title: Case C-79/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 July 2017 — Council of the European Union v Hamas, European Commission (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy — Fight against terrorism — Restrictive measures against certain persons and entities — Freezing of funds — Common Position 2001/931/CFSP — Article 1(4) and (6) — Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 — Article 2(3) — Retention of an organisation on the list of persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts — Conditions — Factual basis of the decisions to freeze funds — Decision taken by a competent authority — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               18.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 309/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 July 2017 — Council of the European Union v Hamas, European Commission
   (Case C-79/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Fight against terrorism - Restrictive measures against certain persons and entities - Freezing of funds - Common Position 2001/931/CFSP - Article 1(4) and (6) - Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 - Article 2(3) - Retention of an organisation on the list of persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts - Conditions - Factual basis of the decisions to freeze funds - Decision taken by a competent authority - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2017/C 309/04)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen, G. Étienne and M. Bishop, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Hamas (represented by: L. Glock, avocate), European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, M. Konstantinidis and R. Tricot, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the appellant: French Republic (represented by: D. Colas, F. Fize and G. de Bergues, Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 17 December 2014, Hamas v Council (T-400/10, EU:T:2014:1095);

               2

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

               3

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 146, 4.5.2015.


title: Case C-471/12 P: Appeal brought on 17 September 2012 by Holding kompanija Interspeed a.d. against the judgment delivered on 10 July 2012 in Case T-587/10 Holding kompanija Interspeed a.d. v Commission

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/55

         Appeal brought on 17 September 2012 by Holding kompanija Interspeed a.d. against the judgment delivered on 10 July 2012 in Case T-587/10 Holding kompanija Interspeed a.d. v Commission
   (Case C-471/12 P)
   2013/C 225/104
   Language of the case: Slovene

      Parties

      Appellant: Holding kompanija Interspeed a.d. (represented by D. Komlensky and P. Komljenovic, odvetnika)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      By order of 20 June 2013, the Court (Seventh Chamber) hereby:

               1.

               Dismisses the application for legal aid.

               2.

               Dismisses the appeal.

               3.

               Orders Holding kompanija Interspeed a.d. to bear its own costs.


title: Case C-287/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal) lodged on 23 May 2016 — Fidelidade-Companhia de Seguros SA v Caisse Suisse de Compensation and Others

text:
               5.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal) lodged on 23 May 2016 — Fidelidade-Companhia de Seguros SA v Caisse Suisse de Compensation and Others
   (Case C-287/16)
   (2016/C 326/17)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Supremo Tribunal de Justiça

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Fidelidade-Companhia de Seguros SA

      Respondents: Caisse Suisse de Compensation, Fundo de Garantia Automóvel, Sandra Cristina Chrystello Pinto Moreira Pereira, Sandra Manuela Teixeira Gomes Seemann, Catarina Ferreira Seemann, José Batista Pereira

      Question referred

   Do Article 3(1) of Directive 72/166/EEC, (1) Article 2(1) of Directive 84/5/EEC, (2) and Article 1 of Directive 90/232/EEC, (3) on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, preclude national legislation which provides that an insurance contract shall be null and void in the event of false statements concerning the owner of the motor vehicle and the identity of its usual driver, where the contract was concluded by a person who has no economic interest in the use of the vehicle and where there is an underlying fraudulent intent on the part of the interested parties (policy holder, owner of the vehicle and the usual driver) to obtain cover for risks in respect of the use of motor vehicles by means of: (i) concluding a contract that the insurer would not have entered if it had known the identity of the policyholder and (ii) paying a premium lower than would be payable having regard to the age of the usual driver?

      (1)  Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ 1972 L 103, p. 1).

      (2)  Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1984 L 8, p. 17).

      (3)  Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1990 L 129, p. 33).


title: Case F-9/06: Action brought on  30 January 2006  — Canteiro Lopez v Commission

text:
               25.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 74/35

         Action brought on 30 January 2006 — Canteiro Lopez v Commission
   (Case F-9/06)
   (2006/C 74/69)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Rui Canteiro Lopez (Lisbon, Portugal) and Others (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal, lawyers)

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

               —

               Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 13 October 2005 not to add the applicant's name to the list of officials judged to be the most deserving and not to promote him to Grade A4 in the 2000 promotion exercise.

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   On 21 December 2000, the applicant submitted a complaint against the decision not to promote him to Grade A4 in the 2000 promotion exercise. On 2 July 2001, the defendant allowed that complaint and informed the applicant that action had been taken to finalise his staff report, but this was not done. As a result, the applicant submitted an application for information about the steps taken as a result of that decision of 2 July 2001. The defendant, after having acknowledged that the 1995-1997 and 1997-1999 staff reports had not yet been finalised, offered to set the applicant's 1997-1999 report at the same level as the report which he had obtained for the period 1991-2001.
   Although the applicant refused that offer, the defendant nevertheless concluded the applicant's staff report for the period 1997-1999 and decided not to add his name to the list of officials judged to be the most deserving, and not to promote him to Grade A4 in the 2000 promotion exercise.
   In support of his action, the applicant first submits that that decision is invalidated inasmuch as it was taken without there being any lawfully finalised staff reports for the periods at issue. The defendant is accused of effectively committing a breach of its administrative duty by not ensuring that the applicant's staff reports for the period between 1 July 1995 and 30 June 1999 were drawn-up at the appropriate time.
   The applicant also maintains that the defendant carried out the consideration of the applicant's comparative merits in an improper manner, inasmuch as it made use of alternative criteria, such as age and length of service, which may only be applied where the officials eligible for promotion are of equal merit, a condition which was not met in this instance. The contested decision therefore infringes Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and the principle of equal treatment.


title: Case F-160/12: Action brought on 26 December 2012 — ZZ v European Commission

text:
               2.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/26

         Action brought on 26 December 2012 — ZZ v European Commission
   (Case F-160/12)
   2013/C 63/53
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant(s): ZZ (represented by: F. A. Rodriguez-Gigirey Perez, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision to exclude the applicant from the reserve list of competition EPSO/AD/206-207/11-AD5/AD7.

      Form of order sought

               —

               A declaration that the diploma accompanying the applicant’s candidature fulfils the requirements set out in the official notice of Open Competition EPSO/AD/206-207/11- AD5/AD7 - Administrators;

               —

               Annulment of the decision notified to the applicant on 29 September 2012, issued by the Competent Authority, dismissing the applicant’s claim in relation to the validity of his university diploma for admission to the open competition;

               —

               Accordingly, a declaration of the applicant’s right to be included on the reserve list for the filling of posts relating to competition EPSO/AD/206-207/11- AD5/AD7 – Administrators, in the field of economics, Official Journal C 82 A of 16 March 2011, with a sufficient period of validity, equivalent to that of those candidates who were initially included, including reopening that list in the event that it is closed on the date judgment is delivered;

               —

               Order that the defendant pay the costs.


title: Case T-76/14: Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — Morningstar v Commission (Competition — Abuse of a dominant position — Worldwide market for consolidated real-time datafeeds — Decision making the commitments offered by the dominant undertaking binding — Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003)

text:
               24.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — Morningstar v Commission
   (Case T-76/14) (1)

   ((Competition - Abuse of a dominant position - Worldwide market for consolidated real-time datafeeds - Decision making the commitments offered by the dominant undertaking binding - Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003))
   (2016/C 392/29)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Morningstar, Inc. (Chicago, Illinois, United States of America) (represented by: S. Kinsella, K. Daly, P. Harrison, Solicitors, and M. Abenhaïm, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras, A. Dawes and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Thomson Reuters Corp. (Toronto, Canada), and Reuters Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Nourry, G. Olsen and C. Ghosh, Solicitors)

      Re:

   Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 9635 final of 20 December 2012 relating to a proceeding under Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/D2/39.654 — Reuters Instrument Codes (RICs)).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Morningstar, Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.


title: Case C-429/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de cassation (France), chambre commerciale, financière et économique, by judgment of that Court of 19 November 2002 in the case of Bacardi-Martini SAS against Télévision France TF1 S.A., Groupe Jean-Claude Darmon S.A. and Girosport Sàrl

text:
25.1.2003               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 19/21
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de                               (a)   refrain from broadcasting television programmes,
cassation (France), chambre commerciale, financière et                                such as in particular retransmissions of sporting
économique, by judgment of that Court of 19 November                                  events, whether taking place in France or in other
2002 in the case of Bacardi-Martini SAS against Télévision                            countries of the Union, where they show prohibited
France TF1 S.A., Groupe Jean-Claude Darmon S.A. and                                   advertisements within the meaning of the French
                           Girosport Sàrl                                             Code des débits de boissons, or
                                                                                (b) broadcast them on condition that prohibited adver-
                                                                                tisements within the meaning of the French Code
                          (Case C-429/02)                                             des débits de boissons do not appear, thereby
                                                                                preventing the conclusion of advertising contracts
                                                                                concerning alcoholic drinks whether of national
                                                                                origin or from other Member States of the Union.
                           (2003/C 19/36)
                                                                         (1 ) Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordi-
                                                                              nation of certain provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or
                                                                              Administrative Action in Member States concerning the pursuit
                                                                              of television broadcasting activities (OJ L 298 of 17.10.1989,
                                                                              p. 23).
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   (2 ) Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
European Communities by judgment of the Cour de cassation                     of 30 June 1997 amending Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the
— chambre commerciale, financière et économique (Commer-                      coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation
cial, Financial and Economic Division) of 19 November 2002,                   or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit
                                                                              of television broadcasting activities (OJ L 202 of 30.7.1997,
received at the Court Registry on 27 November 2002, for a
                                                                              p. 60).
preliminary ruling in the case of Bacardi-Martini SAS against
Télévision France TF1 S.A., Groupe Jean-Claude Darmon S.A.
and Girosport Sàrl on:
1.     whether Directive 89/552/EEC (1) of 3 October 1989, in
       the version prior to that of Directive 97/36/EC (2) of
       30 June 1997, precludes national legislation such as
       Articles L.17 to L.21 of the French Code des débits de            Action brought on 28 November 2002 by the Com-
       boissons (Code of Licensed Premises) and Article 8 of             mission of the European Communities against the Italian
       Decree No 92280 of 27 March 1992 from prohibiting,                                               Republic
       for reasons of the protection of public health and on pain
       of criminal penalties, advertising for alcoholic drinks,
       whether of national origin or from other Member States                                       (Case C-430/02)
       of the Union, on television, whether in the form of
       advertising spots within the meaning of Article 10 of the
       directive or of indirect advertising as a result of panels                                    (2003/C 19/37)
       advertising alcoholic drinks appearing on television with-
       out thereby constituting surreptitious advertising within
       the meaning of Article 1(c) of the directive;
                                                                         An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                         Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 Novem-
2.     whether Article 49 EC and the principle of the free               ber 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
       movement of television broadcasts within the Union                represented by Claire-Françoise Durand and Roberto Amorosi,
       must be interpreted as precluding a national provision            acting as Agents.
       such as that in Articles L.17 to L.21 of the French Code
       des débits de boissons and Article 8 of Decree No 92280
       of 27 March 1992 which prohibits, for reasons of the              The applicant claims that the Court should:
       protection of public health and on pain of criminal
       penalties, advertising for alcoholic drinks, whether of
       national origin or from other Member States of the                —      Declare that, by failing to adopt all the provisions
       Union, on television, whether in the form of advertising                 necessary to repeal or amend the rules governing quality
       spots within the meaning of Article 10 of the directive or               labels of the Abruzzi Region the Region of Sicily, which
       of indirect advertising as a result of panels advertising                labels were introduced by Leggi Regionali (Regional Laws)
       alcoholic drinks appearing on television without thereby                 31/1982 and 14/1966, the Italian Republic has failed to
       constituting surreptitious advertising within the meaning                fulfil its obligations under Article 28 of the Treaty
       of Article 1(c) of the directive, from having the effect                 establishing the European Community;
       that operators responsible for the broadcasting and
       distribution of television programmes:                            —      Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.


title: Case T-91/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 June 2008 — Cyprus v Commission

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/58

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 June 2008 — Cyprus v Commission
   (Case T-91/08) (1)

   (2008/C 223/107)

      Language of the case: Greek

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

      (1)  OJ C 142, 7.6.2008.


title: Case T-361/09: Action brought on 16 September 2009 — Centraal bureau voor de statistiek v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/51

         Action brought on 16 September 2009 — Centraal bureau voor de statistiek v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-361/09)
   2009/C 282/98
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Centraal bureau voor de statistiek (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented by: R. van den Tweel, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission’s Decision of 7 July 2009, ref. ESTAT/E-1/ME/ykl/eb D(2009) 10188, concerning definitive payment of the contribution to expenses incurred in relation to the structure survey for 2005, in the sum of EUR 546 818,77;

               —

               in the alternative, order the Commission to pay the sum of EUR 38 295,55 together with interest thereon with effect from the 45th day after the date of the Decision of 7 July 2009 until the actual payment of that sum;

               —

               in either case, order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant submits that the contested decision conflicts with Council Regulation (EEC) No 571/88 of 29 February 1988 on the organisation of Community surveys on the structure of agricultural holdings between 1988 and 1997 (OJ 1988 L 56, p. 1, as subsequently amended), with the agreement concluded between the applicant and the Commission concerning the Community contribution to the investigation costs for the structure survey for 2005 in the Netherlands (contract No 62102.2005.001-2005.055) and with the principles of legal certainty, protection of legitimate expectations and the duty to state reasons. In any event, the Decision incorrectly determines the remuneration to which the applicant is entitled.
   In its first plea, the applicant submits that the Commission wrongly failed to award any remuneration under Article 14(1) of Regulation No 571/88 but instead tried to impose on the applicant a more detailed foundation for the costs incurred, not just of the number of holdings surveyed. As Article 14 of the Regulation expressly provides for a fixed remuneration per holding surveyed, up to a maximum of EUR 700 000, any other interpretation would moreover be contrary to the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and of legal certainty.
   In its second plea, the applicant submits that Article II.14.3 of the agreement between the applicant and the Commission does not apply to the costs invoiced by the Ministry of Agriculture. The Commission wrongly failed to take these invoices fully into account as actually incurred, direct costs that are eligible for subsidy. In any event, the Commission did not state adequate reasons for its decision.
   Finally, the applicant submits, in the alternative, that, if Article II.14.3 of the agreement is indeed applicable, the costs eligible for subsidy were calculated incorrectly or in an incomprehensible way without further explanation, since the Commission wrongly takes into account the indirectly productive hours when calculating the applicable hourly rate. The Commission’s reasoning is not clearly and unambiguously expressed in the contested decision, which was therefore in any event established in breach of the duty to state reasons.


title: Case C-120/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 — Bernhard Rintisch v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Bariatrix Europe Inc. SAS (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 74(2) — Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — First and third subparagraphs of Rule 50(1) — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier trade mark — Existence of the mark — Evidence submitted in support of the opposition after the expiry of the period set for that purpose — Failure to take account thereof — Discretion of the Board of Appeal — Provision to the contrary — Circumstances precluding additional or supplementary evidence from being taken into account)

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/24

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 — Bernhard Rintisch v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Bariatrix Europe Inc. SAS
   (Case C-120/12 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 74(2) - Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - First and third subparagraphs of Rule 50(1) - Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier trade mark - Existence of the mark - Evidence submitted in support of the opposition after the expiry of the period set for that purpose - Failure to take account thereof - Discretion of the Board of Appeal - Provision to the contrary - Circumstances precluding additional or supplementary evidence from being taken into account)
   2013/C 344/40
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Bernhard Rintisch (represented by: A. Dreyer, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent), Bariatrix Europe Inc. SAS

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 December 2011 in Case T-62/09 Rintisch v OHIM by which the General Court dismissed an action for annulment brought by the proprietor of national word and figurative marks ‘PROTI’, ‘PROTIPOWER’ and ‘PROTIPLUS’ for goods in Classes 29 and 32, and the national trade name ‘PROTITOP’ for goods in Classes 29, 30 and 32, against decision R 740/2008-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 15 December 2008, dismissing the appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division rejecting the opposition filed by the applicant in respect of registration of the word mark ‘PROTI SNACK’ for goods in Classes 5, 29, 30 and 32 — Late submission of documents — Discretion conferred by Article 74(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Mr Bernhard Rintisch to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.


title: Case T-280/11: Action brought on 31 May 2011 — Ewald v OHIM — Kin Cosmetics (Keen)

text:
               13.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/20

         Action brought on 31 May 2011 — Ewald v OHIM — Kin Cosmetics (Keen)
   (Case T-280/11)
   2011/C 238/36
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Rita Ewald (Frauenwald, Germany) (represented by: S. Reinhardt, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kin Cosmetics, SA (Sant Feliu de Guixols, Spain)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 March 2011 in Case R 1383/2010-1;

               —

               Reject the opposition filed at OHIM on 24 July 2008 under No B 1359944 by KIN COSMETICS, SA against Community trade mark application No EM 006 498 621‘Keen’;

               —

               In the alternative, in the event that the Court cannot itself reach a decision under the second head of claim, refer the case back to OHIM for a fresh decision;

               —

               Order the defendant and KIN COSMETICS, SA, in so far as it decides to participate in the proceedings, to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Keen’ for goods and services in Classes 3 and 44 — application No 6 498 621

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Kin Cosmetics, SA

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the Community and national word and figurative marks ‘KIN’, ‘KinBooKs’, ‘KINWORKS’ and ‘KINSTYLIUM’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5, 35 and 44

      Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 as there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.


title: Case T-125/14: Action brought on 14 February 2014  — Gappol Marzena Porczyńska v OHIM — GAP (ITM) (GAPPol)

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/40

         Action brought on 14 February 2014 — Gappol Marzena Porczyńska v OHIM — GAP (ITM) (GAPPol)
   (Case T-125/14)
   2014/C 142/52
   Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: PP Gappol Marzena Porczyńska (Łódź, Poland) (represented by J. Gwiazdowska, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: GAP (ITM), Inc. (San Francisco, United States)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 December 2013 in Case R 686/2013-1;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant.

      Community trade mark in respect of which registration is sought: a figurative mark containing the word element ‘GAPPol’ for goods and services in Classes 20, 25 and 37 — Application No 8 346 165 for a Community trade mark.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word marks ‘GAP’, Community figurative marks containing the word element ‘GAP’, as well as national word marks ‘GAP’ and national figurative marks containing the word element ‘GAP’, for goods in Class 25.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld in part.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed.

      Pleas in law: breach of Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case F-27/13: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 18 June 2015 — CX v Commission (Civil Service — Disciplinary procedure — Respective roles and powers of the Disciplinary Board and the Appointing Authority — Disciplinary penalty — Reduction in grade followed by a decision on promotion — Proportionality of the penalty)

text:
               27.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/47

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 18 June 2015 — CX v Commission
   (Case F-27/13) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Disciplinary procedure - Respective roles and powers of the Disciplinary Board and the Appointing Authority - Disciplinary penalty - Reduction in grade followed by a decision on promotion - Proportionality of the penalty))
   (2015/C 245/57)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: CX (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decisions to reduce the applicant to grade AD 8 under Article 9(1)(f) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations and a claim for damages for the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders CX to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013, p. 56.


title: Case T-379/04: Action brought on 17 September 2004 by J against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               20.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 284/27

         Action brought on 17 September 2004 by J against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-379/04)
   (2004/C 284/53)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 17 September 2004 by J, represented by Carlo Forte, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission's decision of 10 June 2004, rejecting the applicant's complaints lodged against its decisions of 31 October 2003 and 10 December 2003, whereby, respectively, it refused her the expatriation allowance and installation allowance and demanded repayment of sums paid to her in that respect, not acknowledging the applicability of the last sentence of the second indent of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII, Article 5(1) of Annex VII, and Article 85 of the Staff Regulations of the European Communities;

               —

               annul the aforesaid decisions of 31 October 2003 and 10 December 2003;

               —

               order such measures as may be appropriate to restore the applicant's rights, including interest for delay;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicant, who before accepting a post as a temporary servant of the Commission with the Directorate General for Research was employed as a researcher at the Brussels establishment of the Consiglio Nazionale di Ricerca (CNR), challenges the Commission's refusal to grant her the expatriation allowance and the installation allowance.
   The Commission's position is based on the argument that the CNR, which does not form part of the structure of the public administration, is outside the scope of activity of the Italian State, of which it represents neither the will nor the direct interests.
   In support of her claims, the applicant first argues misapplication of the last sentence of the second indent of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII and Article 5(1) of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations, maintaining that her status as a State official should allow her to be granted the refused allowances. That was also the interpretation of the Belgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which issued the applicant with a ‘Carte d'identité spéciale’, describing her as a ‘Fonctionnaire italienne en mission officielle en Belgique’.
   She adds in this respect that the CNR is a legal person under public law to which the organisation of the State attributes an area of competence (belonging to the central power), material resources and an organisational structure, constituted precisely from public bodies and rules applicable to them.
   The applicant also claims to have suffered an infringement of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations.


title: Case T-295/14: Order of the General Court of 22 May 2015 — Autoneum Germany v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate — Action for annulment — Application to amend the form of order sought — No new information — Inadmissibility)

text:
               27.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/23

         Order of the General Court of 22 May 2015 — Autoneum Germany v Commission
   (Case T-295/14) (1)

   ((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate - Action for annulment - Application to amend the form of order sought - No new information - Inadmissibility))
   (2015/C 245/27)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Autoneum Germany GmbH (Roßdorf, Germany) (represented by: T. Volz, B. Wißmann, M. Püstow, C. Oehme, M. Ringel and T. Wielsch lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by A. Luke and C. Maurer, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               The application seeking that the form of order sought in the present action be amended to cover Commission decision C (2014) 8786 final of 25 November 2014 relating to State Aid SA. 33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users is rejected as inadmissible.

               3.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.

               4.

               Autoneum Germany GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

               5.

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.


title: Case C-554/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 3 December 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Atanas Ognyanov

text:
               2.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/11

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 3 December 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Atanas Ognyanov
      (Case C-554/14)
      (2015/C 073/17)
      Language of the case: Bulgarian

         Referring court

      Sofiyski gradski sad

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Sentenced person: Atanas Ognyanov

         Other party to the proceedings: Public prosecutor at the Sofiyska gradska prokuratura

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Do the provisions of Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 preclude the executing State, in the course of the transfer procedure, from reducing the duration of the sentence of deprivation of liberty imposed by the issuing State, on account of work undertaken while that sentence was being served in the issuing State, as follows:

                              A)

                              Reduction of the sentence in application of the law of the executing State on the enforcement of the sentence in accordance with Article 17(1) [of the Framework Decision]: does that provision permit the law of the executing State on the enforcement of the sentence to be applied even at the stage of the transfer procedure in respect of matters (namely work undertaken in prison in the issuing State) which occurred while the sentenced person was under the jurisdiction of the issuing State?

                              B)

                              Reduction of the sentence as a result of a deduction made in accordance with Article 17(2) [of the Framework Decision]: does that provision permit the deduction of a period that is longer than the period of deprivation of liberty determined in accordance with the law of the issuing State, where the law of the executing State is applied and, as a result, a fresh legal assessment is made of matters which occurred in the issuing State (namely work undertaken in prison in the issuing State)?

                  2.

                  In the event that these or other provisions of the Framework Decision are applicable to the reduction in sentence at issue, is the issuing State required to be notified if it has made a specific request to that effect, and is the transfer procedure to be discontinued if the issuing State objects? If there is a notification requirement, what should the nature of that notification be: should it be in general and abstract terms as regards the applicable law, or should it relate to the specific reduction in sentence which the court will impose on a particular sentenced person?

         Supplementary question

      In the event that the Court of Justice of the European Union should rule that the provisions of Article 17(1) and (2) of Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA preclude a reduction of sentence by the executing State on the basis of its domestic law (on account of work undertaken in the issuing State), is the national court’s decision nevertheless to apply its national law, owing to the fact that it is more favourable than Article 17 of Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA, compatible with EU law?


title: Case F-71/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 8 May 2013 — Z v Court of Justice (Civil Service — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/48

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 8 May 2013 — Z v Court of Justice
   (Case F-71/11) (1)

   (Civil Service - No need to adjudicate)
   2013/C 252/84
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Z (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: J.-M. Bauler, lawyer)

      Defendant: Court of Justice (represented by: A.V. Placco, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the staff report for the period from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2007 and an order that the defendant pay compensation for non-material damage.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on Case F-71/11 Z v Court of Justice.

               2.

               The applicant shall bear his own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the Court of Justice of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 355, 3.12.2011, p. 30.


title: Case T-546/08: Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2010 — Villa Almè v OHIM — Marqués de Murrieta (i GAI) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark iGAI — National word mark YGAY and Community figurative and word marks MARQUÉS DE MURRIETA YGAY — Relative grounds for refusal — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2010 — Villa Almè v OHIM — Marqués de Murrieta (i GAI)
   (Case T-546/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark iGAI - National word mark YGAY and Community figurative and word marks MARQUÉS DE MURRIETA YGAY - Relative grounds for refusal - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   2010/C 301/46
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Villa Almè Azienda vitivinicola di Vizzotto Giuseppe (Mansuè, Italy) (represented by: G. Massa and P. Massa, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Montalto and A. Sempio, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Marqués de Murrieta, SA (Logroño, Spain) (represented by P. López Ronda and G. Macias Bonilla, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 September 2008 (Case R 1695/2007-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Bodegas Marqués de Murrieta, SA and Villa Almè Azienda vitivinicola di Vizzotto Giuseppe.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Villa Almè Azienda vitivinicola di Vizzotto Giuseppe to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.


title: Case C-552/08 P: Appeal brought on 12 December 2008 by Agrar-Invest-Tatschl GmbH against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) on 8 October 2008 in Case T-51/07 Agrar-Invest-Tatschl GmbH v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/10

         Appeal brought on 12 December 2008 by Agrar-Invest-Tatschl GmbH against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) on 8 October 2008 in Case T-51/07 Agrar-Invest-Tatschl GmbH v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-552/08 P)
   (2009/C 55/16)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: Agrar-Invest-Tatschl GmbH (represented by: U. Schrömbges and O. Wenzlaff, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the contested judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 October 2008 in Case T-51/07 Agrar-Invest-Tatschl GmbH v Commission;

               —

               in accordance with the first claim set out in the application of 22 February 2007 in Case T-51/07 before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities, annul Article 1(2) and Article 1(3) of Commission Decision C(2006) 5789 final (REC 05/05) of 4 December 2006.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   This appeal contests the judgment of the Court of First Instance which dismissed the appellant's action challenging Commission Decision C(2006) 5789 final of 4 December 2006 on the subsequent entering in the accounts of import duties owed by the appellant for the import of sugar from Croatia.
   The Court of First Instance's basis for dismissing the appellant's action was the absence of good faith, one of the four requirements that must all be met if import duties are not to be subsequently entered in the accounts. The Court stated that, under the fifth subparagraph of Article 220(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (‘the Customs Code’), the person liable cannot plead his good faith if the European Commission, as in the case in point, has published in the Official Journal a notice to importers stating that there are grounds for doubt concerning the proper application of the preferential arrangements by the beneficiary country. Nor, according to the Court of First Instance, is it material that the appellant acted in good faith with regard to the subsequent confirmation of the authenticity and accuracy of the movement certificates, since it in any event did not act in good faith when the imports took place.
   The appellant bases its appeal on an incorrect interpretation by the Court of First Instance of the fifth subparagraph of Article 220(2)(b) of the Customs Code. It submits that the Court's interpretation is wrong in law in that, according to the Court, the Commission notice published in the Official Journal concerning doubt as to the proper application of the preferential arrangements by the beneficiary country has the effect of excluding good faith even where, as in the present case, the relevant certificates issued in connection with the securing of preferential treatment were subject after publication of the warning notice to a verification procedure that confirmed their authenticity and accuracy.
   The Court of First Instance fails to recognise that the effect of a warning notice that is laid down in the fifth subparagraph of Article 220(2)(b) of the Customs Code is restricted by the principle under which decisions of third-country customs authorities within the framework of a system of administrative cooperation should be recognised. The provision of the Customs Code at issue involves a legal fiction of bad faith which is rebuttable, indeed — as in the present case — precisely by carrying out a verification procedure. The appellant's good faith is therefore restored by the subsequent confirmation of the authenticity and accuracy of the movement certificates, that is to say, the appellant could rely on the fact that the grounds for doubt on the basis of which the Commission's warning notice was published were removed in the course of the verification procedure. The appellant's good faith is therefore dependent not on proper issue of the movement certificates at issue by the Croatian authorities but on the proper verification of those certificates by the customs authorities on the basis of the doubts, disclosed by the Commission's warning notice, as to whether they were properly issued.


title: Case T-396/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 September 2009 — France Télécom v OHIM (UNIQUE) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark UNIQUE — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/60

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 September 2009 — France Télécom v OHIM (UNIQUE)
   (Case T-396/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark UNIQUE - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2009/C 267/106
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: France Télécom (Paris, France) (represented by: B. Potot and C. Bertheux Scotte, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 September 2007 (Case R 585/2007-2) concerning an application for registration of the word sign UNIQUE as a Community trade mark

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders France Télécom to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 315, 22.12.2007.


title: Election of the President of the Court

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/1

         Election of the President of the Court
   (2006/C 326/02)
   At their meeting on 9 October 2006, the Judges of the Court of Justice of the European Communities elected, under Article 7(1) of the Rules of Procedure, Mr Skouris as President of the Court for the period from 9 October 2006 to 6 October 2009.


title: Case C-178/11: Order of the President of the Court of 19 April 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Malta

text:
               4.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/12

         Order of the President of the Court of 19 April 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Malta
   (Case C-178/11) (1)

   2012/C 235/25
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 18.6.2011.


title: Removal from the register of Case C-350/95

text:
20 . 7 . 96              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                            No C 210/ 11
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                                     Removal from the register of Case C-174/94 ( 1 )
Verwaltungsgericht Kôln by order of that court of 8 May                                             ( 96/C 210/26 )
1996     in   the     case     of  Richard   Buchen        GmbH     v.
                       Bezirksregierung Köln
                           ( Case C-193/96 )                            By order of 19 March 1 996 , the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                             ( 96/C 210/25 )
                                                                        from the register of Case C-l 74/94 : French Republic v.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  Commission of the European Communities, supported by
                                                                        United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland .
European Communities by an order of the Fourth Chamber
of the Verwaltungsgericht Kôln ( Administrative Court,
Cologne ) of 8 May 1996 , which was received at the Court               ( i ) OJ No C 218 , 6 . 8 . 1994 .
Registry on 6 June 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case
of Richard Buchen GmbH v . Bezirksregierung Kôln on the
following questions :
1 . Do shipments of waste destined for recovery, within
     Annex III to Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 259/93 of
     1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of
     shipments of waste within, into and out of the European                    Removal from the register of Case C-99/95 (')
     Community ( 1 ), require the express or tacit consent of
                                                                                ( 96/C 210/27)
     the competent authority of dispatch, in accordance with
     Chapter B of the Regulation ?
2 . If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative : if that         By order of 29 April 1996 , the President of the Court of
     authority raises objections, does it thereby at the same          Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
     time refuse consent or defer a decision ?                          from the register of Case C-99/95 : ( Reference for a
                                                                        preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden ):
3 . If the answers to Questions 1 and 2 are in the negative :           Saueressig GmbH & Co . v . Forbo-Krommenie BV.
     where the competent authority of destination has raised
     no objections or has consented to the shipment, may
                                                                        (') OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .
     the waste be shipped after the period specified in
     Article 7 ( 2 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 259/93 has passed,
     notwithstanding the objections raised by the competent
     authority of dispatch, if a legal remedy brought against
     the objections has suspensive effect under national
     law ?
4 . May the shipment of the waste referred to in Question 1
     be effected, despite the objections raised by the                         Removal from the register of Case C-3 50/95 (')
     competent authority of dispatch, if the competent                                              ( 96/C 210/28 )
     authority of destination has stamped the consignment
     note , even if the basis of the objections is that the waste
    will not be recovered but disposed of ( objection under             By order of 15 April 1996 , the President of the Court of
     the first or fifth indent of Article 7 ( 4 ) ( a ) of Regulation  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
     ( EEC ) No 259/93 )?                                               from the register of Case C-350/95 : Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities v. Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg.
(') OJ No L 30 , 6 . 2 . 1993 , p . 1 .
                                                                        (') OJ No C 351 , 30 . 12 . 1995 .


title: Case C-458/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 3 October 2014  — Promoimpresa srl v Consorzio dei Comuni della Sponda Bresciana del Lago di Garda e del Lago di Idro, Regione Lombardia

text:
               15.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 448/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 3 October 2014 — Promoimpresa srl v Consorzio dei Comuni della Sponda Bresciana del Lago di Garda e del Lago di Idro, Regione Lombardia
   (Case C-458/14)
   (2014/C 448/14)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Promoimpresa srl

      Defendants: Consorzio dei Comuni della Sponda Bresciana del Lago di Garda e del Lago di Idro, Regione Lombardia

      Question referred

   Do the principles of freedom of establishment, non-discrimination and safeguarding competition, respectively laid down in Articles 49, 56 and 106 TFEU, and the precept of reasonableness implicit therein, preclude national legislation under which the validity of concessions of economically significant publicly-owned maritime, lakeside and waterway assets is to be repeatedly extended through a succession of legislative acts, the duration of that validity being statutorily increased for at least 11 years, with the effect that the same concessionaire retains the exclusive right to exploit the asset economically, even though the period of validity under the concession awarded to that concessionaire has meanwhile expired, whereby interested economic operators are deprived of any opportunity of obtaining a concession for the asset on the basis of a public tendering procedure?


title: Action brought on 30 October 1998 by Elizabeth Cotrim against the European Centre for Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP) (Case T-180/98)

text:
C 397/34             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  19.12.98
Ð the putting in order, without delay, of the Justus                     corresponding to two thirds of the installation
    Lipsius Building so that it conforms with the                        allowance paid upon her entry into service;
    requirements of the Community and Belgian laws and
    regulations;
                                                                    Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
Ð the adoption of effective information and training                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    measures for staff with respect to safety.
                                                                    On 1 April 1997 the applicant entered in the service of
That request was expressly rejected by a decision of                CEDEFOP, pursuant to a contract of two years' duration,
12 January 1998.                                                    as a member of its temporary staff, in order to work as a
                                                                    grade C 5 secretary. She was paid an installation
The applicant point out that the Council is obliged, as             allowance pursuant to Article 24(1) of the Conditions of
employer, to guarantee the safety, health and quality of            employment of other servants of the European
environment of its officials at their place of work.                Communities.
In support of their action, the applicants rely on a single         By letter of 28 January 1998, the Commission offered her
plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of care and                a position as a typist in DG XI. Having accepted that
assistance, infringement of the building regulations of the         offer, the applicant gave to the defendant, by note dated
Brussels conurbation, infringement of the rules on safety,          31 January 1998, notice of her intention to terminate her
protection of health and quality of the environment at              employment, in accordance with Article 8 of her contract.
places of work, and manifest error of assessment.                   The two-month period covered by that notice commenced
                                                                    on 1 February 1998 and ended on 31 March 1998. The
                                                                    applicant took up her duties in DG XI on 1 April 1998.
                                                                    In support of her case, the applicant maintains that she
                                                                    has worked without interruption in the service of the
                                                                    Communities since 1 April 1997. She claims that, by
                                                                    deciding to proceed to recover two thirds of the
Action brought on 30 October 1998 by Elizabeth Cotrim               installation allowance paid upon her entry into service, the
against the European Centre for Development of                      defendant has infringed Article 5(5) of Annex VII of the
              Vocational Training (CEDEFOP)                         Staff Rergulations. In taking the view that, by moving
                      (Case T-180/98)                               from CEDEFOP to the Commission, the applicant had
                       (98/C 397/66)                                voluntarily left the service of the Communities, the
                                                                    defendant committed a manifest error of assessment,
               (Language of the case: French)                       having regard to its legal status and to the task assigned
                                                                    to it.
An action against the European Centre for Development
                                                                    The applicant considers that the retention by the
of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP) was brought before
                                                                    Commission of two thirds of the installation allowance
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                    paid to her is contrarty to Article 85 of the Staff
on 30 October 1998 by Elizabeth Cotrim, residing at
                                                                    Regulations, having regard to the defendant's standard
Winkelse (Belgium), represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis and
                                                                    practice, agreed with the Commission, of paying the
FrancËoise Permentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address
                                                                    whole of the installation allowance to its staff upon their
for service in Luxembourg at the Offices of Fiduciaire
                                                                    recruitment.
Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.
                                                                    In the alternative, the applicant maintains that, according
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                    to Article 5(5) of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations, the
                                                                    defendant has acted unlawfully in                demanding
Ð annul CEDEFOP's decision of 9 March 1998 requiring                reimbursement of over half of the installation allowance
    the applicant to repay the sum of BEF 50 102,                   paid to her.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 September 2004 in Case T-14/04 Alto da Casablanca SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Representation by a lawyer — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               22.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/24

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 9 September 2004
   in Case T-14/04 Alto da Casablanca SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Representation by a lawyer - Manifest inadmissibility)
   (2005/C 19/52)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case T-14/04, Alto da Casablanca SA, established in Casablanca (Chile), represented by A. Pluckrose, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: O. Montalto), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM being Bodegas Julián Chivite, SL, established in Cintruénigo (Spain) – application for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 November 2003 (Case R 18/2003-2) concerning an application for registration of the word mark VERAMONTE as a Community trade mark – the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) composed of P. Lindh, President, R. Garcia-Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 9 September 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               (1)

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible;

               (2)

               Each party shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 71 of 20.3.2004.


title: Case T-634/15: Action brought on 12 November 2015 — Frinsa del Noroeste v OHIM — Frigoríficos Unidos (Frinsa LA CONSERVA)

text:
               18.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/48

         Action brought on 12 November 2015 — Frinsa del Noroeste v OHIM — Frigoríficos Unidos (Frinsa LA CONSERVA)
   (Case T-634/15)
   (2016/C 016/57)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Frinsa del Noroeste, SA (Santa Eugenia de Ribeira, Spain) (represented by: J. Botella Reyna, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Frigoríficos Unidos, SA (Riudellots de la Selva, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘FRINSA LA CONSERVA’ — Application for registration No 11 495 728

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 July 2015 in Case R 2382/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Priority rights in respect of the term FRINSA and peaceful coexistence on the market and in the registration of the allegedly conflicting marks.

               —

               Well-known character of the mark FRINSA.

               —

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


title: Case T-29/03: Action brought on 27 January 2003 by Comunidad Autónoma de Andalucía against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 70/32                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        22.3.2003
In support of its application, the applicant contests the                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
economic approach adopted in relation to the facts by the
Commission which, on the one hand, defined as the relevant                 —     annul the decision of 11 November 2002 of the Director
market the Italian geographic market but which, on the other                     General of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) which,
hand, completely overlooked the fact that the average price of                   as an internal service of the Commission of the European
reinforced concrete in Italy has always been, on average, less                   Communities, declares inadmissible the complaint lodged
than that in the other States.                                                   by the Junta de Andalucía.
Furthermore, S.P. contests the use of documents by the
Commission to substantiate its charges, in particular the                  Pleas in law and main arguments
memorandum of a partner undertaking which, in the Com-
mission’s view, provided useful information to understand the
way in which the accused undertaking operated, without such                The applicant in the present proceedings contests the rejection
documents having been notified to the applicant during the                 of the complaint submitted by Counsellor for Agriculture and
proceeding. Moreover, although the Commission was in                       Fisheries to the Director General of the Anti-Fraud Office
possession of them, it failed to mention that it had made use              (OLAF) after becoming aware of the existence of Report IO/
of such cooperation, preventing the applicant from adopting a              2000/7057 concerning the investigations carried out by OLAF
position in good time in relation to the charges made against              into possible irregularities in the olive oil sector in Spain,
it. In that respect also, the applicant seeks the annulment of             concentrating in particular on the territory of the Comunidad
the decision on the ground of a serious breach of the rights of            Autónoma de Andalucía.
defence.
                                                                           In support of its arguments, the applicant alleges:
S.P. further alleges error of law, in particular the misapplication
of Article 65 ECSC, claiming that the contested objections do              —     infringement of the principles of legality, in that OLAF’s
not contain sufficient evidence to support the existence of an                   activities covered areas over which there is no judicial
agreement or concerted practices.                                                oversight, and of equality, inasmuch as such conduct
                                                                                discriminated against any legal or natural person who is
                                                                                not an official, agent or staff of the Community insti-
Finally, S.P. further contests the methods adopted by the                        tutions, who alone may lodge administrative complaints
Commission when determining the fines to be imposed, in                          against OLAF’s conduct.
particular the multiplier and the increment linked to the
allegedly uninterrupted duration of the alleged infringements              —     infringement of the fundamental right of defence.
and to the alleged extreme seriousness, which has not been
proven, of the infringements.
                                                                           —     that OLAF must accept the complaint in issue by analogy
                                                                                with the provisions of Article 14 of Regulation No 1073/
                                                                                1994, and reply to the substantive questions raised in the
                                                                                aforementioned complaint.
Action brought on 27 January 2003 by Comunidad
Autónoma de Andalucía against Commission of the Euro-
                        pean Communities
                                                                           Action brought on 30 January 2003 by The General
                                                                           Workers Union in Denmark (Specialarbejderforbundet i
                          (Case T-29/03)                                   Danmark ‘SID’) against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                          (2003/C 70/51)
                                                                                (Case T-30/03)
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                                (2003/C 70/52)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 27 January 2003 by Comunidad
Autónoma de Andalucía, Seville (Spain), represented by Car-                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
men Carretero Espinosa de los Monteros, lawyers.                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the


title: Case T-325/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 February 2008 — Citigroup v OHIM — Link Interchange Network (WORLDLINK) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark WORLDLINK — Earlier national figurative mark LiNK — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Restriction of services covered in the trade mark application — Identity of services — Similarity of signs — Articles 73 and 74 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/26

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 February 2008 — Citigroup v OHIM — Link Interchange Network (WORLDLINK)
   (Case T-325/04) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark WORLDLINK - Earlier national figurative mark LiNK - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Restriction of services covered in the trade mark application - Identity of services - Similarity of signs - Articles 73 and 74 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2008/C 92/52)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Citigroup, Inc. formerly Citicorp (New York, New York, United States) (represented initially by: V. von Bomhard, A. Renck, A. Pohlmann, lawyers and C. Schulte, Solicitor, and subsequently by V. von Bomhard and A. Renck)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Link Interchange Network Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. McFarland, Barrister, and R. Brown, Solicitor)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 May 2004 (Case R 789/2002-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Link Interchange Network Ltd and Citigroup, Inc.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Citigroup, Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 273, 6.11.2004.


title: Case T-249/04: Action brought on 21 June 2004 by Philippe Combescot against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               28.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/33

         Action brought on 21 June 2004 by Philippe Combescot against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-249/04)
   (2004/C 217/59)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 21 June 2004 by Philippe Combescot, represented by Alberto Maritati and Viola Messa, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that the conduct of Mr Combescot's superiors and its effect on his professional life, career and therefore on his state of health is absolutely unlawful and, in consequence recognise the right to assistance laid down by Article 24 of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               declare the career development report (CDR) to be unlawful as a result of the serious and irremediable enmity between the applicant and his hierarchical superior;

               —

               recognise Mr Cambescot's entitlement to compensation for loss sustained, both for non-material damage and in respect of his professional life and career, to be assessed in a sum not less than EUR 1 000.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicant in the present case alleges that he suffered as a result of the conduct of his immediate hierarchical superior in the form of threats, intimidation and personal and professional humiliation during the period in which the applicant was a resident adviser to the Commission's Delegation to Guatemala. The conduct in question amounted to discrimination which damaged his professional life and had serious effects on his state of health.
   The refusal to accede to the application for assistance within the meaning of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations should therefore be regarded as unlawful. The CDR for the period in question should also be regarded as unlawful.


title: Case T-131/02: Action brought on 23 April 2002 by Travelex Global and Financial Services Limited and Interpayment Services Limited against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 169/38                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    13.7.2002
applicant’s view, the competitive factor should have been 1.               European Communities on 23 April 2002 by Travelex Global
The German Government therefore applied for an increase of                 and Financial Services Limited and Interpayment Services
the notified aid and requested a corrective adjustment of the              Limited, represented by Mr Claude Delcorde of Dechert Price
factor from 0,75 to 1. The Commission refused that appli-                  & Rhoads, London (United Kingdom).
cation and informed the German Government that it did not
regard it as possible to make the requested adjustment.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
In its application, the applicant submits that, in adopting its            —     order that, pursuant to the second paragraph of
decision of 5 February 2002, the Commission failed to observe                    Article 288 EC, the Commission make good the damage
the principle of collegiality and the duty to state reasons, acted               caused to the applicants by paying them the sum of
in breach of, first, essential formal and procedural requirements                £ 25,5 million;
and, second, a provision to be applied in implementing the EC
Treaty and made improper use of its discretion.                            —     order that the Commission pay the costs of this appli-
                                                                                cation.
The failure to comply with essential formal requirements
consists in, first, the insufficient reasons on which the decision
was based. Furthermore, the Commission made improper use                   Pleas in law and main arguments
of its discretion by misinterpreting the underlying facts in such
a way that it avoided opening the investigation procedure even
though it should, at least, have conducted a preliminary                   The terms of this application are substantially similar to those
examination. Thus, the Commission failed to comply with the                of the application lodged in Case T-195/00 Thomas Cook and
procedural requirements laid down in Regulation No 659/                    Interpayment Services -v- Commission (1).
1999, which are intended to safeguard the rights of the
Member States and of the applicant. The applicant’s right to a
hearing was restricted.                                                    (1) OJ C 302, of 21.10.00, p. 24.
Moreover, the applicant submits that the Commission failed
to observe and/or misapplied the content of the provisions of
the multisectoral framework on regional aid and that it
wrongly and incompletely assessed the underlying facts. This
is shown, in particular, by the fact that the Commission failed            Action brought on 25 April 2002 by Greencore Group
to recognise the possibility of amending approved aid without              plc against the Commission of the European Communities
withdrawing it.
                                                                                (Case T-135/02)
Finally, the applicant contends that this is a case of unequal
treatment because, in another decision adopted at the same                                         (2002/C 169/68)
time on planned aid in the same sector, the capacity utilisation
rate of the relevant NACE class was correctly taken into
account whereas it was wrongly disregarded in the contested                                  (Language of the case: English)
decision.
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 25 April 2002 by Greencore
                                                                           Group plc, represented by Mr Alexander Böhlke of Kemmler
                                                                           Rapp Böhlke, Brussels (Belgium).
Action brought on 23 April 2002 by Travelex Global and
Financial Services Limited and Interpayment Services
Limited against the Commission of the European Com-                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                               munities
                                                                           —     annul Commission Decision BUDG/C-2/RVT/49076 of
                          (Case T-131/02)                                        11 February 2002;
                                                                           —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                          (2002/C 169/67)
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  By the current action, the applicant challenges the Decision to
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 refuse to pay interest on part of the competition fine imposed


title: Case C-541/11: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 January 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče — Slovenia) — Jožef Grilc v Slovensko zavarovalno združenje GIZ (Article 104(3), second subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure — Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Directive 2000/26/EC — Compensation bodies — Claim for compensation brought before a national court)

text:
               16.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/2

         Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 January 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče — Slovenia) — Jožef Grilc v Slovensko zavarovalno združenje GIZ
   (Case C-541/11) (1)

   (Article 104(3), second subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure - Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directive 2000/26/EC - Compensation bodies - Claim for compensation brought before a national court)
   2013/C 79/02
   Language of the case: Slovenian

      Referring court

   Vrhovno sodišče

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Jožef Grilc

      Defendant: Slovensko zavarovalno združenje GIZ

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Vrhovno sodišče — Interpretation of Article 6(1), first subparagraph, of Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 May 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (Fourth motor insurance Directive) (OJ 2000 L 181, p. 65) — Meaning of ‘claim for compensation’ and ‘responsible for providing compensation’ — Capacity of the compensation body to be a defendant in legal proceedings

      Operative part of the order

   Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 May 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (Fourth motor insurance Directive) must be interpreted as meaning that, on the one hand, the injured party may claim compensation for the harm suffered from the compensation body in accordance with the conditions set out in that article and, on the other, that claim must necessarily first have been submitted to the compensation body, without prejudice to the injured party’s right, if necessary, subsequently to bring an action before the court having territorial jurisdiction if that claim has been rejected by that compensation body.

      (1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.


title: Case F-1/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14 February 2007 — Fernández Ortiz v Commission (Officials — Recruitment — Probationary period — Dismissal after the end of the probationary period)

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/55

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14 February 2007 — Fernández Ortiz v Commission
   (Case F-1/06) (1)

   (Officials - Recruitment - Probationary period - Dismissal after the end of the probationary period)
   (2007/C 82/116)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Fernández Ortiz (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Iturriagagoitia Bassas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, L Lozano Palacios and L. Escobar Guerrero, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the decision whereby the Commission of the European Communities dismissed the applicant after the end of his probationary period.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 74 of 25.3.2006.


title: Case T-21/07: Action brought on 29 January 2007 — L'Oréal v OHIM — Spa Monopole (SPALINE)

text:
               24.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/23

         Action brought on 29 January 2007 — L'Oréal v OHIM — Spa Monopole (SPALINE)
   (Case T-21/07)
   (2007/C 69/51)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: L'Oréal SA (Paris, France) (represented by: E. Baud, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: SA Spa Monopole, Compagnie fermière de Spa, en abrégé SA Spa Monopole NV (Spa, Belgium)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 October 2006 in Case R 415/2005-1;

               —

               order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant and, if appropriate, the intervener.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The community word mark ‘SPALINE ’for the goods in class 3 (bath and shower soaps, skin moisturizers, body lotions, skin toners, astringents, skin and body cleansers, facial masks, scrubs and fragrance products) — application No 989 236

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: SA Spa Monopole NV

      Mark or sign cited: The national and international word and figurative marks ‘SPA’, ‘LIP SPA’, ‘SPA SKIN CARE ’and ‘Les Thermes de Spa ’for goods in classes 3, 32, 42

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: The applicant develops one single plea in law in support of its application, on the basis of which it claims that the contested decision infringes Article 8(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94.
   The applicant first argues that the contested decision failed to properly assess the requirements for the application of Article 8(5) of the CTMR, insofar as it did not take into consideration and therefore totally disregarded the descriptive and generic character of the word ‘spa ’in relation to cosmetics in the Benelux territory.
   In particular, the applicant submits that the contested decision did not correctly assess several requirements provided for under Article 8(5) of the CTMR since, contrary to the findings of the First Board of Appeal, the signs at stake are not similar visually, phonetically or conceptually for the relevant consumer to establish a link between them. Moreover, the applicant suggests that the use of the ‘SPALINE ’Community trade mark is not capable of taking unfair advantage of the reputation of the earlier Benelux trade mark ‘SPA ’and, finally, that it is not used without due cause.


title: Case C-393/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) on 25 July 2011 — Autorità per l’Energia Elettrica e il Gas v Antonella Bertazzi and Others

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) on 25 July 2011 — Autorità per l’Energia Elettrica e il Gas v Antonella Bertazzi and Others
   (Case C-393/11)
   2011/C 282/28
   Langague of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato (Italy).

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Autorità per l’Energia Elettrica e il Gas.

      Defendants: Antonella Bertazzi, Annalise Colombo, Maria Valeria Contin, Angela Filippina Marasco, Guido Giussani, Lucia Lizzi, Fortuna Peranio.

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 75(2) of Legislative Decree No112/08, which completely disregards length of service under fixed-term working contracts with independent administrative authorities in cases where the workers concerned are established exceptionally — in derogation from the principle in Article 36(5) of Legislative Decree No 165/01 — following ‘selection tests’ which are not comparable with public competitions on the basis of ordinary tests (seeking the optimal employment of successful candidates in the posts to be filled) but which are nevertheless capable of establishing, exceptionally, what should be regarded as a new working relationship valid ‘ex nunc’, compatible, in that it is justified on objective grounds, with clause 4, paragraphe 4, of the Annex to Directive 1999/70/CE, (according to which ‘period-of-service qualifications relating to particular conditions of employment shall be the same for fixed-term workers as for permanent workers except where different length-of service qualifications are justified on objective grounds’)?

               2.

               or is it contrary to Directive 1999/70/CE — thereby necessarily implying refusal to apply the above-mentioned national provision — not to take account not only of length of service but also of the career progression achieved at the date of establishment, in its entirety or in respect of the part exceeding either the length of service required for access to those selection tests, or any safeguard measures which the national legislature may be empowered to adopt for the purposes of protecting, within reasonable limits, the positions of successful competition candidates?


C 323/42               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                  21.12.2002
        Removal from the register of Case T-149/01 (1)                           Removal from the register of Case T-150/01 (1)
                        (2002/C 323/69)
                                                                                (2002/C 323/70)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 30 September 2002 the President of the Fourth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case                By order of 27 September 2002 the President of the Fourth
T-149/01: Bruno Heim and Franz Gustav Andersson v Office                 Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
for the Harmonization of the Internal Market (Trade Marks                Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
and Designs) (OHIM).                                                     T-150/01: Cristiano Sebastiani v Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities.
( 1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
                                                                         (1 ) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.