title: Case T-25/03: Action brought on 28 January 2003 by Marco de Stefano against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
5.4.2003               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 83/23
Action brought on 29 January 2003 by C.A.S. Succhi di                      In the contested decision, the Commission, inter alia, takes the
Frutta against the Commission of the European Communi-                     view that 32 A.TR.1 certificates were falsified. The Commission
                                 ties                                      refused the applicant’s request for remission of
                                                                           ITL 3 296 190 371.
                          (Case T-23/03)
                                                                           In support of its claim for annulment of the part of the
                          (2003/C 83/51)                                   Commission’s decision refusing remission, the applicant sub-
                                                                           mits that the Commission infringed its right of access to the
                                                                           file, inasmuch as, in the course of providing access to the file,
                   (Language of the case: German)                          the Commission failed to disclose and produce to the applicant
                                                                           all the documents relevant to the case.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  The applicant further submits that the Commission failed to
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 comply with its remission or repayment obligation under
European Communities on 29 January 2003 by C.A.S. Succhi
                                                                           Article 239 of the Customs Code in respect of the 32 allegedly
di Frutta, Verona, Italy, represented by D. Ehle, lawyer.                  falsified A.TR.1 certificates, since those 32 certificates too were
                                                                           issued and registered and handed over to the exporter when
                                                                           clearing the goods for export with the knowledge and cooper-
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                ation of the competent Turkish customs authority, which was
                                                                           aware of the possibility that the goods might not be of Turkish
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 18 October 2002                   origin.
      (REC 10/01), in so far as the Commission refused to remit
      or repay the import duties amounting to
      ITL 3 296 190 371 collected by way of post-clearance                 Moreover, the Commission infringed Article 220(2)(b) of the
      recovery in respect of 32 imports covered by 32 specified
                                                                           Customs Code since the Turkish customs authorities knew or
      A.TR.1 certificates;
                                                                           could reasonably have known that the deliveries for which the
                                                                           32 A.TR 1 certificates were issued, were not of Turkish origin,
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                               whereas, when importing the products, the applicant acted in
                                                                           good faith and was unaware of the misconduct of the Turkish
                                                                           customs authority.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           (1 ) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4115/86 of 22 December 1986 on
                                                                                imports into the Community of agricultural products originating
Regulation (EEC) No 4115/86 ( 1) abolished, with certain                        in Turkey (OJ 1986 L 380, p. 16).
exceptions, the customs duties imposed on the goods originat-
ing in Turkey listed in Annex II to the EEC Treaty.
Between 5 April 1995 and 20 November 1997, the applicant,
an Italian company which, inter alia, processes imported fruit
juice concentrates, put on the market for free circulation apple
and pear juice concentrates declared to originate in Turkey.
According to the applicant, the shipments were accompanied                 Action brought on 28 January 2003 by Marco de Stefano
by proper documents, including the A.TR.1 movement of                         against the Commission of the European Communities
goods certificates. In 1998, the customs authorities in Ravenna
presented the applicant with a list of A.TR.1 certificates. On
the basis of examinations of the authenticity and regularity of                                      (Case T-25/03)
the certificates carried out at the offices of the Turkish customs
authority, it was alleged that the applicant had imported apple
juice concentrates with falsified A.TR.1 certificates. At the                                        (2003/C 83/52)
same time, the applicant was required to pay import duties by
way of post-clearance recovery.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The applicant lodged an objection to the customs assessment
notices issued by the competent customs authority in Ravenna.
At the same time, it applied for remission under                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Article 220(2)(b) and Article 239 of the Customs Code. The                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Italian tax authorities submitted the decision on the remission            European Communities on 28 January 2003 by Marco de
of the import duties collected by way of post-clearance                    Stefano, residing in Brussels, represented by Georges Vander-
recovery to the Commission.                                                sanden and Guy Verbrugge, lawyers.
 ---pagebreak--- C 83/24               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         5.4.2003
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the Commission’s decision rejecting the applicant’s           —     annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of
      candidature and refusing to admit him to the written                      OHIM of 18 November 2002 in file R 803/2001-2;
      procedure in open competition EUR/A/166/01, as noti-
      fied to him by decision of the appointing authority of              —     uphold, therefore, the applicant’s opposition to regis-
      8 April 2002;                                                             tration of the trade mark ‘CARPO’, and
—     in the alternative, order compensation for non-material             —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
      damage provisionally estimated at EUR 2 500;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Applicant for the Com-        Basf Aktiengegesellschaft
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           munity trade mark:
                                                                          The Community trade           Word mark ‘CARPO’ for products
The applicant in the present case challenges the decision                 mark concerned:               in class 5 (fungicides, herbicides,
refusing to allow him to take part in the tests in competition                                          insecticides and pesticides).
EUR/A/166/01, held for the purpose of constituting a reserve
for recruitment of A7/A6 administrators in the area of                    Proprietor of the right to    Applicant.
auditing, on the ground that the qualifications and diplomas              the trade mark or sign
produced by the applicant did not satisfy the conditions laid             asserted by way of oppo-
down in point III.B.2 of the notice of competition. The                   sition in the opposition
Selection Board considered that the applicant’s qualifications of         proceedings:
‘Ragioniere e Perito Commerciale’ and ‘Revisore Commerciale’
could not be regarded as equivalent to the qualification of               Trade mark or sign            Spanish word mark ‘HARPO Z’
‘Dottore Commercialista’.                                                 asserted by way of oppo-      for products in Class 5 (prep-
                                                                          sition in the opposition      arations for destroying vermin,
                                                                          proceedings:                  fungicides, herbicides).
In support of his claims, the applicant alleges failure to comply
with of the notice of competition and infringement of the duty            Decision of the Oppo-         Opposition rejected.
to state reasons, and alleges that there was in the circumstances         sition Division:
of the case a manifest error of assessment. Specifically, he
argues that the Selection Board erred in its assessment of his            Decision of the Board of      Action dismissed.
qualifications, diplomas, professional activity and training              Appeal:
periods in auditing which in fact enable him to claim a
professional qualification of equivalent level.                           Grounds of claim:             Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b)
                                                                                of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (like-
                                                                                lihood of confusion)
Action brought on 31 January 2003 by Aventis Cropscien-
ce S.A. against Office for the Harmonisation of the                       Action brought on 4 February 2003 by Open Mobile
     Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)
                                                                          Alliance Ltd. against the Office for Harmonization in the
                                                                                Internal Market
                         (Case T-35/03)
                                                                                (Case T-37/03)
                         (2003/C 83/53)
                                                                                (2003/C 83/54)
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (trade marks and designs (OHIM) was brought before                 An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
31 January 2003 by Aventis Cropscience S.A., the registered               European Communities on 4 February 2003 by Open Mobile
office of which is in Lyon (France), represented by Enrique               Alliance Ltd., Reading, United Kingdom, represented by Ms
Armijo Chávarri.                                                          Alexandra Dellmeier, Attorney at Law.


title: Case C-455/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 14 November 2006 — Heemskerk BV en BV v/h Firma Schaap v Productschap Vee en Vlees

text:
               27.1.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 20/2

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 14 November 2006 — Heemskerk BV en BV v/h Firma Schaap v Productschap Vee en Vlees
   (Case C-455/06)
   (2007/C 20/02)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Heemskerk BV en BV v/h Firma Schaap

      Defendant: Productschap Vee en Vlees
   Questions referred

               1a.

               Is an administrative body empowered to decide, contrary to the declaration of the official veterinarian referred to in Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 615/98 (1), that the transport of animals to which the official veterinarian's declaration relates is not in accordance with the conditions laid down in Directive 91/628/EEC? (2)

               1b.

               If the answer to Question 1a is in the affirmative:
               Is the exercise by the administrative body of that power on grounds of Community law subject to specific restrictions, and if so, what are those restrictions?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:
               When assessing whether there is an entitlement to refunds, for which Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 (3), for example, provides, should an administrative body of a Member State determine whether a transport of live animals complies with Community animal welfare legislation by reference to the requirements applicable in the Member State or to those of the State in which the vessel transporting the live animals is registered and which has granted an authorisation for that vessel?

               3.

               Does Community law require a court or tribunal to conduct, of its own motion, an examination — that is to say, an examination of grounds falling outside the basic framework of the disputes — of grounds derived from Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 (4) and Regulation (EC) No 800/1999?

               4.

               Is the phrase ‘subject to compliance with the provisions established in Community legislation concerning animal welfare’ in Article 33(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 to be understood as meaning that, where it is established that while transporting live animals a vessel was so heavily laden as to exceed the cargo permitted by the relevant welfare legislation, there was a failure to comply with Community animal welfare legislation only in respect of the number of animals by which the permitted cargo was exceeded, or must it be found that that legislation was not complied with in respect of all the live animals transported?

               5.

               Does the effective application of Community law entail that a court's examination, of its own motion, of compatibility with provisions of Community law prevails over the principle enshrined in Dutch law of administrative procedure that an individual bringing an action must not be placed thereby in a less advantageous position than if he had not brought that action?

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 615/98 of 18 March 1998 laying down specific detailed rules of application for the export refund arrangements as regards the welfare of live bovine animals during transport (OJ 1998 L 82, p. 19).

      (2)  Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC (OJ 1991 L 340, p. 17).

      (3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 of 15 April 1999 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ 1999 L 102, p. 11).

      (4)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 21).


title: Case F-121/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 31 March 2014  — BO v Commission

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/64

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 31 March 2014 — BO v Commission
   (Case F-121/11) (1)

   2014/C 421/94
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012, p. 72.


title: Case F-148/06: Action brought on 28 December 2006 — Collée v Parliament

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/48

         Action brought on 28 December 2006 — Collée v Parliament
   (Case F-148/06)
   (2007/C 42/85)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Laurent Collée (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Orlandi, J.-N. Louis, A. Coolen and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               declare the illegality of paragraph I.3 of the ‘Instructions on the procedure for the allocation of promotion points’ of the European Parliament of 13 June 2002;

               —

               annul the Appointing Authority's decision of 9 January 2006 to allocate two merit points to the applicant under the 2004 promotion procedure;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, a European Parliament official in Grade AST 8, criticises the Appointing Authority for failing to carry out an examination of comparative merits which included all officials of the institution who were eligible for promotion and were classified in the same grade as the applicant. He alleges, inter alia, breach of Articles 5 and 45 of the Staff Regulations and infringement of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination. The contested decision, he argues, is also vitiated by a manifest error of assessment and a failure to give reasons.
   The applicant pleads, lastly, that paragraph I.3 of the abovementioned Instructions, which concerns the exceptional allocation of promotion points by the Secretary-General, is illegal. In particular, the restrictions imposed by that provision on the Secretary-General do not comply with Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and the principle of equal treatment.


title: Case C-603/12: Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 18 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Hannover — Germany) — Pia Braun v Region Hannover

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/23

         Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 18 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Hannover — Germany) — Pia Braun v Region Hannover
   (Case C-603/12) (1)

   2014/C 184/33
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 101, 6. 4. 2013.


8.12.2001             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 348/23
       Removal from the register of Case C-134/01 (1)                    Removal from the register of Case C-190/01 P (1)
                       (2001/C 348/45)                                                    (2001/C 348/46)
By order of 26 September 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        By order of 4 October 2001 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-134/01: Commission of the              Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.                from the register of Case C-190/01 P: Mannesmannröhren-
                                                                   Werke AG v Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.


title: Case T-338/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of  16 February 2006  — Centro Europa 7 v Commission (Article 86(3) EC — Rejection of complaint — Action for annulment — Plea of inadmissibility)

text:
               22.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/13

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 February 2006 — Centro Europa 7 v Commission
   (Case T-338/04) (1)

   (Article 86(3) EC - Rejection of complaint - Action for annulment - Plea of inadmissibility)
   (2006/C 96/25)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties:

      Applicant: Centro Europa 7 Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: V. Ripa di Meana and R. Mastroianni, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Oliver and F. Amato, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Mediaset SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Bay, lawyer)
   Application for
   Annulment of the Commission's letter of 4 June 2004 [D (2004) 471] in so far as it rejects the applicant's complaint that the Italian Republic had infringed the combined provisions of Articles 86 EC and 82 EC.
   Operative part of the Order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               In addition to bearing its own costs, the applicant is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the Commission and the intervener.

      (1)  OJ C 262 of 23.10.2004.


title: Case C-17/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Nancy by judgment of that court of  9 January 2006  in S.A.R.L. CELINE v S.A. CELINE

text:
               25.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 74/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Nancy by judgment of that court of 9 January 2006 in S.A.R.L. CELINE v S.A. CELINE
   (Case C-17/06)
   (2006/C 74/12)
   Language of the case: French
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Cour d'appel de Nancy of 9 January 2006, received at the Court Registry on 17 January 2006, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between S.A.R.L. CELINE and S.A. CELINE on the following question:

               Must Article 5(1) of Directive 89/104/EEC (1) be interpreted as meaning that the adoption, by a third party without authorisation, of a registered word mark, as a company name, business name or style in connection with the marketing of identical goods, amounts to use of that mark in the course of trade, which the proprietor is entitled to stop by reason of his exclusive rights?

      (1)  First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1)


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 October 2000 in Case C-9/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Appel de Grenoble, France): Échirolles Distribution SA v Association du Dauphiné and Others (National legislation on book prices)

text:
25.11.2000                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 335/19
The application, on a unilateral basis, by a group of healthcare            1.    Dismisses the appeal;
providers to EC officials of scales of fees for medical and hospital
maternity care which are higher than those applicable to residents          2.    Orders Industrie des Poudres Sphériques to pay the costs;
affiliated to the national social security scheme constitutes discrimi-
nation on the ground of nationality prohibited under the first
paragraph of Article 6 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, the          3.    Orders Péchiney Électrométallurgie, the Chambre Syndicale de
first paragraph of Article 12 EC), in the absence of objective                    l’Électrométallurgie et de l’Électrochimie and the Commission of
justification in this respect.                                                    the European Communities each to bear their own costs.
(1) OJ C 20 of 23.1.1999.                                                   (1) OJ C 48, 20.2.1999, p. 17.
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Fifth Chamber)
                          of 3 October 2000                                                            (Sixth Chamber)
in Case C-458/98 P: Industrie des Poudres Sphériques v                                               of 3 October 2000
                Council of the European Union (1)
                                                                            in Case C-9/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
(Appeal — Anti-dumping — Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88                        the Cour d’Appel de Grenoble, France): Échirolles Distri-
— Calcium metal — Admissibility — Re-opening of an                              bution SA v Association du Dauphiné and Others (1)
anti-dumping procedure after annulment of the regulation
 adopting an anti-dumping duty — Right to a fair hearing)
                                                                                (National legislation on book prices)
                            (2000/C 335/34)
                                                                                (2000/C 335/35)
                      (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
In Case C-458/98 P: Industrie des Poudres Sphériques, estab-                                    in the European Court Reports)
lished in Annemasse (France), represented by C. Momège, of
the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of A. May, 398 Route d’Esch — appeal against the                   In Case C-9/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European                     the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Cour d’Appel
Communities (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) of                        (Court of Appeal), Grenoble, for a preliminary ruling in the
15 October 1998 in Case T-2/95 Industries des Poudres                       proceedings pending before that court between Échirolles
Sphériques v Council [1998] ECR II-3939, seeking to have                    Distribution SA and Association du Dauphiné and Others —
that judgment set aside, the other parties to the proceedings               on the interpretation of Articles 3(c) and (g) of the EC Treaty
being: Council of the European Union (Agents: S. Marquardt                  (now, after amendment, Article 3(c) and (g) EC), 3a and 5 of
assisted by P. Bentley) Commission of the European Communi-                 the EC Treaty (now Articles 4 EC and 10 EC), the second
ties, (Agents: N. Khan and X. Lewis) Péchiney Électrométallur-             paragraph of Article 7a of the EC Treaty (now, after amend-
gie, established in Courbevoie (France) Chambre Syndicale de                ment, the second paragraph of Article 14 EC) and Articles
l’Électrométallurgie et de l’Électrochimie, established in Paris          102a and 103(3) and (4) of the EC Treaty (now Articles 98 EC
(France), represented by O. d’Ormesson and O. Prost, of                     and 99(3) and (4) EC) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed
the Paris Bar — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:                     of: J.C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur), President of the
D.A.O. Edward, President of the Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn,                    Chamber, R. Schintgen, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet and
A. La Pergola, P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur), Judges;               V. Skouris, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; D. Louterman-
G. Cosmas, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a               Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 3 October 2000, in which it:                                    judgment on 3 October 2000, in which it has ruled:
 ---pagebreak--- C 335/20                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         25.11.2000
Articles 3(c) and (g) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
3(c) and (g) EC), 3a and 5 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 4 EC and
10 EC), the second paragraph of Article 7a of the EC Treaty (now,
after amendment, the second paragraph of Article 14 EC) and                                         of 5 October 2000
Articles 102a and 103 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 98 EC and
99 EC) do not preclude the application of national legislation
requiring publishers to impose on booksellers fixed prices for the         in Case C-16/98: Commission of the European Communi-
resale of books.                                                                                ties v French Republic (1)
(1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.                                                  (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                           Directive 93/38/EEC — Public works contracts in the
                                                                           water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors —
                                                                           Electrification and street lighting works in the département
                                                                                of the Vendée — Definition of work)
                                                                                (2000/C 335/37)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                         of 5 October 2000
in Case C-288/96: Federal Republic of Germany v Com-                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
           mission of the European Communities (1)                                             in the European Court Reports)
(State aid — Operating aid — Guidelines in the fisheries                   In Case C-16/98: Commission of the European Communities
sector — Article 92(1) and (3)(c) of the EC Treaty (now,                   (Agents: H. van Lier and O. Couvert-Castéra) v French Republic
after amendment, Article 87(1) and (3)(c) EC) — Rights of                  (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and P. Lalliot) — application for a
              the defence — Statement of reasons)                          declaration that, in the course of the procurement procedure
                                                                           initiated by the Syndicat Départemental d’Electrification de la
                           (2000/C 335/36)                                 Vendée in December 1994 for the award of a contract for
                                                                           electrification and street lighting work, the French Republic
                                                                           failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(2), 14(1), (10)
                   (Language of the case: German)                          and (13), together with Articles 21, 24 and 25 of Council
                                                                           Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the pro-
                                                                           curement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy,
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     transport and telecommunications sectors (OJ 1993 L 199,
                    in the European Court Reports)                         p. 84) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias,
                                                                           President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, L. Sevón and R. Schintgen
                                                                           (Presidents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann,
In Case C-288/96: Federal Republic of Germany (Agent:                      J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet and V. Skouris (Rapporteur),
B. Kloke with M. Schütte) v Commission of the European                     Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,
Communities (Agent: P.F. Nemitz with R.M. Bierwagen) —                     Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
application for the annulment of Commission Decision                       on 5 October 2000, in which it:
96/563/EC of 29 May 1996 on aid from the Land of Lower
Saxony to the company JAKO Jadekost GmbH & Co. KG (OJ
1996 L 246, p. 43) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed                   1.    Declares that in so far as the French entities responsible for the
of: D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,                        tendering procedure for electrification contracts held in Vendée
J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, L. Sevón, J.-P. Puissochet and                        in December 1994
M. Wathelet, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment                 —     split the work,
on 5 October 2000, in which it:
1.    Dismisses the application;                                                 —     did not publish in the Official Journal of the European
                                                                                Communities a call for competition for all the contracts
2.    Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.                         comprised in that work above the threshold laid down in
                                                                                Article 14(10), second subparagraph, last sentence,
                                                                                of Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993
(1) OJ C 354 of 23.11.1996.                                                            coordinating the procurement procedures of entities
                                                                                operating in the water, energy, transport and telecom-
                                                                                munications sectors but confined themselves to doing so
                                                                                for six of them only,


title: Case C-42/03: Action brought on 4 February 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

text:
26.4.2003              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 101/17
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichts-                            it in the fishing years 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993,
hofes by order of that Court of 17 December 2002 in the                              1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997;
appeal proceedings brought by Pharmacia & Upjohn S.p.A
                                                                               —     by having failed to ensure compliance with the
                          (Case C-31/03)
                                                                                Community rules on conservation through adequate
                                                                                monitoring of fishing activities and appropriate
                         (2003/C 101/28)                                             inspections of the fishing fleet and of landings and
                                                                                recording of catches for the fishing years 1990,
                                                                                1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshofes                       —     by not having temporarily prohibited fishing from
(Federal Court) of 17 December 2002, received at the Court                           vessels flying the Spanish flag or registered in
Registry on 27 January 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the                         Spanish territory when the quotas allocated to
appeal proceedings brought by Pharmacia & Upjohn S.p.A on                            Spain were deemed to be exhausted in the fishing
the interpretation of Article 19(1) of Council Regulation (EEC)                      years 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995,
No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a                              1996 and 1997 and by having finally prohibited it
supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products                          when the quotas had already been exceeded; and
(OJ 1992 L 182, p. 1; hereinafter ‘the Protection Certificate
Regulation’):
                                                                               —     by having failed to take legal or administrative action
                                                                                against the master or other person responsible for
Is the grant of a supplementary protection certificate in a
                                                                                overfishing in the fishing years 1990, 1991, 1992,
Member State of the Community on the basis of a medicinal                            1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997;
product for human beings authorised in that Member State
precluded by an authorisation to place the same product on
the market as a veterinary medicinal product granted in                        the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations
another Member State of the Community before the date
                                                                               under Article 5(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 (1),
specified in Article 19(1) of the Protection Certificate Regu-
                                                                               Article 9(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 (2), Article 1
lation, or is the sole determining factor the date on which the                and Article 11(1) and (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2241/
product was authorised in the Community as a medicinal
                                                                               87 ( 3) and Article 2, Article 21(1) and (2) and Article 31
product for human beings?
                                                                               of Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 ( 4);
                                                                         —     order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
Action brought on 4 February 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                              Spain                                      Pleas in law and main arguments
                          (Case C-42/03)                                 —     Infringement of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 170/
                                                                               83, Article 9(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92: those
                         (2003/C 101/29)                                       provisions impose a general obligation on Member
                                                                               States to determine, in accordance with the applicable
                                                                               Community law, detailed rules for the use of the fishing
                                                                               quotas allocated to them. The data on overfishing which
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                      are cited in the reasoned opinions sent to Spain give an
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 Febru-                   overall picture of how often over a period of time and
ary 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,                        how significantly the quotas were exceeded ( 5). They show
represented by T. van Rijn, Legal Adviser, and S. Pardo                        that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligation
Quintillán, of its Legal Service, with an address for service in               to put in place, in accordance with the applicable
Luxembourg.                                                                    Community legislation, appropriate and effective
                                                                               measures for utilisation of the fishing quotas allocated to
                                                                               it for the fishing years 1990 to 1997.
The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
—     declare that:                                                      —     Infringement of Article 1(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2241/
                                                                               87 and Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93: proper
      —    by having failed to determine the appropriate detail-               management of fishing quotas also calls for appropriate
           ed rules for the use of the fishing quotas allocated to             supervision and monitoring to ensure that restrictions on
 ---pagebreak--- C 101/18                 EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                         26.4.2003
        fishing are actually complied with. The data on overfish-              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Epitropi Anta-
        ing mentioned above make it clear that the Spanish                     gonismou by order of that Court of 22 January 2003
        authorities have not effectively implemented the control               in the case of Sinetairismos Farmakopion Aitolias &
        measures necessary to protect against overfishing, in                  Akarnanias — SIFAIT and Others against GLAXOWELL-
        particular fishing in the absence of a quota, specifically             COME AEVE (subsequently called GLAXOSMITHKLINE
        through adequate inspection of landings and recording                                                AEVE)
        of catches and landings.
                                                                                (Case C-53/03)
—       Infringement of Article 11(2) of Regulation (EEC)
        No 2241/87 and Article 21(2) of Regulation (EEC)
        No 2847/93: Spain did not monitor thoroughly enough
        the information that it received on catches and how they                                       (2003/C 101/30)
        evolved and therefore fishing of the stocks referred to in
        the reasoned opinions relating to the fishing years
        1990 and 1997 was prohibited too late once the relevant
        quotas had already been exceeded.
                                                                               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
        Compliance with quotas is an absolute obligation, breach               European Communities by order of the Epitropi Antago-
        of which is not dependent on any proof that other                      nismou (Competition Commission) of 22 January 2003,
        Member States have suffered harm or that the conser-                   received at the Court Registry on 5 February 2003, for a
        vation objectives pursued have been jeopardised by                     preliminary ruling in the case of Sinetairismos Farmakopion
        endangering the relevant stocks.                                       Aitolias & Akarnanias — SIFAIT and Others against GLAXO-
                                                                               WELLCOME AEVE (subsequently called GLAXOSMITHKLINE
                                                                               AEVE) on the following questions:
—       Infringement of Article 1(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2241/
        87 and Article 31 of Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93:                      1.   Where the refusal of an undertaking holding a dominant
        the Spanish authorities did not supply appropriate or                       position to meet fully the orders sent to it by pharmaceuti-
        persuasive data on any legal action taken against those
                                                                                cal wholesalers is due to its intention to limit their export
        responsible for exceeding fishing quotas or for catches                     activity and, thereby, the harm caused to it by parallel
        made in the absence of a quota for cod and mackerel                         trade, does the refusal constitute per se an abuse within
        stocks in 1991, cod in 1992, cod in 1994, Greenland
                                                                                the meaning of Article 82 EC? Is the answer to that
        halibut and redfish in 1995 and ‘other species’ in 1996.                    question affected by the fact that the parallel trade is
                                                                                particularly profitable for the wholesalers because of the
                                                                                different prices, resulting from State intervention, in the
                                                                                Member States of the European Union, that is to say by
                                                                                the fact that pure conditions of competition do not
( 1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 of 25 January 1983                          prevail in the pharmaceuticals market, but a regime which
     establishing a Community system for the conservation and                       is governed to a large extent by State intervention? Is it
     management of fishery resources (OJ L 24 of 27.1.1983, p. 1).                  ultimately the duty of a national competition authority
( 2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 of 20 December 1992                        to apply Community competition rules in the same way
     establishing a Community system for fisheries and aquaculture
     (OJ L 389 of 31.12.1992, p. 1).
                                                                                to markets which function competitively and those in
( 3) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87 of 23 July 1987 estab-
                                                                                which competition is distorted by State intervention?
     lishing certain control measures for fishing activities (OJ L 207 of
     29.7.1987, p. 1).
( 4) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993                    2.   If the Court holds that limitation of parallel trade, for the
     establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries               reasons set out above, does not constitute an abusive
     policy (OJ L 261 of 20.10.1993, p. 1).                                         practice in every case where it is engaged in by an
( 5) On the basis of the information officially provided by Spain: in               undertaking holding a dominant position, how is possible
     1990, overfishing totalling 1 186,6 tonnes; in 1991, overfishing               abuse to be assessed? In particular:
     totalling 1 728 tonnes; in 1992, overfishing totalling 2 196 tonn-
     es; in 1993, overfishing totalling 179 tonnes; in 1994, overfishing
     totalling 378 tonnes; in 1995, overfishing totalling 3 209 tonnes
     and 528 tonnes in the absence of a quota; in 1996, overfishing                 2.1. Do the percentage by which normal domestic
     totalling 39 tonnes and 23 tonnes in the absence of a quota; in                      consumption is exceeded and/or the loss suffered
     1997, overfishing amounting to 72 tonnes.                                            by an undertaking holding a dominant position
                                                                                compared with its total turnover and total profits
                                                                                constitute appropriate criteria? If so, how are the
                                                                                level of that percentage and the level of that loss
                                                                                determined (the latter as a percentage of turnover
                                                                                and total profits), above which the conduct in
                                                                                question may be abusive?


title: Case C-535/14 P: Appeal brought on 24 November 2014 by Vadzim Ipatau against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 23 September 2014 in Case T-646/11 Ipatau v Council

text:
               26.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/20

         Appeal brought on 24 November 2014 by Vadzim Ipatau against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 23 September 2014 in Case T-646/11 Ipatau v Council
   (Case C-535/14 P)
   (2015/C 026/24)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Vadzim Ipatau (represented by: M. Michalauskas, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2014 (Case T-646/11),

               —

               give final judgment in the matter or refer the case back to the General Court for judgment,

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs, including the costs before the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant relies on four grounds of appeal.
   In the first place, the appellant submits that the General Court infringed the right to effective judicial protection by denying the filing of an application for legal aid any suspensory effect on the period prescribed for bringing an action for annulment against the contested measure.
   In the second place, the appellant complains that the General Court infringed his rights of defence. The General Court held that the Council was not required to disclose to the appellant the evidence against him, nor required to give him the opportunity to be heard before the adoption of Decision 2012/642/CFSP (1) and Implementing Regulation No 1017/2012 (2).
   In the third place, the General Court erred in law in taking the view that the grounds set out in the contested measures were sufficient.
   In the last place, the General Court erred in law in taking the view that the contested measures were not disproportionate.

      (1)  Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP of 15 October 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2012 L 285, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1017/2012 of 6 November 2012 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2012 L 307, p. 7).


title: Case C-528/09: Action brought on 17 December 2009 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/26

         Action brought on 17 December 2009 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia
   (Case C-528/09)
   2010/C 63/44
   Language of the case: Estonian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by A. Marghelis and K. Saaremäel-Stoilov, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Estonia

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to transpose into national law as required Article 3(i)(iii), the third subparagraph of Article 8(2) and the second subparagraph of Article 8(3) of Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on waste electrical and electronic equipment, the Republic of Estonia has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Estonia to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 concerns the treatment of waste electrical and electronic equipment. Having analysed the measures by which that directive is transposed into Estonian law, the Commission considers that the Republic of Estonia has not transposed as required Article 3(i)(iii), the third subparagraph of Article 8(2) and the second subparagraph of Article 8(3) of the directive.
   Article 3(i)(iii) of the directive defines producers of electrical and electronic equipment. The Estonian legal provisions concerning waste electrical and electronic equipment contain two different definitions of producers, thereby making more difficult the comprehension and application of the rules on the treatment of waste.
   The third subparagraph of Article 8(2) of the directive lays down that the costs of collection, treatment and environmentally sound disposal are not to be shown separately to purchasers at the time of sale of new products. The Commission considers that the Republic of Estonia has not transposed that requirement into its national law.
   The second subparagraph of Article 8(3) of the directive lays down the obligation of the Member States to ensure that, for a transitional period of eight years after the entry into force of the directive, producers are allowed to show purchasers, at the time of sale of new products, the costs of collection, treatment and disposal in an environmentally sound way of waste, in which case the costs mentioned must not exceed the actual costs. The Commission takes the view that Estonia has not transposed that obligation into its national law.
   The Republic of Estonia agreed with those complaints and promised in its reply to the Commission’s reasoned opinion to eliminate the infringement of Article 3(i)(iii), the third subparagraph of Article 8(2) and the second subparagraph of Article 8(3) of the directive by a law amending the law on waste. Since the Republic of Estonia has not as yet, to the Commission’s knowledge, enacted the promised law amending the law on waste, or at least has not notified it to the Commission, the Commission considers that the Republic of Estonia has not yet transposed into its national law as required Article 3(i)(iii), the third subparagraph of Article 8(2) and the second subparagraph of Article 8(3) of the directive, thereby failing to fulfil its obligations under the directive.


title: Case F-4/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 14 November 2006 — Villa and Others v Parliament (Pension — Transfer of pension rights — Calculation of the premium already obtained)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/83

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 14 November 2006 — Villa and Others v Parliament
   (Case F-4/06) (1)

   (Pension - Transfer of pension rights - Calculation of the premium already obtained)
   (2006/C 326/168)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Renata Villa (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) and Others (represented by: G. Bouneou, F. Frabetti, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: J.F. De Wachter and M. Mustapha-Pacha, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the decisions of 8 February 2005 whereby the appointing authority of the European Parliament refuses to reimburse the applicants the excess premium, resulting from the difference between the rights acquired during the years of when they were affiliated to the Italian scheme and the number of annuities transferred to the Community scheme following a new calculation of the transfer of their pension rights.
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               The parties shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 74, 25.03.2006, p. 34.


title: Case T-197/12: Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2013 — Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones v OHIM — MIP Metro (METRO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark METRO — Earlier Community figurative mark GRUPOMETROPOLIS — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Right to a fair hearing — Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms — Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2013 — Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones v OHIM — MIP Metro (METRO)
   (Case T-197/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark METRO - Earlier Community figurative mark GRUPOMETROPOLIS - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Right to a fair hearing - Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms - Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 252/48
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 March 2012 (Case R 2440/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones, SL and MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones, SL to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 14.7.2012.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 14 March 1996 in Case C-238/95: Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic (Failure to fulfil obligations - Directive 93/67/EEC - Assessment of risks to man and the environment posed by dangerous substances)

text:
 No C 180/4            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     22 . 6 . 96
 Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of                  Article 7 (1 ) and (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the
 Great Britain and Northern Ireland ( OJ No L 304, 1978 ,                Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for
 p . 1 and — in its amended form — p . 77 ) — the Court ( Fifth         workers within the Community must be interpreted as
 Chamber ), composed of D. A. O. Edward ( President of                  meaning that a worker who is a national of one Member
 Chamber ), J. -P. Puissochet, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida                State and is employed in the territory of another Member
  ( Rapporteur ), C. Gulmann and P. Jann, Judges; N. Fennelly,          State is not entitled to have payment of contributions
 Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a                      (employer's and employee's contributions) to the
 judgment on 14 March 1996, in which it rules :                         supplementary old-age and survivors ' pension scheme for
                                                                        workers in the public service continued, at the same level as
                                                                        would have been payable if the employment relationship
 Article 47 (1 ) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on              had not been suspended because of his call-up for military
 Jurisdiction and the Enforcement ofJudgments in Civil and              service, where nationals of that State employed in the public
  Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of                   service are so entitled when performing military service in
 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of                      that State.
 Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain
 and Northern Ireland, is to be interpreted as meaning that,
 where the domestic procedural rules so permit, proof of                (') OJ No C 380, 31 . 12 . 1994 .
 service of the judgment may be produced after the
 application has been made, in particular during the course of
 appeal proceedings subsequently brought by the party
 against whom enforcement is sought, provided that that
 party is given a reasonable period of time in which to satisfy
 the judgment voluntarily and that the party seeking
 enforcement bears all costs unnecessarily incurred.
 (') OJ No C 351 , 10 . 12 . 1994 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Fifth Chamber )
                                                                                of 14 March 1996
                                                                        in Case C-238/95 : Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities v. Italian Republic ( ! )
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 93/67/EEC —
                        ( Sixth Chamber )                               Assessment of risks to man and the environment posed by
                       of 14 March 1996
                                                                                dangerous substances)
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/08 )
in Case C-3 15/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling
 from the Arbeitsgericht Bielefeld ): Peter de Vos v. Stadt
                             Bielefeld ( J )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
 (Freedom of movement for persons — Military service —
                        Social advantage)
                          ( 96/C 180/07 )
                                                                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
               (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           In Case C-238/95 : Commission of the European
          published in the European Court Reports)                     Communities ( Agents : Laura Pignatoro and Maria
                                                                       Condou-Durande ) v. Italian Republic ( Agent: Professor
                                                                       Umberto Leanza, assisted by Pier Giorgio Ferri, avvocato
In Case C-3 1 5/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177          dello Stato ) — application for a declaration that, by failing
of the EC Treaty from the Arbeitsgericht Bielefeld                     to adopt and communicate the laws, regulations and
( Germany ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                administrative provisions necessary to comply with
pending before that court between Peter de Vos and Stadt               Commission Directive 93/67/EEC of 20 July 1993 laying
Bielefeld on the interpretation of Article 7 of Regulation             down the principles for assessment of risks to man and the
( EEC ) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on                environment of substances notified in accordance with
freedom of movement for workers within the Community                   Council Directive 67/548/EEC ( OJ No L 227, 1993 , p. 9 ),
( OJ, English Special Edition 1968(11 ), p . 475 ) — the Court         the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
( Sixth Chamber), composed of C. N. Kakouris, President of             that Directive and the EC Treaty — the Court ( Fifth
the Chamber, G. Hirsch, F. A. Schockweiler, P. J. G.                   Chamber ), composed of D. A. O. Edward, President of the
Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ) and J. L. Murray, Judges; D.                    Chamber, J. -P. Puissochet ( Rapporteur ), J. C. Moitinho de
Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General; Registrar, R.                   Almeida, L. Sevon and M. Wathelet, Judges; N. Fennelly,
Grass, gave a judgment on 14 March 1996, the operative                 Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
part of which is as follows :                                          judgment on 14 March 1996 in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- 22 . 6 . 96               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 180/5
1 . Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed                   Council Directive 90/385/EEC of 20 June 1990 on the
      period the laws, regulations and administrative                          approximation ofthe laws ofthe Member States relating
      provisions necessary to comply with Commission                           to active implantable medical devices, the Kingdom of
      Directive 93/67/EEC of 20 July 1993 laying down the                      Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      principles for assessment of risks to man and the                        Article 16 of that Directive.
      environment of substances notified in accordance with
      Council Directive 67/548/EEC, the Italian Republic has
      failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8 of Directive       2 . Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
      93/67/EEC.
                                                                          (') OJ No C 229 , 2 . 9 . 1995 .
2 . Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
f 1 ) OJ No C 229 , 2 . 9 . 1995 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 19 March 1996
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                          in    Case C-25/94 : Commission of the European
                            ( Sixth Chamber)                                   Communities v. Council of the European Union (^
                          of 14 March 1996                                (FAO — Fishery Agreement — Right to vote — Member
in Case        C-239/95 : Commission of the European                                          States — Community)
            Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium ( l )                                                 ( 96/C 180/10 )
 (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
 Transposition of Directive 90/385/EEC on the
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to                                (Language of the case: French)
               active implantable medical devices)
                               ( 96/C 180/09 )
                                                                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
                  (Language of the case: French)
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be             In Case C-25/94 : Commission of the European
           published in the European Court Reports)                       Communities ( Agent: Jorn Sack ) v . Council of the European
                                                                          Union ( Agents : Rudiger Bandilla and Felix van Craeyenest ),
                                                                          supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain and
In Case C-239/95 : Commission of the European                             Northern Ireland ( Agents : John E. Collins and Richard
 Communities ( Agent: Hendrik van Lier ) v. Kingdom of                    Plender QC ) — application for annulment of the decision of
Belgium ( Agent: Jan Devadder ) — application for a                       the Fisheries Council of 22 November 1993 giving the
declaration that, by failing to adopt and, in the alternative,            Member States the right to vote in the United Nations Food
to communicate to the Commission the measures necessary                   and Agriculture Organization for the adoption of the
to transpose Council Directive 90/385/EEC of 20 June 1990                 Agreement to Promote Compliance with International
on the approximation of the laws of the Member States                     Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing
relating to active implantable medical devices ( OJ No L 189,             Vessels on the High Seas — the Court, composed of G. C.
 1990, p . 17 ), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its          Rodriguez Iglesias, President, J. -P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch
obligations under that Directive and in particular Article 16             ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler
thereof — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of C. N.                   ( Rapporteur), J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn,
Kakouris, President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch, G. F.                      C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, H. Ragnemalm and L. Sevon,
Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler and J. L. Murray ( Rapporteur ),              Judges;      F.    G. Jacobs, Advocate-General;             D.
Judges; Advocate-General, D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer;                         Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the
 Registrar, R. Grass, gave a judgment on 14 March 1996, in                Registrar, gave a. judgment on 19 March 1996 , in which
which it :                                                                it :
 1 . Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations              1 . Annuls the decision of the Fisheries Council of
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with                   22 November 1 993 giving the Member States the right


title: Case T-720/15: Action brought on 04 December 2015 — Commission v CINAR

text:
               15.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 59/38

         Action brought on 04 December 2015 — Commission v CINAR
   (Case T-720/15)
   (2016/C 059/44)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Waelbroeck, lawyer, A. Duron, lawyer, S. Delaude, agent, L. Di Paolo, agent, and J. Estrada de Solà, agent)

      Defendant: CINAR Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               condemn the defendant to reimburse GBP 25 616 to the applicant;

               —

               condemn the defendant to pay interest on the principal amount of GBP 25 616 at the rate applied by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations on 1 December 2005 (2,09 %) plus one and a half percentage points, covering the period running from 6 December 2005 until the date of receipt of the funds to be reimbursed; and

               —

               order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses in these proceedings.

      Plea in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law alleging that the defendant has breached its contractual obligations regarding the justification of costs claimed. As the financial contribution due to the defendant is less than the total amount paid by the applicant by means of an advance payment, the applicant contends that, under the contract, the defendant is liable for the sum due.


title: Case C-263/16 P: Appeal brought on 12 May 2016 by Schenker Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 29 February 2016 in Case T-265/12: Schenker Ltd v European Commission

text:
               4.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/24

         Appeal brought on 12 May 2016 by Schenker Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 29 February 2016 in Case T-265/12: Schenker Ltd v European Commission
   (Case C-263/16 P)
   (2016/C 243/25)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Schenker Ltd (represented by: F. Montag, Rechtsanwalt, F. Hoseinian, avocat, M. Eisenbarth, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 29 February 2016 in case T-265/12 Schenker Ltd v European Commission;

               —

               annul Article 1(1)(a) of the Commission decision of 28 March 2012 in Case COMP/39462 – Freight Forwarding (the Decision) or alternatively refer the case back to the General Court;

               —

               annul or, in the alternative, reduce the fines set out in Article 2(1)(a) of the Decision or alternatively refer the case back to the General Court; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the cost of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Appellant relies on the following grounds of appeal:

               1.

               The General Court errs in law in concluding that the Commission was entitled to rely on Deutsche Post's immunity application, that the principle of prohibition of double representation had not been breached and that the Commission did not have to investigate the potential breach of the said principle.

               2.

               The General Court errs in law in interpreting Article 1 of Regulation 141/62 (1) as not applicable to the ‘UK New Export System’ conduct.

               3.

               The General Court errs in law by concluding that the ‘UK New Export System’ conduct, despite being limited to surcharges for a filing service related to shipments from the UK to countries outside the EEA, was capable of appreciably affecting trade between Member States.

               4.

               The General Court errs in law in concluding that the Commission did not breach Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the principle of sound administration and the duty to state reasons under Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) when it decided not to hold The Brink's Company jointly and severally liable with the Appellant (as a successor of BAX Global Ltd. (UK)) for the ‘UK New Export System’ conduct.

               5.

               The General Court errs in law by distorting the content of the Decision, exceeding the powers given to it under Article 264 TFEU and failing to carry out a balancing exercise in applying the principle of proportionality when concluding that the Commission did not breach Article 23 of Regulation 1/2003 (2) and the principles of proportionality and that the punishment must fit the offence when calculating the fines.

               6.

               The General Court errs in law by upholding the Commission’s reduction rates under the 2006 Leniency Notice (3) and distorts the content of the Decision.

      (1)  EEC: Regulation No 141 of the Council exempting transport from the application of Council Regulation No 17

      OJ 124, p. 2751

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty

      OJ L 1, p. 1

      (3)  Commission Notice on Immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases

      OJ C 298, p. 17


title: Case T-284/11: Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2013 — Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones v OHIM — MIP Metro (METROINVEST) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark METROINVEST — Earlier national figurative mark METRO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Principle of non-discrimination — Right to a fair hearing)

text:
               8.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 164/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2013 — Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones v OHIM — MIP Metro (METROINVEST)
   (Case T-284/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark METROINVEST - Earlier national figurative mark METRO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Principle of non-discrimination - Right to a fair hearing)
   2013/C 164/28
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, P. Craddock and B. Vanbrabant, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: M. Berger, R. Kaase and J. C. Plate, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 March 2011 (Case R 954/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG and Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones, SL

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones, SL, to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 201, 7.8.2004

text:
               28.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/39

         (2004/C 217/71)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the
         Official Journal of the European Union

      OJ C 201, 7.8.2004

   Past publications

      OJ C 190, 24.7.2004

      OJ C 179, 10.7.2004

      OJ C 168, 26.6.2004

      OJ C 156, 12.6.2004

      OJ C 146, 29.5.2004

      OJ C 106, 30.4.2004

   These texts are available on:

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

               CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) 4 March 2004 In Joined Cases C-19/01, C-50/01 and C-84/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Pisa, the Tribunale di Siena and the Corte Suprema di Cassazione): Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) v Alberto Barsotti and Others, Milena Castellani v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS), Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) v Anna Maria Venturi

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/1

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   4 March 2004
   In Joined Cases C-19/01, C-50/01 and C-84/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Pisa, the Tribunale di Siena and the Corte Suprema di Cassazione): Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) v Alberto Barsotti and Others, Milena Castellani v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS), Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) v Anna Maria Venturi (1)

   (Social policy - Protection of employees in the event of their employer's insolvency - Directive 80/987/EEC - Limitation of liability of the guarantee institutions - Ceiling to the liability - Part payments by the employer - Social objective of the directive)
   (2004/C 94/01)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Joined Cases C-19/01, C-50/01 and C-84/01: References to the Court under Article 234 EC by, respectively, the Tribunale di Pisa (Italy), the Tribunale di Siena (Italy) and the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) for preliminary rulings in the proceedings pending before those courts between Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) and Alberto Barsotti and Others (C-19/01), and between Milena Castellani and Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) (C-50/01), and between Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) and Anna Maria Venturi (C-84/01), on the interpretation of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ 1980 L 283, p. 23), the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, acting for the President of the Second Chamber, R. Schintgen and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 October 2003, in which it has ruled:
   Article 3(1) and the first subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer are to be interpreted as meaning that they do not allow a Member State to limit the liability of the guarantee institutions to a sum which covers the basic needs of the employees concerned and from which are to be deducted payments made by the employer during the period covered by the guarantee.

      (1)  OJ C 79 of 10.03.2001,

      OJ C 95 of 24.03.2001 and

      OJ C 118 of 21.04.2001.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 January 2005 in Case T-268/04 Spa Monopole, Compagnie fermière de Spa v the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/35

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 12 January 2005
   in Case T-268/04 Spa Monopole, Compagnie fermière de Spa v the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of opposition - No need to adjudicate)
   (2005/C 143/67)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-268/04: Spa Monopole, Compagnie fermière de Spa, established in Spa (Belgium), represented by L. de Brouwer, E. Cornu, E. De Gryse and D. Moreau, lawyers, against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: O. Montalto), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM having been Cottee Dairy Products Pty Limited, established in New South Wales (Australia) — action against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 April 2004 (Case R 148/2002-1) — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, N. J. Forwood and S. Papasavvas, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 12 January 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the application.

               2.

               The parties shall each bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 217 of 28.8.2004.


title: Case T-711/15: Action brought on 3 December 2015 — Othman v Council

text:
               15.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 59/33

         Action brought on 3 December 2015 — Othman v Council
   (Case T-711/15)
   (2016/C 059/37)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Razan Othman (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;

               —

               as a consequence, order the European Union to repair all of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant at an amount to be fixed equitably by the Court;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging the fact that he has suffered non-material damage, consisting of harm to his reputation, as a direct causal link to the measures taken by the Council of the European Union, for which the Council is liable.


title: Case C-487/16 P: Appeal brought on 11 September 2016 by Telefónica S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 28 June 2016 in Case T-216/13 Telefónica v Commission

text:
               21.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 428/12

         Appeal brought on 11 September 2016 by Telefónica S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 28 June 2016 in Case T-216/13 Telefónica v Commission
   (Case C-487/16 P)
   (2016/C 428/13)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Telefónica S.A. (represented by: J. Folguera Crespo and P. Vidal Martínez, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

                  set aside the judgment, and annul the decision, (1) for the reasons set out in the second ground of appeal, declaring that Telefónica’s conduct did not constitute a restriction by object;

               —

               in the alternative, set aside the judgment for the reasons set out in the first ground of appeal, remitting the case to the General Court so that it may examine the rejected witness evidence and rule on the merits of Telefónica’s action for annulment before the General Court having regard to the evidence examined;

               —

               in the further alternative, and for the reasons set out in the third ground of appeal:

                           —

                              set aside point 1 of the operative part of the judgment;

                           —

                              declare the lesser gravity of Telefónica’s conduct and the existence of the mitigating circumstances indicated in the third ground of appeal; and

                           —

                              determine the appropriate percentage of reduction of the fine in view of that lesser gravity and the indicated mitigating circumstances, in accordance with the matters set out in the third ground of appeal;

               —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by Telefónica both at first instance and in the present proceedings before the Court of Justice;

               —

                  allow the length of this appeal, which is slightly greater than the length recommended in the Court’s Practice Directions, in view of the financial impact of the case on the applicant and the complexity of the arguments set out.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               Infringement of Articles 47 and 48(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of Article 68 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court by rejecting the requested hearing of witnesses. — The General Court’s rejection of the requested witness evidence placed Telefónica in a situation in which it was unable to defend itself, since that evidence was essential and decisive for the proper adjudication of the case. The approach taken by the General Court warrants four fundamental objections: (i) the teleological contradiction objection; (ii) the disproportionate burden of proof objection; (iii) the objection relating to the prejudging of the outcome of the witness evidence; and (iv) the imbalanced weighting objection.

               2.

               Infringement of Article 101 TFEU as a result of the erroneous application of the case-law relating to the restrictions by object and of the duty to state reasons and the presumption of innocence.

         In the alternative:

               3.

               Error in the assessment of the lesser gravity of the infringement and in the existence of mitigating circumstances in Telefónica’s conduct. — Telefónica submits that the General Court failed to take into consideration in its assessment additional factors that showed the lesser gravity of Telefónica’s conduct and which would have given rise to a greater reduction of the fine than that applied by the Commission.

      (1)  Commission Decision C(2013) 306 final of 23 January 2013 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU (Case COMP/39.839 — Telefónica/Portugal Telecom)


title: Case T-244/17: Action brought on 26 April 2017 — António Conde & Companhia v Commission

text:
               17.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 231/29

         Action brought on 26 April 2017 — António Conde & Companhia v Commission
   (Case T-244/17)
   (2017/C 231/36)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: António Conde & Companhia, SA (Gafanha de Nazaré, Portugal) (represented by: J. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare that the European Commission has failed to act in application of Article 14(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1386/2007 of 22 October 2007 laying down conservation and enforcement measures applicable in the Regulatory Area of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (OJ 2007 L 318, p. 1) by requesting Portugal to submit to it a list of Portuguese-flagged vessels authorised to fish in the NAFO Regulatory Area for the season 2017 which excludes the fishing vessel CALVÃO, with the consequence that it has failed to forward a list including that vessel to the NAFO Secretariat;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached Article 14(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1386/2007 by unlawfully failing to forward a list of vessels including the applicant’s fishing vessel CALVÃO for the purposes of authorisation to fish in the NAFO Regulatory Area for the season 2017.
   The applicant maintains that the Commission lacks powers to participate in the drafting of the lists of authorised vessels which remains an exclusive competence of the Member States. The applicant has requested the Commission to desist from interfering in the drafting of the list concerned and has called upon it to fulfil its obligations regarding the forwarding of the list including its fishing vessel CALVÃO to the NAFO Secretariat.


title: Case C-193/13 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 January 2014 — nfon AG v Fon Wireless Ltd, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Figurative mark including the word element ‘nfon’  — Opposition by the proprietor of Community figurative mark including the word element ‘fon’ and of the national word mark FON — Rejection of the opposition by the Board of Appeal of OHIM)

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/19

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 January 2014 — nfon AG v Fon Wireless Ltd, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-193/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Figurative mark including the word element ‘nfon’ - Opposition by the proprietor of Community figurative mark including the word element ‘fon’ and of the national word mark FON - Rejection of the opposition by the Board of Appeal of OHIM))
   2014/C 112/23
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: nfon AG (represented by: V. von Bomhard, Rechtsanwältin)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Fon Wireless Ltd (represented by: L Montoya Terán, abogada; Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 January 2013 in Case T-283/11 Fon Wireless v OHIM — Nfon (Nfon), by which the General Court altered the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 18 March 2011 (Case R 1017/2009 4) to the effect that nfon AG’s appeal to the Board of Appeal is dismissed — Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               nfon AG shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Fon Wireless AG.

               3.

               The Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 189, 29.6.2013.


title: Case F-77/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 13 January 2011 — Nijs v Court of Auditors (Civil service — Officials — Disciplinary measures — Disciplinary procedure — Articles 22a and 22b of the Staff Regulations — Impartiality — Reasonable time)

text:
               19.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/36

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 13 January 2011 — Nijs v Court of Auditors
   (Case F-77/09) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Disciplinary measures - Disciplinary procedure - Articles 22a and 22b of the Staff Regulations - Impartiality - Reasonable time)
   2011/C 55/65
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Bart Nijs (Bridel, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Rollinger, lawyer)

      Defendant: Court of Auditors of the European Union (represented by: T. Kennedy and J.-M. Stenier, Agents)

      Re:

   Civil service — Application for annulment of the decision of the ad hoc committee of the European Court of Auditors of 15 January 2009 removing the applicant from his post with effect from 1 February 2009 without reduction in pension.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Nijs to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Court of Auditors.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 21.11.2009, p. 65.