title: Case T-79/09: Order of the General Court of 31 January 2014 — France v Commission (State aid — Framework system of activities carried out by agricultural inter-trade organisations recognised in France in favour of the members of the represented agricultural industries — Financing by compulsory voluntary contributions — Decision classifying the aid scheme as compatible with the common market — Withdrawal of the decision — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/31

         Order of the General Court of 31 January 2014 — France v Commission
   (Case T-79/09) (1)

   ((State aid - Framework system of activities carried out by agricultural inter-trade organisations recognised in France in favour of the members of the represented agricultural industries - Financing by compulsory voluntary contributions - Decision classifying the aid scheme as compatible with the common market - Withdrawal of the decision - No need to adjudicate))
   2014/C 112/41
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: French Republic (represented initially by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues and A.-L. Vendrolini, subsequently by E. Belliard, G. de Bergues and J. Gstalter, and lastly by E. Belliard, G. de Bergues, D. Colas and J. Bousin, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: B. Stromsky and C. Urraca Caviedes, and subsequently by B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 7846 final of 10 December 2008 in respect of State aid No 561/2008 relating to the framework system of activities carried out by agricultural inter-trade organisations recognised in France in favour of the members of the represented agricultural industries.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               The European Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 16.5.2009.


title: Judgment of the Court of 2 March 1999 in Case C-416/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Immigration Adjudicator: Nour Eddline El-Yassini v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Definition of court or tribunal for the purposes of Article 177 of the Treaty - EEC-Morocco Cooperation Agreement - First paragraph of Article 40 - Principle of non-discrimination as regards working conditions or remuneration - Direct effect - Scope - Refusal to extend a residence permit, bringing to an end the employment of a Moroccan worker in a Member State)

text:
15.5.1999             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 136/1
                                                                     I
                                                               (Information)
                                                  COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                           COURT OF JUSTICE
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    the Kingdom of Morocco, signed in Rabat on 27 April 1976
                                                                         and concluded on behalf of the Community by Council
                                                                         Regulation (EEC) No 2211/78 (OJ L 264 27.9.1978, p. 1) —
                                                                         the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,
                       of 2 March 1999                                   P. J. G. Kapteyn, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann, Presi-
                                                                         dents of Chambers, G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
                                                                         C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón,
                                                                         M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), Judges, P. Léger,
                                                                         Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Adminis-
in Case C-416/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 2 March
the Immigration Adjudicator: Nour Eddline El-Yassini v                   1999, in which it has ruled:
      Secretary of State for the Home Department (1)
                                                                         The first paragraph of Article 40 of the Cooperation Agreement
(Definition of court or tribunal for the purposes of Article             between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of
177 of the Treaty — EEC-Morocco Cooperation Agreement                    Morocco, signed in Rabat on 27 April 1976 and concluded on
— First paragraph of Article 40 — Principle of non-                      behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2211/78
discrimination as regards working conditions or remuner-                 of 26 September 1978, is to be interpreted as not precluding in
ation — Direct effect — Scope — Refusal to extend a                      principle a host Member State from refusing to extend the residence
residence permit, bringing to an end the employment of a                 permit of a Moroccan national whom it has authorised to enter its
            Moroccan worker in a Member State)                           territory and to take up gainful employment there, for the entire
                                                                         period during which he has that employment there, where the initial
                                                                         reason for the grant of his leave to stay no longer exists by the time
                                                                         that his residence permit expires.
                        (1999/C 136/01)
                                                                         The situation would be different only if, in the absence of grounds
                                                                         relating to the protection of a legitimate national interest, such as
                                                                         public policy, public security or public health, that refusal were to
                  (Language of the case: English)                        affect the right actually to engage in employment conferred on the
                                                                         person concerned by a work permit duly granted by the competent
                                                                         national authorities for a period exceeding that of his residence
                                                                         permit. It is for the national court to determine whether that is the
                                                                         case.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 74, 8.3.1997.
In Case C-416/96: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty from the Immigration Adjudicator (United
Kingdom) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Nour Eddline El-Yassini and Sec-
retary of State for the Home Department — on the interpret-
ation of the first paragraph of Article 40 of the Cooperation
Agreement between the European Economic Community and


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 24 September 2002 in Case T-182/01: Sophie Bachotet v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Recruitment — Selection of members of the temporary staff — Refusal of entry on the reserve list — Equality of treatment)

text:
7.12.2002                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 305/23
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 Brussels, represented by J.-N. Louis and V. Peere, lawyers, with
                                                                             an address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the
                        of 24 September 2002                                 European Communities (Agents: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and
                                                                             H. Tserepa-Lacombe) — application for annulment of the
in Case T-113/01: Veronica Sabbag v Commission of the                        decision of the selection board, contained in a letter of 14 July
                      European Communities ( 1)                              2000, refusing to enter the applicant’s name on the reserve list
                                                                             of temporary agents resulting from selection procedure COM/
(Officials — Recruitment — Selection of members of the                       R/A/01/1999 — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber),
temporary staff — Refusal of entry on the reserve list —                     composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, and N. Forwood and
Linguistic competence of members of the selection board —                    H. Legal, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the
                         Equality of treatment)                              Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 September 2002, in
                                                                             which it:
                            (2002/C 305/49)
                                                                             1.    Annuls the decision of the selection board, contained in the
                      (Language of the case: French)                               letter of 14 July 2000 addressed to the applicant, not to enter
                                                                                the applicant’s name on the reserve list resulting from selection
                                                                                procedure COM/R/A/01/1999;
In Case T-113/01: Veronica Sabbag, residing in Brussels,
represented by J.-N. Louis and V. Peere, lawyers, with an                    2.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and                     (1 ) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.
H. Tserepa-Lacombe) — application for annulment of the
decision of the selection board, contained in a letter of 14 July
2000, refusing to enter the applicant’s name on the reserve list
of temporary agents resulting from selection procedure COM/
R/A/01/1999 — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber),
composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, and N. Forwood and
H. Legal, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 September 2002, in                            ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
which it:
                                                                                of 9 September 2002
1.     Annuls the decision of the selection board, contained in the
       letter of 14 July 2000, not to enter the applicant’s name on the
       reserve list resulting from selection procedure COM/R/A/01/           in Case T-182/00 DEP: Marco Pannella v the European
       1999;                                                                                Parliament (1)
2.     Orders the Commission to pay the costs.                                                        (Taxation of costs)
( 1) OJ C 227 of 11.8.2001.                                                                            (2002/C 305/51)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                             In Case T-182/00 DEP: Marco Pannella, a Member of the
                                                                             European Parliament, residing in Rome, represented by
                        of 24 September 2002                                 P.A.M. Ferrari, lawyer, v European Parliament (Agents:
                                                                             H. Krück and A. Caiola) — application for a taxation of costs
in Case T-182/01: Sophie Bachotet v Commission of the                        following the order of the Court of First Instance of 5 July
                      European Communities ( 1)                              2001 in Case T-182/00 Pannella v Parliament (not published)
                                                                             — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of:
(Officials — Recruitment — Selection of members of the                       R.M. Moura Ramos, President, and J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij,
temporary staff — Refusal of entry on the reserve list —                     Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 9 September
                         Equality of treatment)                              2002, the operative part of which is as follows:
                            (2002/C 305/50)                                  The total amount of the costs to be reimbursed in respect of fees by
                                                                             the defendant to the applicant is fixed in the sum of 8 000 euros.
                      (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 285 of 7.10.2000.
In Case T-182/01: Sophie Bachotet, a member of the auxiliary
staff working for the Committee of the Regions, residing in


title: Case C-114/13: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Theodora Hendrika Bouman v Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Old age and survivors’ insurance — Article 46a(3)(c) — Award of benefits — National rules against overlapping — Derogation — Concept of ‘voluntary insurance or continued optional insurance’  — National pension under a compulsory insurance scheme — Possibility of requesting an exemption from affiliation for a certain period — Scope of the statement issued by the competent institution of another Member State — Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 — Article 47)

text:
               13.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Theodora Hendrika Bouman v Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen
   (Case C-114/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Old age and survivors’ insurance - Article 46a(3)(c) - Award of benefits - National rules against overlapping - Derogation - Concept of ‘voluntary insurance or continued optional insurance’ - National pension under a compulsory insurance scheme - Possibility of requesting an exemption from affiliation for a certain period - Scope of the statement issued by the competent institution of another Member State - Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 - Article 47))
   (2015/C 118/02)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Arbeidshof te Antwerpen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Theodora Hendrika Bouman

      Respondent: Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 46a(3)(c) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1992/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006, must be interpreted as encompassing the part of the benefit resulting from a period of insurance during which the person concerned had the right to obtain an exemption from affiliation to the compulsory insurance scheme, in a situation where such affiliation, during the period in question, affects the extent of the social security benefit.

      (1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du Travail, Mons, by judgment of that court of 9 October 1998 in the case of Abdon Vanbraekel, Marie-Ange Vanbraekel, Marie-Paule Vanbraekel, Marie-Claire Vanbraekel, Brigitte Vanbraekel, Edith Vanbraekel and Alexandre Vanbraekel v. Alliance Nationale des Mutualités Chrétiennes (Case C-368/98)

text:
19.12.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 397/17
Ð The requirement of authorisation from the Ministry of                  competent institution or in accordance with that
    Finance for the transfer of shares representing more                 organised by the State on whose territory the hospital
    than 10 % of the voting capital of privatised                        treatment has taken place?
    companies (or of a specified participation in financial
    institutions), in the terms set out in Decree-Law
    No 380/93, is incompatible with Articles 73(b) and 52
    of the EC Treaty, the requirement of such                       Ð Is a limitation of the amount reimbursed under the
    authorisation could only be justified by imperative                  legislation of the State of the competent institution
    reasons in the general interest and if they were based               permitted, having regard to Article 36 of Regulation
    on objective criteria which are consistent and public in             (EEC) No 1408/71 which refers to reimbursement in
    character, in the absence of which that requirement                  full?
    could be used so as to keep control of the undertaking
    in question in the hands of nationals. The Portuguese
    authorities have not indicated what imperative reasons          (1) (OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416).
    in the general interest might justify such a measure. As
    regards the criteria which are to serve as guidance for
    the grant of authorisation, the Commission continues
    to hold the view that such criteria either are not
    indicated in the legislation or, in the event of Decree-
    Law No 380/93 referring to Decree-Law No 11/90,
    the prescribed criteria may be interpreted and applied
    in such a way as to benefit Portuguese citizens, to the         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Divisional
    detriment of the nationals of other Member States.              Court, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of
                                                                    13 March 1998, in the case of The Queen against
(1) OJ L 302, 15.11.1985.                                           Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte:
                                                                    Trevor Robert Fisher and Penny Fisher trading as T. R.
                                                                                and P. Fisher (a firm)
                                                                                (Case C-369/98)
                                                                                (98/C 397/29)
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du
Travail, Mons, by judgment of that court of 9 October
1998 in the case of Abdon Vanbraekel, Marie-Ange
                                                                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Vanbraekel,      Marie-Paule    Vanbraekel,     Marie-Claire
                                                                    European Communities by an order of the Divisional
Vanbraekel, Brigitte Vanbraekel, Edith Vanbraekel and
                                                                    Court, Queen's Bench Division, of 13 March 1998, which
Alexandre Vanbraekel v. Alliance Nationale des
                                                                    was received at the Court Registry on 16 October 1998,
                   MutualiteÂs ChreÂtiennes
                                                                    for a preliminary ruling in the case of The Queen against
                       (Case C-368/98)                              Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte:
                                                                    Trevor Robert Fisher and Penny Fisher trading as T. R.
                        (98/C 397/28)
                                                                    and P. Fisher (a firm), on the following questions:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Sixth                     (1) (i) Do Articles 3(1) and 9 of Regulation (EEC)
Chamber of the Cour du Travail (Higher Labour Court),                          No 3508/92 (1), coupled with the general
Mons, of 9 October 1998, which was received at the                             principles of Community law, permit information
Court Registry on 16 October 1998, for a preliminary                           held on a computerised data base set up under
ruling in the case of Abdon Vanbraekel, Marie-Ange                             Article 2, relating to data supplied by or on
Vanbraekel, Marie Paule Vanbraekel, Marie-Claire                               behalf of a former claimant for payments under
Vanbraekel, Brigitte Vanbraekel, Edith Vanbraekel and                          AAPs, to be disclosed to third parties?
Alexandre Vanbraekel v. Alliance Nationale des
MutualiteÂs ChreÂtiennes on the following questions:
                                                                          (ii) If the answer to question 1(i) is yes', is the
Where, in the context of proceedings before it, a national                     disclosure which the competent authority is
court has acknowledged that hospital treatment in a                            lawfully required to provide limited, as regards
Member State other than that of the competent institution                      the persons to whom disclosure can be made:
was necessary, although the prior authorisation provided
for in Article 22 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) was                       (a) to persons authorised by the former claimant
refused:                                                                            on the UK Base Form; and/or
Ð Must the costs of hospital treatment be reimbursed                           (b) to persons who require the information
    in accordance with the scheme of the State of the                               in connection with their application for


title: Action brought on 23 February 1995 by CIMPOR - Cimentos de Portugal SA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-61/95)

text:
No C 137/24            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         3 . 6 . 95
The applicant claims that the Court should :                           The applicant claims that the Court should :
— annul        Commission          Decision    94/815/EC      of       — annul the Commission decision of 30 November 1994
    30 November 1994 ( l ) wholly or alternatively in part in               ( IV/33.126 and 33.322 — Cement) in its entirety so far
    so far as it relates to the applicant,                                  as it concerns the applicant, and consequently annul the
                                                                            fine imposed on the applicant,
— cancel, or alternatively reduce , the fine imposed by
    Article 9 , and                                                    — reduce the fine imposed on CIMPOR, should it decide
                                                                           that it is inappropriate to annul the Commission
— award to the applicant the costs of the application .                    decision in its entirety so far as it concerns the
                                                                           applicant,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       — order the Commission to pay the whole of the costs .
The Castle submits that the Decision is based upon an
erroneous theory of a ' single and continuous agreement'
which enables the Commission to sew together distinct                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
infringements covering different cement associations and
undertakings, different time periods, different markets and            The applicant claims that the legality of the contested
Member States and having different characteristics and                 decision is vitiated by the following defects :
which has led the Commission into a number of manifest
errors of reasoning, inference , and procedure with respect to          I. Defects relating to infringement of the rights of the
proof and economic analysis and to disregard the customary                     defence, arising from :
procedural protection recognized under Community law for
undertakings accused of infringing Article 85 .                                1 . partial notification      of   the    statement       of
                                                                                objections;
The Commission 's theory has also led it to impose a fine on
Castle which is wholly disproportionate to its role and
responsibility.                                                               2 . general and non-specific nature of the charges ;
Castle contests that there was a Cembureau Agreement as                        3 . limited access to the documents collected by the
alleged by the Commission and denies any participation in                          Commission or used by it in the preliminary
any form of collusion between the UK producers ( Blue                              procedure and in the grounds of its decision;
Circle, Castle and Rugby ) and that its participation to the
European Export Committee was motivated by any                                4 . failure in those parts of the statement of objections
anti-competitive intent or did produce such effects .                              directed against the applicant to identify the
                                                                                documents      on which the     final decision was
(M OJ No L 343 , 30 . 12 . 1994 .                                                  based;
                                                                              5 . unjustified restriction of the right to a fair hearing,
                                                                                as a result of the manner in which the hearing of the
                                                                                parties concerned was organized;
                                                                              6 . use of incomplete documentation as evidence of the
Action brought on 23 February 1995 by CIMPOR —                                     infringements with which the applicant is
Cimentos de Portugal SA against the Commission of the                              charged ;
                    European Communities
                         ( Case T-61/95 )
                                                                              7. impairment of the right to reply orally and in
                           ( 95/C 137/60 )                                         writing and confusion in the administrative
                                                                                procedure between the preliminary examination
            (Language of the Case: Portuguese)                                     and the statement of their case by the parties .
                                                                       II . Defects relating to the classification of, and evidence
An action against the Commission of the European                              for, the infringements with which the applicant is
Communities was brought before the Court of First                             charged , arising from:
Instance of the European Communities on 23 February
1995 by CIMPOR — Cimentos de Portugal SA, whose
registered office is at 35 Rua Alexandre Herculano, Lisbon,                    1 . breach of Article 85 of the EC Treaty, as a result of
represented by Carlos Botelho Moniz, Adelino Duarte,                               the threefold charge in respect of the same
Teresa Mendes and Amadeu Brandao Cola^o, all members                               infringement;
of the Portuguese Bar, whose Chambers are at 63/6 Rua
Castilho , 1250 Lisbon, with an address for service in                        2 . an error in the grounds of the decision, as a result of
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31                                       the inadequate definition and classification of the
Grand-Rue .                                                                        market;
 ---pagebreak--- 3 . 6 . 95             I EN I                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 137/25
        3 . an error in the grounds of the decision, as a result of            3.   limited access to the documents on which the
             the inadequate assessment of the economic criteria                     charge is based ;
             underlying the applicant's beaviour on the
             market;                                                           4 . use of a language other than Portuguese;
        4 . inadequacy and erroneous assessment of the                         5 . inadequacy of the period for replying to the
             evidence on which the Commission's decision is
                                                                                statement of objections and disruption of the
             based ,   as    regards    the   applicant's   alleged                 normal exercise of the right to a fair hearing;
             participation in both the ' Cembureau Agreement'
             and the 'Iberian agreement'.
                                                                               6 . impairment of the right to reply orally and in
III . Defects relating to the fixing of the penalty imposed on                      writing and confusion in the administrative
        the applicant, arising from :                                               procedure between the preliminary examination
                                                                                and the statement of their case by the parties .
         1 . breach of the principle of equal treatment;
                                                                          II . Breach of the rules on the statement of reasons, on
         2 . breach of the principle of proportionality.                       evidence and on the adequacy of the evidence on which
                                                                               the decision is based, arising from:
                                                                               1 . contradictory grounds for the decision;
                                                                               2.   use of documents not made available to the
Action brought on 23 February 1995 by SECIL —                                       applicant;
Companhia Geral de Cal e Cimento SA against the
            Commission of the European Communities                             3 . lack of correspondence between the documents on
                           ( Case T-62/95 )                                         which the statement of objections is based and
                             ( 95 /C 137/61 )                                       those on which the decision is based ;
                (Language of the case: Portuguese)                             4 . erroneous assessment of the evidence;
An action against the Commission of the European                               5 . inadequacy and inconsistency of the evidence on
                                                                                which the Commission 's decision is based .
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 23 February
1995 by SECIL — Companhia Geral de Cal e Cimento SA,                     III. Erroneous classification of the facts for legal purposes
whose registered office is at Outao, Concelho de Setubal,                      in the light of Article 85 of the EC Treaty, resulting
represented by Nuno Mimoso Ruiz, of the Portuguese Bar,                        in :
whose Chambers are at 63/6 Rua Castilho, 1250 Lisbon,
with an address for service in Luxemboug at the Chambers                       1 . simultaneously charging a European association
of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue .                                                       ( Cembureau ), national associations belonging to
                                                                                Cembureau ( in the case of Portugal, the ATIC ) and
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                        undertakings belonging to those national
                                                                                associations ( in the case of ATIC : CIMPOR and
— annul the Commission decision of 30 November 1994                                 SECIL ) with the same infringement; that threefold
      ( IV/33.126 and 33.322 — Cement ) in its entirety so far                      charge in respect of the same infringement is also in
     as it concerns the applicant, and consequently annul the                       breach of Article 85 ( 1 ) of the Treaty;
      fine imposed on the applicant,
                                                                               2 . breach of the principle 'non bis in idem '.
— reduce the fine imposed on SECIL, should it decide that
      it is inappropriate to annul the Commission decision in
     its entirety so far as it concerns the applicant,                   IV. Defects in fixing the amount of the fines , arising
                                                                               from :
— order the Commission to pay the whole of the costs .
                                                                               1 . general infringement of the principles of equal
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                 treatment and proportionality;
The applicant relies on the following pleas :                                  2 . erroneous assessment of the subjective and
                                                                                objective gravity of the infringement;
   I. Infringement of procedural rules and of the rights of
         the defence , arising from :                                          3 . erroneous assessment of the duration of the
                                                                                infringement.
         1 . partial notification of the charges;
         2 . general and non-specific nature of the charges;


title: Case C-689/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — W. F. Gözze Frottierweberei GmbH, Wolfgang Gözze v Verein Bremer Baumwollbörse (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Articles 9 and 15 — Filing of the cotton flower sign by an association — Registration as an individual trade mark — Licences to use the mark granted to cotton textile manufacturers affiliated with the association — Application for a declaration of invalidity or revocation — Concept of ‘genuine use’ — Essential function of indicating origin)

text:
               31.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/7

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — W. F. Gözze Frottierweberei GmbH, Wolfgang Gözze v Verein Bremer Baumwollbörse
   (Case C-689/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Articles 9 and 15 - Filing of the cotton flower sign by an association - Registration as an individual trade mark - Licences to use the mark granted to cotton textile manufacturers affiliated with the association - Application for a declaration of invalidity or revocation - Concept of ‘genuine use’ - Essential function of indicating origin))
   (2017/C 249/10)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: W. F. Gözze Frottierweberei GmbH, Wolfgang Gözze

      Defendant: Verein Bremer Baumwollbörse

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 15(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the European Union trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that the affixing of an individual EU trade mark, by the proprietor or with his consent, on goods as a label of quality is not a use as a trade mark that falls under the concept of ‘genuine use’ within the meaning of that provision. However, the affixing of that mark does constitute such genuine use if it guarantees, additionally and simultaneously, to consumers that those goods come from a single undertaking under the control of which the goods are manufactured and which is responsible for their quality. In that case, the proprietor of the mark is entitled to prevent, pursuant to Article 9(1)(b) of that regulation, the affixing by a third party of a similar sign on identical goods, if that affixing creates a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public.

               2.

               Article 52(1)(a) and Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation No 207/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that an individual mark cannot be declared invalid, on the basis of a joint application of those provisions, because the proprietor of the mark fails to ensure, by carrying out periodic quality controls at its licensees, that expectations relating to the quality which the public associates with the mark are being met.

               3.

               Regulation No 207/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that its provisions on collective EU trade marks may not be applied mutatis mutandis to individual EU trade marks.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.


title: Order of the Court of 28 June 2000 in Case C-116/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Appel, Paris): criminal proceedings against Claude Laguillaumie (Preliminary rulings — Inadmissibility)

text:
C 335/22                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        25.11.2000
1.    Annuls Directive 98/43/EC of the European Parliament and             Council Directive 75/106/EEC of 19 December 1974 on the
      of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the approximation of the            approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the
      laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member        making-up by volume of certain pre-packaged liquids, amended by
      States relating to the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco        Council Directive 79/1005/EEC of 23 November 1979, Council
      products;                                                            Directive 85/10/EEC of 18 December 1984, Council Directive
                                                                           88/316/EEC of 7 June 1988 and Council Directive 89/676/EEC
2.    Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the                of 21 December 1989, must be construed as not allowing Member
      European Union to pay the costs, and the French Republic, the        States to prohibit, by means of legislation such as the Belgian Royal
      Republic of Finland, the United Kingdom of Great Britain             Decree of 16 February 1982 relating to the ranges of nominal
      and Northern Ireland and the Commission of the European              quantities and nominal volumes of contents authorised for certain
      Communities to bear their own costs.                                 prepackaged products, the marketing of any prepackage having a
                                                                           nominal volume which is not mentioned in Annex III, column I, to
(1) OJ C 378 of 5.12.1998.                                                 that directive.
                                                                           Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC)
                                                                           must be construed as precluding a Member State from prohibiting
                                                                           the marketing of a prepackage having a nominal volume not included
                                                                           in the Community range, which is lawfully manufactured and
                                                                           marketed in another Member State, unless such a prohibition is
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     designed to meet an overriding requirement relating to consumer
                                                                           protection, applies without distinction to national and imported
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                  products alike, is necessary in order to meet the requirement in
                                                                           question and is proportionate to the objective pursued, and that
                        of 12 October 2000                                 objective cannot be achieved by measures which are less restrictive of
                                                                           intra-Community trade.
in Case C-3/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal de Commerce de Bruxelles): Cidrerie Ruwet                     (1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
        SA v Cidre Stassen SA and HP Bulmer Ltd (1)
(Free movement of goods — Directive 75/106/EEC — Partial
harmonisation — Prepackaged liquids —Making-up by
volume — Cider — Prohibition by a Member State of
       nominal volumes not mentioned by the directive)
                           (2000/C 335/40)                                                      ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 28 June 2000
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           in Case C-116/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     the Cour d’Appel, Paris): criminal proceedings against
                    in the European Court Reports)                                                Claude Laguillaumie (1)
In Case C-3/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                             (Preliminary rulings — Inadmissibility)
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal de
Commerce (Commercial Court), Brussels for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                                           (2000/C 335/41)
Cidrerie Ruwet SA and Cidre Stassen SA, HP Bulmer Ltd — on
the interpretation of Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now,
after amendment, Article 28 EC), and on the validity and                                        (Language of the case: French)
interpretation of Council Directive 75/106/EEC of 19 Decem-
ber 1974 on the approximation of the laws of the Member
States relating to the making-up by volume of certain prepack-             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
aged liquids (OJ 1975 L 42, p. 1), amended by Council                                          in the European Court Reports)
Directive 79/1005/EEC of 23 November 1979 (OJ 1979
L 308, p. 25), Council Directive 85/10/EEC of 18 December                  In Case C-116/00: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
1984 (OJ 1985 L 4, p. 20), Council Directive 88/316/EEC of                 from the Cour d’appel (Court of Appeal), Paris, for a prelimi-
7 June 1988 (OJ 1988 L 143, p. 26) and Council Directive                   nary ruling in the criminal proceedings pending before that
89/676/EEC of 21 December 1989 (OJ 1989 L 398, p. 18)                      court against Claude Laguillaumie — on the interpretation of
— the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann                       Articles 30 and 36 (now Articles 28 and 30 EC), Articles 85
(Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and               and 86 (now Articles 81 and 82 EC) of the EC Treaty, Council
R. Schintgen, Judges, N. Fennelly, Advocate General; D. Louter-            Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying down a
man-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has                procedure for the provision of information in the field of
given a judgment on 12 October 2000, in which it has ruled:                technical standards and regulations (OJ L 109, p. 8), Council
 ---pagebreak--- 25.11.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 335/23
Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 amending Directive                   1.    The appeal is dismissed.
75/442/EEC on waste (OJ L 78, p. 32) and Directive 94/62/EC
of the European Parliament and the Council of 20 December                  2.    Fratelli Murri SpA is ordered to pay the costs.
1994 on packaging and packaging waste (OJ L 365, p. 10) —
the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,
J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón (Rappor-                (1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.
teur) and R. Schintgen, Presidents of Chambers, P.J.G. Kapteyn,
C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann,
H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet, V. Skouris, and F. Macken, Judg-
es; F.G. Jacob, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made
an order on 28 June 2000, in which it has ruled:
The request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Cour d’Appel,
Paris, by decision received at the Court on 27 March 2000, is                                  ORDER OF THE COURT
inadmissible.
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
( 1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
                                                                                of 13 July 2000
                                                                           in Case C-8/99 P: Carmen Gómez de Enterrı́a y Sanchez v
                                                                                European Parliament (1)
                                                                           (Appeal manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly ill-
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                                               founded in part)
                        (Fourth Chamber)                                                             (2000/C 335/43)
                           of 6 July 2000                                                      (Language of the case: French)
in Case C-399/99 P: Fratelli Murri SpA v Commission of
                 the European Communities (1)                              (Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Appeals — Non-contractual liability — Expiry of limitation
                               period)                                     In Case C-8/99 P: Carmen Gómez de Enterrı́a y Sanchez,
                                                                           a former official of the European Parliament, residing in
                          (2000/C 335/42)                                  Luxembourg (Luxembourg), represented by E. Boigelot, of the
                                                                           Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                           Chambers of L. Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Reinsheim — appeal
                   (Language of the case: German)                          against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities (First Chamber) of 17 November 1998
                                                                           in Case T-131/97 Gómez de Enterrı́a y Sanchez v Parliament
                                                                           [1998] ECR-SC I-A-613 and II-1855, seeking to have that
(Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published     judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings being:
                   in the European Court Reports)                          European Parliament (Agents: M. Peter and J. Sant’Anna,
                                                                           assisted by D. Waelbroeck) — the Court (Second Chamber),
In Case C-399/99 P: Fratelli Murri SpA, established in Rome,               composed of R. Schintgen, President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch
represented by K.-G. von Luschka, Rechtsanwalt Chieming,                   (Rapporteur) and V. Skouris, Judges, N. Fennelly, Advocate
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of               General: R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 13 July
C. Medernach, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt — appeal against the                  2000, in which it:
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities, First Chamber, of 4 August 1999 in Case                       1.    Dismisses the appeal;
T-106/98 Fratelli Muni v Commission (not yet published)
seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party to                2.    Orders Mrs Carmen Gómez de Enterrı́a y Sanchez to pay the
the proceedings being the Commission of the European                             costs.
Communities (Agents: B. Brandtner and B. Martenczuk) —
the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of D.A.O. Edward,
Presidents of the Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur) and                 (1) OJ C 71, 13.3.1999.
A. La Pergola, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, made an order on 6 July 2000, the operative part of
which is as follows:


title: Case F-67/12: Action brought on 2 July 2012 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               13.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/16

         Action brought on 2 July 2012 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-67/12)
   2012/C 311/22
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: G. Cipressa, avvocato)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Action for the annulment of the decision to dismiss the applicant’s request for compensation for the damage suffered as a result of the defendant having sent a letter relating to the possible resumption of the applicant’s services, and in response to certain proceedings brought by the applicant, to a lawyer who had defended the applicant in various cases, but to whom the applicant had not given a general mandate in the present case.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision, whatever the form in which it was adopted, by which the Commission rejected the request of 20 May 2011 which the applicant sent to the appointing authority;

               —

               In so far as necessary, annul the measure, whatever the form in which it was adopted, by which the Commission rejected the complaint of 1 December 2011 against the decision rejecting the request of 20 May 2011, annul that decision and grant the request of 20 May 2011;

               —

               In so far as necessary, annul the note of 9 March 2012;

               —

               Order the Commission to make reparation for the damage unjustly suffered by the applicant as a result of the fact that the undated note attributable to the Commission was sent by the Commission to Giuseppe Cipressa, avvocato, by paying to the applicant the sum of EUR 10 000, or such greater or lesser sum as the Tribunal may deem to be just and fair;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay to the applicant, from the day following that on which the request of 20 May 2011 was received by the Commission until actual payment of the sum of EUR 10 000, the interest on that sum, with annual capitalisation, at the rate of 10 % per annum;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-712/14: Action brought on 7 October 2014 — CEAHR v Commission

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/36

         Action brought on 7 October 2014 — CEAHR v Commission
   (Case T-712/14)
   (2015/C 007/41)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Confédération Européenne des Associations d’Horlogers-Réparateurs (CEAHR) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Mathijsen and P. Dyrberg, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the European Commission’s Decision C(2014) 5462 final, of 29 July 2014, void;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 5462 final of 29 July 2014 in case AT.39097 — Watch Repair, by which the Commission rejects the applicant’s complaint pursuant to Article 7(2) of Regulation No 773/2004 (1) concerning the refusal by several manufacturers of prestige/luxury watches to supply spare parts to independent repairers.
   In support of the action, the applicant submits that i) the Commission’s findings are based on manifest errors of appraisal, in law and fact, ii) that the contested decision fails to provide appropriate reasoning for the Commission’s findings and iii) that the contested decision is the result of a procedure during which the Commission failed to attentively examine the elements of law and fact raised in the complaint, in violation of applicant’s right to good administration.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles [101 TFEU] and [102 TFEU] (OJ 2004 L 123, p. 18).


title: Action brought on 21 November 1996 by Mutual Aid Administration Services NV against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-186/96)

text:
 No C 26/ 10          EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 25 . 1 . 97
 Action brought on 21 November 1996 by Mutual Aid                   tender were issued for the supply of the goods and their
 Administration Services NV against the Commission of the           transport. The suppliers of the products failed to respect
                    European Communities                            the prescribed loading schedule, a fact of which the
                        Case T-l 86/96                              applicant apprised the Commission on repeated occasions.
                         ( 97/C 26/17)                              ( 1 ) OJ No L 62, 13 . 3 . 1996 .
                                                                    ( 2 ) OJ No L 30 , 8 . 2 . 1996 .
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)
 An action against the Commission of the European
 Communities was brought before the Court of First
 Instance of the European Communities on 21 November
 1996 by Mutual Aid Administration Services NV, of                  Action brought on 26 November 1996 by Salini
Antwerp (Belgium ), represented by J. Tritsmans, of the             Costruttori SpA against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
Antwerp Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the Chambers of R. Faltz, 6 rue Heinrich Heine .                                             (Case T-l 87/96 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 26/18 )
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
— annul the contested decision, a copy of which is
     included among the documents annexed to the present
     application, and accordingly rule that the applicant          An action against the Commission of the European
     was entitled, when the account was being settled, to          Communities was brought before the Court of First
     Bfrs 836 328 and was entitled to US $ 41 000 in               Instance of the European Communities on 26 November
     respect of the costs of chartering the third ship, the         1996 by Salini Costruttori SpA, whose registered office
     Tuschino,                                                     is at Rome, represented by Jean-Pierre Cuny, of the
                                                                   Versailles Bar ( France ).
— accordingly order the Commission of the European
     Communities to pay to the applicant Bfrs 644 385              The applicant claims that the Court should :
     (that is to say, Bfrs 836 328 less the amount of
     Bfrs 191 970 already granted by the contested
                                                                   — annul the contested decision .
     decision ) and US $ 41 000, plus interest calculated on
     the basis of the current statutory interest rate in
     Belgium of 7 % per annum as from 1 September 1 996 ,
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— order the Commission to pay the costs of the
     proceedings .                                                 By a complaint of 3 April 1996 , the applicant informed
                                                                   the Commission of the serious discrimination which it had
                                                                   suffered, as had all the other undertakings in the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                construction industry established in the Mezzogiorno, as a
                                                                   result of the Law on projects in the Mezzogiorno, adopted
                                                                   by the Decree of the President of the Italian Republic of
By Regulation ( EC ) No 449/96 of 12 March 1996 ( a ), the         6 March 1978 . In that complaint, the applicant considers
Commission initiated an open tendering procedure                   that it is paradoxical that the Law creates conditions less
concerning transport for the free supply to Armenia and            favourable to local undertakings than to those which,
Azerbaijan of fruit juice, fruit jams and common wheat             coming from other regions or other countries of the
flour.                                                             Union, undertake activities in the relevant areas of
                                                                   the Mezzogiorno . Moreover, that Law allows such
                                                                   undertakings to compete in Italy, at an advantage in
When the ships were being loaded, problems arose                   relation to undertakings of the Mezzogiorno and, in
because the packaging of the products did not meet the             view of the interpretation of the Italian authorities,
requirements of Commission Regulation (EC ) No 228/96              undertakings originating in the Mezzogiorno or which
of 7 February 1996 ( 2). The applicant was for that reason         have long been active there are, alone, penalized. For that
obliged to provide a third ship.                                   reason the applicant requests in particular that the
                                                                   Commission adopt a decision with regard to the Italian
                                                                   Republic on the basis of Articles 93 and 101 of the EC
The Commission also imposed fines on the applicant for             Treaty.
late shipment. The applicant claims that the Commission
itself failed from the outset to comply with the shipment
programme laid down in Regulation ( EC ) No 449/96 . It            By way of the contested act of 26 September 1996 the
should be borne in mind that separate invitations to               Commission informed the applicant that a measure which


title: Case F-55/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 June 2011 — AS v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Notice of vacancy — Rejection of application — Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Official on invalidity — Decision to reject candidature not inseparable from decision to appoint — Distinction drawn between officials in the same function group and holding the same grade and at a different stage in their career)

text:
               6.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/40

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 June 2011 — AS v Commission
   (Case F-55/10) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Notice of vacancy - Rejection of application - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - Official on invalidity - Decision to reject candidature not inseparable from decision to appoint - Distinction drawn between officials in the same function group and holding the same grade and at a different stage in their career)
   2011/C 232/70
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: AS (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision refusing to take into consideration the applicant’s application for a post as a library assistant and for an order for the Commission to pay her a sum as compensation for the material and non-material damage suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of 30 September 2009 by which the European Commission rejected AS’s application;;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay AS the sum of EUR 3 000;

               3.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               4.

               Orders the European Commission to pay, in addition to its own costs, three quarters of AS’s costs;

               5.

               Orders AS to pay a quarter of her own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 246, 11.9.2010, p. 43.


title: Case T-234/99: Action brought on 18 October 1999 by Patrick Monod-Gayraud against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
22.1.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 20/23
(c) failed to properly evaluate the facts and law which establish        Action brought on 15 October 1999 by BP Nederland
    that the notified agreements do not satisfy the conditions           V.O.F., BP Direct V.O.F. and Actomat B.V. against the
    of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 17.                                          Commission of the European Communities
(1) OJ C 8, p. 4.                                                                                (Case T-237/99)
(2) OJ L 186, p. 28.
                                                                                (2000/C 20/47)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Action brought on 18 October 1999 by Patrick Monod-                      ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Gayraud against the Commission of the European Com-                      European Communities on 15 October 1999 by BP Nederland
                            munities                                     V.O.F., BP Direct V.O.F. and Actomat B.V., respectively estab-
                                                                         lished in Rotterdam, Alphen a/d Rijn and Amsterdam (Nether-
                                                                         lands), represented by Mr van Empel and Mr Smeets, of the
                        (Case T-234/99)
                                                                         Amsterdam Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                         the Chambers of G. Harles, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
                         (2000/C 20/46)
                                                                         The applicants claim that the Court should:
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         (a) annul the Commission’s decision [C(1999) 2539 final] (1)
                                                                              of 20 July 1999 concerning State aid granted by the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                     Netherlands to 633 service stations in the region bordering
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                    Germany and requiring the repayment of State aid granted
European Communities on 18 October 1999 by Patrick Mo-                        by the Netherlands to 450 service stations;
nod-Gayraud, residing in Warsaw (Poland), represented by
Hélène Masse-Dessen, of the Paris Bar, and Viviane Ecker, of the         (b) order the Commission to pay the costs.
Luxembourg Bar, 77 Boulevard Grande Duchesse Charlotte.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Pleas in law and main arguments
— annul the Commission’s decision refusing the benefit of                The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case
    free accommodation;                                                  T-248/99.
— order the Commission to pay the applicant damages
    amounting to EUR 91 200;                                             (1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The action concerns the defendant’s refusal, dated 29 June               Action brought on 19 October 1999 by Esso Nederland
1999, to accept responsibility for payment of the rent for               B.V. against the Commission of the European Communi-
accommodation used by the applicant, a French civil servant                                             ties
on secondment as an expert to the Commission’s delegation
in Poland.
                                                                                (Case T-242/99)
In support of his claims, the applicant pleads, in particular, the
fact that that decision is contrary to the undertakings pre-                                      (2000/C 20/48)
viously given by the Commission in relation to him.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
He adds that it is not possible to raise against him the argument
that the rent for accommodation cannot be reimbursed to an
official where, as in his case, the accommodation belongs to             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
the official’s spouse. He never in fact chose to live in an              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
apartment belonging to his wife; that situation arose as a result        European Communities on 19 October 1999 by Esso Neder-
of the attitude adopted by the Commission.                               land B.V., of The Hague (Netherlands), represented by M.H. van
                                                                         der Woude and R.W. Wezenbeek-Geuke, of the Brussels Bar,
                                                                         with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                         J. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe.


title: Case T-401/05: Action brought on  2 November 2005  — Toth v Commission

text:
               28.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/15

         Action brought on 2 November 2005 — Toth v Commission
   (Case T-401/05)
   (2006/C 22/30)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Gergely Toth (Besozzo, Italy) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and Y. Minatchy, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Forms of order sought
   The applicant claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission's decision of 20 July 2005 rejecting the applicant's complaint of 15 April 2005, taken together with the contract of employment signed by the applicant on 17 January 2005 in so far as it fixes his grade in accordance with Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations and his step pursuant to the current Article 32 of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               inform the Commission as to the effects of the annulment of the contested decision and, in particular, the reclassification of the applicant in grade A*9 with retroactive effect;

               —

               in the alternative, order the Commission to compensate the harm suffered by the applicant as a result of the fact that he was not classified in grade A*9 from 17 January 2005;

               —

               in any event, order the defendant to pay all the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant responded to a call for tenders issued by the Commission to recruit an administrator in career bracket A8/A5, published on 25 July 2003. Having been chosen he entered into a contract, dated 17 January 2005, as a member of temporary staff with the Commission in which his grade was fixed at A*6.
   By his action, the applicant challenges his grading by submitting, primarily, that, in the present case, Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations is inapplicable on the ground that that disposition is applicable only to officials and not to members of temporary staff. In the alternative, he raises a plea of illegality by submitting that the application of that provision to him is contrary to the principle of equal treatment of the successful candidates in calls for tenders published before 1 May 2004 and constitutes discrimination on the ground of nationality and an infringement of the freedom of movement for workers, since nationals of the new Member States are inevitably appointed under less favourable provisions.
   The applicant also alleges discrimination between staff carrying out the same duties and infringement of the principle of equivalence between the nature of duties and remuneration. In addition, he submits that Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations is contrary to Article 31 of the Staff Regulations and adversely affects his legitimate expectations, the principle of sound administration and the duty to have regard for the interests of officials.
   The applicant also claims that he should be compensated for both the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage that he allegedly incurred.


C 204/36              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    17.7.1999
       Removal from the register of Case C-11/98 (1)                          Removal from the register of Case C-23/97 (1)
                        (1999/C 204/78)                                                         (1999/C 204/82)
By order of 21 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice        By order of 26 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from               of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-11/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling       the register of Case C-23/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Pretura Circondariale di Roma): Abdulreza Kazemi              from the Tribunale di Genova): Palmira Ieropoli, Giovanni
Nava v Confcommercio.                                                  Sgambellone v Banca Carige SpA.
(1) OJ C 113 of 11.4.1998.                                             (1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-72/99 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-342/98 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 204/83)
                        (1999/C 204/79)
                                                                       By order of 27 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
By order of 21 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice        of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from               the register of Case C-72/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling
the register of Case C-342/98: Commission of the European              from the Landesvergabeamt Tirol): Firma Ortner GmbH v
Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.                               Innsbrucker Kommunalbetriebe AG.
(1) OJ C 340 of 7.11.1998.                                             (1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-346/98 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case C-25/97 (1)
                        (1999/C 204/80)                                                         (1999/C 204/84)
By order of 21 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice        By order of 30 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from               of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-346/98: Commission of the European              the register of Case C-25/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling
Communities v Ireland.                                                 from the Tribunale di Genova): Fiduciaria Internazionale Srl v
                                                                       Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato.
(1) OJ C 340 of 7.11.1998.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.
       Removal from the register of Case C-419/98 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case C-26/97 (1)
                        (1999/C 204/81)                                                         (1999/C 204/85)
By order of 23 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice        By order of 30 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from               of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-419/98 (reference for a preliminary             the register of Case C-26/97 (reference for a preliminary
ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di Genova): Marcella             ruling from the Tribunale di Genova): Giolfo e C. Srl v
Moretti v Baoco Ambrosiano Veneto SpA.                                 Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato.
(1) OJ C 20 of 23.1.1999.                                              (1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.


title: Case C-434/13 P: Appeal brought on 1 August 2013 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 17 May 2013 in Case T-146/09: Parker ITR Srl and Parker-Hannifin Corp v Commission

text:
               26.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/9

         Appeal brought on 1 August 2013 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 17 May 2013 in Case T-146/09: Parker ITR Srl and Parker-Hannifin Corp v Commission
   (Case C-434/13 P)
   2013/C 313/17
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: S. Noë, V. Bottka, R. Sauer, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Parker ITR Srl, Parker-Hannifin Corp.

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the Judgment insofar as it annuls the Decision and adjusts the fine;

               —

               dismiss the action before the General Court in its entirety;

               —

               require the Applicants to bear the entirety of the costs of these proceedings and those of the proceedings at first instance.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission raises two grounds of appeal, and requests the Judgment to be partially set aside insofar as it annuls the Decision in Case COMP/39406 — Marine Hoses and adjusts the fine.
   In the first ground of appeal it is submitted that the General Court erred in law by ignoring or incorrectly applying the case law on intra-group economic succession on the one hand and the case law on the transfer of liability between consecutive undertakings on the other hand. By treating the asset transfer from ITR to Parker ITR (at the time called ITR Rubber) (within the Saiag group) and the subsequent share deal (transfer of the shares in Parker ITR from Saiag to Parker-Hannifin) together, the General Court incorrectly assumes an inter-group transfer of the infringing business from Saiag to Parker-Hannifin. The General Court errs by assessing economic continuity only as a possible transfer of liability between the independent undertakings Saiag and Parker-Hannifin, because this ignores the already accomplished intra-group economic succession to Parker ITR. In doing so, the Judgment relies on subjective intentions, namely the fact that the incorporation of the marine hoses business into Parker ITR was part of an objective of selling that subsidiary's shares to a third party. However, such intentions of the parties are not an obstacle to applying the case-law on intra-group economic succession (C-204/00 P Aalborg, C-280/06 ETI, C-511/11 P Versalis, T-43/02 Jungbunzlauer and T-405/06 and Joined Cases C-201/09 P and C-216/09 P ArcelorMittal), according to which economic succession takes place at the time of an intra-group transfer insofar as there are ‘structural links’ between the transferor (here: Saiag/ITR) and the receiving entity (here: Parker ITR). Moreover, there is a difference in law between a transfer of assets and the transfer of a legal person. In the latter case, the transferred entity will carry its own liability for any infringement prior to the transfer, and this may include liability as economic successor for assets transferred to the entity at a time when it was still part of the infringing undertaking. The fact that other legal entities in the undertaking could also have been held liable (although not fined in this case) is not a valid reason to exclude holding liable as economic successor the transferred subsidiary Parker ITR.
   The second ground of appeal is that, in the context of the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction, the General Court acted ultra petita and unlawfully reduced the uplift for duration in the fine corresponding to EUR 100 000 for the parent company Parker Hannifin. Neither the actual duration of its participation in the infringement nor the corresponding duration factor in the calculation of the fine was challenged by Parker-Hannifin (or Parker ITR). While Parker-Hannifin successfully challenged the aggravating circumstance for leadership, for which the General Court adjusted the fine, this should not open the possibility for the General Court, even when it exercises its unlimited jurisdiction, to modify other aspects of the fine (here: the factor for duration) against which the applicant did not raise a plea.


8.3.2003               EN                   Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 55/21
        Removal from the register of Case C-347/01 ( 1)                     Removal from the register of Case C-390/01 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 55/52)                                                      (2003/C 55/55)
By order of 28 November 2002 the President of the Court of          By order of 12 December 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal             Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-347/01: Commission of the               from the register of Case C-390/01: Commission of the
European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.                 European Communities v Portuguese Republic.
( 1) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.                                        (1 ) OJ C 348 of 8.12.2001.
        Removal from the register of Case C-377/01 ( 1)                     Removal from the register of Case C-21/02 (1)
                         (2003/C 55/53)                                                      (2003/C 55/56)
                                                                    By order of 13 December 2002 the President of the Court of
By order of 11 December 2002 the President of the Court of
                                                                    Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                    from the register of Case C-21/02: Commission of the
from the register of Case C-377/01: Commission of the
                                                                    European Communities v Italian Republic.
European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
                                                                    (1 ) OJ C 68 of 16.03.2002.
( 1) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-88/02 (1)
        Removal from the register of Case C-389/01 ( 1)
                                                                                (2003/C 55/57)
                         (2003/C 55/54)
                                                                    By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of
By order of 12 December 2002 the President of the Court of          Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal             from the register of Case C-88/02 (Reference for a preliminary
from the register of Case C-389/01: Commission of the               ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Dolomite italiana SpA (SDI)
European Communities v Portuguese Republic.                         v Ministero delle Finanze.
( 1) OJ C 348 of 8.12.2001.                                         (1 ) OJ C 131 of 01.06.2002.


title: Case C-241/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Salzburg (Austria) lodged on 17 May 2010 — Harald Jung and Gerald Hellweger v Magistrat der Stadt Salzburg, other party to the proceedings: Finanzamt Salzburg-Stadt

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Salzburg (Austria) lodged on 17 May 2010 — Harald Jung and Gerald Hellweger v Magistrat der Stadt Salzburg, other party to the proceedings: Finanzamt Salzburg-Stadt
   (Case C-241/10)
   ()
   2010/C 221/30
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Salzburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Harald Jung and Gerald Hellweger

      Defendant: Magistrat der Stadt Salzburg

      Other party to the proceedings: Finanzamt Salzburg-Stadt

      Question referred

   Is Annex X of the list referred to in Article 24 of the Act of Accession of the Republic of Hungary to the European Union (1. Freedom of movement for persons) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the leasing of workers from Hungary to Austria cannot be regarded as a posting of those workers and that national restrictions concerning the employment of Hungarian workers in Austria apply equally, in Austria, in respect of Hungarian workers (regularly employed in Hungary) leased by Hungarian undertakings to Austria?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 236, p. 846.


title: Case T-124/01: Action brought on 1 June 2001 by Pietro del Vaglio against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
11.8.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 227/31
The applicant considers that the Commission’s inaction is                                              — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)
contrary to the Treaty and to Regulation No 17, since it is                                                of Regulation No 40/94;
allowing an infringement of Article 81(1) of the Treaty to                                             — Failure to take account of the
continue, although it has all the evidence available to adopt                                              services actually being offered;
the necessary measures.
                                                                                — Failure to take account of the
                                                                                existing registrations of the
                                                                                sign in Germany and France.
                                                                         (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
                                                                             Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
Action brought on 4 June 2001 by Best Buy Concepts Inc.
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
              Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                         (Case T-122/01)
                                                                         Action brought on 1 June 2001 by Pietro del Vaglio
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
                         (2001/C 227/59)
                                                                                (Case T-124/01)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (2001/C 227/60)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                                      (Language of the case: French)
4 June 2001 by Best Buy Concepts Inc., Minnesota (U.S.A.),
represented by Sabine Rojahn, Rechtsanwältin, with an address            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
for service in Luxembourg.                                               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 1 June 2001 by Pietro del Vaglio
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              domiciled in London, represented by Georges Vandersanden,
                                                                         Laure Levi and Dugois Dominique, Lawyers.
—     set aside the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the
      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
      21 March 2001 in Case R 44/2000-3;
                                                                         —     Annul the Commission’s Decision of 5 April 2000
—     order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.                 refusing to apply the United Kingdom weighting to the
                                                                               applicant’s pension as from 8 May 1999 and, so far as
                                                                               necessary, annul the decision of the Commission of
                                                                               23 February 2001 dismissing the applicant’s claim of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                18 July 2000;
                                                                         —     Order the defendant to apply the United Kingdom
Trade mark for which           The pictorial mark ‘BEST BUY’ —                 weighting with retroactive effect from 8 May 1999;
Community registration         Application No 001166164
                                                                         —     Order the defendant to pay damage provisionally assessed
sought:
                                                                               ex aequo et bono at 10 000 Euros and to pay interest at
                                                                               8 % per annum on the remainder of the pension owed as
Goods or services:             Services in Classes 35, 37 and 42               from 8 May 1999;
                               (including management con-
                               sultancy, installation of car stereo      —     Order the defendant to pay the costs.
                               systems and products for the pri-
                               vate office, and specialist advice
                               on the fitting-out of retail busi-
                               nesses)                                   Pleas in law and main arguments
Decision disputed before       Refusal of registration by the            The applicant claims infringement of Article 82 of the Staff
the Board of Appeal:           examiner                                  Regulations. The applicant claims that the Commission did
                                                                         not properly evaluate the documentation he provided to prove
Pleas in law:                  — Infringement of Article 7(1)(c)         his change of country of residence. The Commission should,
                                   of Regulation No 40/94 (1);           inter alia, have taken into consideration the particular situation
 ---pagebreak--- C 227/32                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     11.8.2001
of the applicant, who lives with his partner and was therefore            the fact that the Community market had failed to strengthen
unable to provide a lease or title deeds or telephone, gas or             or even maintain, its position on the market, and the fact that
electricity bills in his own name. The applicant further claims           Community steel producers had to bear negative effects, in the
infringement of the principle of proper administration, good              form of additional costs brought by the measures in particular,
management and the duty to have regard to the welfare of                  which cumulated while those measures were in force.
officials.
                                                                          In this respect the applicant companies claim that a manifest
                                                                          error of assessment has occurred. They dwell particularly on
                                                                          the fact that the Commission could not call into question the
                                                                          position adopted by the Council in 1993/1994 on Community
                                                                          interest.
Action brought on 16 June 2001 by Euroalliages, Péchiney                  In support of their claims, they also submit that the following
Electrométallurgie, Vargon Alloys A.B. and Ferroatlantica                 provisions of the basic regulation on anti-dumping have been
  against the Commission of the European Communities                      infringed:
                          (Case T-132/01)                                 —     Article 11(2) and Article 2 in so far as those provisions
                                                                                prohibit the taking into account of a period prior to the
                          (2001/C 227/61)                                       measures in force which are under review;
                                                                          —     Article 21(2) and (5) in that the Commission took into
                                                                                account information submitted by users beyond the time
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                limit set by the notice of initiation of the review
                                                                                proceedings;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                —     Article 21(5), in considering that the information submit-
European Communities on 16 June 2001 by Euroalliages,                           ted by the users was representative. In that respect it can
whose registered office is in Brussels, Péchiney Electrométallur-               be noted that the users who submitted information
gie, whose registered office is in Courbevoie (France) Vargon                   represented 10 % of Community consumption;
Alloys A.B., whose registered office is in Vargön (Sweden) and
                                                                          —     Article 21(7) in so far as the Commission took into
Ferroatlantica, whose registered office is in Madrid, represented
                                                                                account information submitted by users which was
by D Voillemot and Olivier Prost, Lawyers.
                                                                                unsubstantiated by actual evidence;
The applicants claim that the Court should:                               —     Article 6(6) as well as infringement of the right to a fair
—     annul the sole article of Commission Decision of 21 Feb-                  hearing by refusing to organise a meeting with the users
      ruary 2001 terminating the anti-dumping procedure                         to allow for exchange of views.
      concerning imports of ferro-silicon originating in Brazil,
      the People’s Republic of China, Kazakhstan, Russia,
      Ukraine and Venezuela, with regard to those imports
      originating in the People’s Republic of China, Russia,
      Ukraine and Kazakhstan;
—     order the European Commission to pay the costs.                     Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-137/99 and
                                                                                T-18/00 (1)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                    (2001/C 227/62)
Since the applicant companies in the present case are part of
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
the Community ferro-silicon industry, they object to the
Commission’s decision to terminate the anti-dumping pro-
cedure with regard to the importation of ferro-silicon originat-          By order of 3 April 2001, the President of the Court of First
ing in the People’s Republic of China, Kazakhstan, Russia and             Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
Ukraine. That Decision is based on the consideration that the             removal of the name of Athanasia Chrissanthaki from the list
maintenance of measures previously adopted against those                  of applicants in Joined Cases T-137/99 and T-18/00 Natalia
four countries would ‘clearly’ be contrary to the interests of            Martinez Páramo and Others v Commission of the European
the Community. To arrive at this conclusion, the defendant                Communities.
claims to have taken into account the period in which those
measures had been in place, assumed to have begun in 1987,                (1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.99 and C 79 of 18.3.00.