the decision of the appointing authority of
— declare that the Commission acted unlawfully in not                       1 October 1996 expressly rejecting the complaint
    reinstating the applicant on 1 January 1992 in post                     which the applicant submitted against the above
    007165-ex Strauss, declared vacant in DG III/D/ 1 on                    decision and which was lodged at the Secretariat
    22 October 1991 ,                                                       General of the Commission on 26 June 1996 ,


title: Case T-442/10 P: Appeal brought on 20 September 2010 by Salvatore Magazzu against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 8 July 2010 in Case F-126/06, Magazzu v Commission

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/36

         Appeal brought on 20 September 2010 by Salvatore Magazzu against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 8 July 2010 in Case F-126/06, Magazzu v Commission
   (Case T-442/10 P)
   ()
   2010/C 328/61
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Salvatore Magazzu (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by M. Velardo, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Forms of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Annulment of the judgment in Case F-126/06 Magazzu v Commission;

               —

               Annulment of the decision of 13 December 2005 in so far as it classifies the applicant as a probationary official in grade A*6, step 2, as from 1 January 2006;

               —

               Reference of the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal for judgment;

               —

               Costs against the Commission, including those of the procedure at first instance.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments raised by the appellant are essentially identical or similar to those raised in Case T-441/10 P Kurrer v Commission.


title: Case C-140/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie (Belgium)) — Greenstar-Kanzi Europe NV v Jean Hustin, Jo Goossens (Regulation (EC) No 2100/94, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 873/2004 — Interpretation of Articles 11(1), 13(1) to (3), 16, 27, 94 and 104 — Principle of exhaustion of Community plant variety rights — Licensing contract — Action for infringement against a third party — Infringement of the licensing contract by the person enjoying the right of exploitation in his contractual relationship with the third party)

text:
               10.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 362/7

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie (Belgium)) — Greenstar-Kanzi Europe NV v Jean Hustin, Jo Goossens
   (Case C-140/10) (1)

   (Regulation (EC) No 2100/94, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 873/2004 - Interpretation of Articles 11(1), 13(1) to (3), 16, 27, 94 and 104 - Principle of exhaustion of Community plant variety rights - Licensing contract - Action for infringement against a third party - Infringement of the licensing contract by the person enjoying the right of exploitation in his contractual relationship with the third party)
   2011/C 362/10
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van Cassatie van België

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Greenstar-Kanzi Europe NV

      Defendants: Jean Hustin, Jo Goossens

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hof van Cassatie van België — Interpretation of Articles 11(1), 13(1)(2) and (3), 16, 27, 94 and 104 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights (OJ 1994 L 227, p. 1) as amended by Regulation (EC) No 873/2004 (OJ 2004 L 162, p. 38) — Civil law actions — Proceedings brought by the holder of a Community plant variety right or a licence holder against an individual who has, in relation to harvested material of the protected variety acquired from an individual holding an exploitation right, taken certain measures in contravention of the limits prescribed in the licence agreement concluded with the holder of those rights.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               In circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, Article 94 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 873/2004 of 29 April 2004, read in conjunction with Articles 11(1), 13(1) to (3), 16, 27 and 104 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the holder or the person enjoying the right of exploitation may bring an action for infringement against a third party which has obtained material through another person enjoying the right of exploitation who has contravened the conditions or limitations set out in the licensing contract that that other person concluded at an earlier stage with the holder to the extent that the conditions or limitations in question relate directly to the essential features of the Community plant variety right concerned. It is for the referring court to make that assessment.

               2.

               It is of no significance for the assessment of the infringement that the third party which effected the acts on the material sold or disposed of was aware or was deemed to be aware of the conditions or limitations imposed in the licensing contract.

      (1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.


title: Case T-306/03: Action brought on 9 September 2003 by Volkswagen AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
C 289/26                EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                         29.11.2003
Action brought on 21 August 2003 by the Consorzio per                         Decision of the Oppo-          Refusal of the application for
la Tutela del Formaggio Grana Padano against the Office                       sition Division:               registration.
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
                       and Designs) (OHIM)                                    Decision of the Board of       Annulment of the Opposition
                                                                              Appeal:                        Division’s decision and rejection
                                                                                of the opposition.
                          (Case T-291/03)
                                                                              Pleas in law:                  —     The term ‘GRANA’ is not
                                                                                generic.
                          (2003/C 289/55)
                                                                                —     Breach of Article 13(1)(a),
                                                                                (b), (c) and (d) of Council
                     (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                Regulation (EEC) No 2081/
                                                                                92 of 14 July 1992 on the
                                                                                protection of geographical
                                                                                indications and designations
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                                     of origin for agricultural
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                                       products and foodstuffs (1),
European Communities on 21 August 2003 by the Consorzio                                                            and of the national rules on
per la Tutela del Formaggio Grana Padano, represented by                                                           company designations of
Paolo Perani, Paolo Colombo and Alex Schmitt, lawyers.                                                             origin.
Biraghi S.p.A. was also a party to the proceedings before the
Board of Appeal.                                                                                —     Likelihood of confusion
                                                                                (Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation
                                                                                No 40/94).
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                              (1) OJ L 208 of 24.7.92, p. 1.
—     annul the registration of the Community trade mark
      No 736.934 GRANA BIRAGHI owned by Biraghi S.p.A.
      in so far as, in particular it is in conflict with the combined
      provisions of Article 142 of Regulation (EEC) No 40/94
      and Article 13(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92.
                                                                              Action brought on 9 September 2003 by Volkswagen AG
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Applicant for Com-               Biraghi S.p.A.
munity trade mark:                                                                                (Case T-306/03)
Community trade mark             Word mark ‘GRANA BIRAGHI’                                             (2003/C 289/56)
sought:                          — Application No 736.934 for
                                 products in Class 29: ‘Cheese, in
                                 particular cheese from cows’ milk,                             (Language of the case: German)
                                 mature cheese, hard cheese, whole
                                 cheeses, portions of cheese with
                                 or without rind, packaged cheese
                                 of various sizes, grated and pack-           An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                 aged cheese.’                                Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
                                                                              the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
Proprietor of mark or            The applicant Consorzio.                     9 September 2003 by Volkswagen AG, Wolfsburg (Germany),
sign cited in the oppo-                                                       represented by S. Risthaus, lawyer.
sition proceedings:
                                                                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
Mark or sign cited in            Numerous national and inter-
opposition:                      national registrations and appli-
                                 cations to register the trade marks          —     annul the decision of 7 July 2003 of the Second Board
                                 ‘GRANA’ and ‘GRANA PADANO’                         of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the
                                 and trade marks containing those                   Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in Case
                                 terms in combination with figu-                    R 1012/2001-2;
                                 rative elements and words for
                                 products in Class 29.                        —     order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
 ---pagebreak--- 29.11.2003             EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 289/27
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Community trade mark          The word mark ‘CLIMATIC’ —                 The applicant runs a medium-sized publishing company and
sought:                       Application No 1705557                     publishes the Leipzig magazine ‘Kreuzer’. The magazine is
                                                                         financed inter alia by tobacco advertising.
Goods or services:            Goods and services in Classes 11,
                              12 and 37 (inter alia, apparatus
                              for heating, steam generating,             The applicant seeks a declaration that Article 3(1) of Directive
                              refrigerating, drying and venti-           2003/33/EC is void. It argues that the directive breaches
                              lating; repair)                            Community law from several points of view. The directive
                                                                         infringes Article 251 EC as the published version of the
Decision        contested     Refusal by the examiner to register        directive differs from that adopted by the Council and the
before the Board of           the mark in respect of goods and           Parliament. Further, the directive breaches Article 95 EC, as, in
Appeal:                       services in Classes 11 and 37              the case of a local or regional magazine such as that produced
                                                                         by the applicant, there are no internal market implications and
                                                                         the Community legislature thus has no role to play.
Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the appeal
Appeal:
                                                                         The applicant submits further that the directive is vague and
Pleas in law:                 —     Infringement of Article 74(1)        thus breaches the constitutional requirement of certainty. It
                                    of Regulation (EC) No 40/94          also infringes the requirement under Article 253 EC that
                                                                         reasons should be stated, as no reasons are actually given
                              —     Legally incorrect application        regarding the existence of obstacles to trade which could be
                                    of Article 7(1)(b) of Regu-          removed by the directive.
                                    lation (EC) No 40/94
                                                                         Furthermore, the applicant submits that the directive infringes
                                                                         the freedom of expression safeguarded by Article 11 of the
                                                                         Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union and
                                                                         Article 10(1) of the ECHR. That includes the right to ‘commer-
                                                                         cial speech’. The directive prejudices the placing of advertising
                                                                         and positive editorial reporting, without thereby in any way
Action brought on 11 September 2003 by Kreuzer                           allowing the objective of the directive to be attained. Finally,
Medien GmbH against the European Parliament and the                      the directive infringes entrepreneurial freedom, the property
                                                                         rights of the applicant and the prohibition on going beyond
               Council of the European Union
                                                                         what is necessary laid down by the third paragraph of Article 5
                                                                         EC.
                         (Case T-310/03)
                                                                         (1) OJ 2003 L 152, p. 16.
                        (2003/C 289/57)
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         Action brought on 15 September 2003 by Hans-Peter
An action against the European Parliament and the Council of
                                                                         Wilfer against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
the European Union was brought before the Court of Justice
                                                                                Market (Trade marks and Designs) (OHIM)
of the European Communities on 11 September 2003 by
Kreuzer Medien GmbH, represented by Dr U. Kornmeier and
Dr D. Valbert.                                                                                (Case T-315/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 289/58)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
—     declare Article 3(1) of Directive 2003/33/EC of the
      European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003
      on the approximation of the laws, regulations and
      administrative provisions of the Member States relating            An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
      to the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products (1)         Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
      void;                                                              the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                         15 September 2003 by Hans-Peter Wilfer, represented by
—     order the defendant to bear the costs.                             A. Kockläuner, lawyer.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 November 2000 in Case C-356/99: Commission of the European Communities v Hitesys SpA (Arbitration clause — Non-performance of contract — Recovery of moneys advanced — Procedure in default of defence)

text:
27.1.2001               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 28/7
D. Waelbroeck) APPEAL against the judgment of the Court of                 1.    Orders Hitesys SpA to repay to the Commission of the European
First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber)                      Communities the sum of EUR 132 500, together with default
of 25 March 1999 in Case T-76/98 Hamptaux v Commission                           interest calculated in accordance with the second subparagraph
[1999] ECR-SC I-A-59 and II-303, seeking to have that                            of Article 8(4) of the general conditions forming Annex II to
judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings being                     Contract JOU2-CT93-0417 from 8 January 1994 until full
Claudine Hamptaux an official of the Commission of the                           payment of the debt;
European Communities, residing in Brussels (Belgium), rep-
resented by L. Vogel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for             2.    Orders Hitesys SpA to pay the costs.
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of C. Kremer, 6 Rue
Heinrich Heine — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rappor-              (1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.
teur), D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; P. Léger,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
on 9 November 2000, in which it:
1.    Dismisses the appeal;
2.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay
      the costs.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.
                                                                                (First Chamber)
                                                                                of 14 November 2000
                                                                           in Case C-142/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     from the Tribunal de Première Instance de Tournai):
                                                                                Floridienne SA, Berginvest SA v Belgian State (1)
                         (Third Chamber)
                                                                           (Sixth VAT Directive — Deduction of input tax — Undertak-
                       of 9 November 2000                                  ing subject to tax on only one part of its operations —
                                                                           Deductible proportion — Calculation — Holding company
in Case C-356/99: Commission of the European Communi-                      collecting share dividends and loan interest from its subsidi-
                       ties v Hitesys SpA (1)                                  aries — Involvement in management of subsidiaries)
(Arbitration clause — Non-performance of contract —                                                    (2001/C 28/13)
Recovery of moneys advanced — Procedure in default of
                              defence)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                          (2001/C 28/12)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     In Case C-142/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                   in the European Court Reports)                          the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal de
                                                                           Première Instance (Court of First Instance), Tournai, Belgium,
In Case C-356/99: Commission of the European Communities                   for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
(Agents: E. de March and A. Dal Ferro) v Hitesys SpA,                      court between Floridienne SA, Berginvest SA and Belgian State
established in Aprilia (Italy) — application by the Commission             — on the interpretation of Article 19 of the Sixth Council
of the European Communities under Article 238 EC to recover                Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation
moneys advanced in relation to Contract JOU2-CT93-0417,                    of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
which was terminated by the applicant on the ground of the                 Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assess-
defendant’s failure to perform its contractual obligations                 ment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — the Court (First Chamber),
— the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann                       composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, P. Jann
(Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and               and L. Sevón (Rapporteur), Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate
F. Macken, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General; R. Grass,                  General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 November 2000, in                     has given a judgment on 14 November 2000, in which it has
which it:                                                                  ruled: