title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 18 May 1995 in Case C-327/92 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van Beroep, The Hague): Rheinhold & Mahla NV v. Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging voor de Metaalnijverheid (Social security - Duty of a main contractor to pay contributions not paid by a defaulting subcontractor)

text:
No C 159/4              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                        24 . 6 . 95
3 . Article 59 does not preclude national rules which, in                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      order to protect investor confidence in national financial                                 ( Sixth Chamber)
      markets, prohibit the practice of making unsolicited
      telephone calls to potential clients resident in other                                    of 18 May 1995
      Member States to offer them services linked to                  in Case C-327/92 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
      investment in commodities futures.                              the Raad van Beroep, The Hague ): Rheinhold & Mahla
                                                                      NV v. Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging voor de
                                                                                Metaalnijverheid ( a )
(!) OJ No C 256 , 21 . 9 . 1993 .
                                                                      (Social security — Duty of a main contractor to pay
                                                                            contributions not paid by a defaulting subcontractor)
                                                                                ( 95/C 159/08 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
                         of 10 May 1995
in Case C-417/93 : European Parliament v. Council of the
                       European Union (*)                             In Case C-327/92 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                      of the EC Treaty by the Raad van Beroep ( Social Security
(Technical assistance to the independent States of the                Court ), The Hague ( Netherlands ), for a preliminary ruling
former Soviet Union and to Mongolia — Consultation of                 in the proceedings pending before that court between
                          the Parliament)                             Rheinhold        &    Mahla         NV       and Bestuur  van     de
                           ( 95/C 159/07 )                            Bedrijfsvereniging voor de Metaalnijverheid ( Board of the
                                                                      Professional and Trade Association for the Metal Industry)
                                                                      on the interpretation of Council Regulation ( EEC )
                 (Language of the case: French)                       No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social
                                                                      security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed
                                                                      persons and to members of their families moving within the
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be          Community, as consolidated by Council Regulation ( EEC )
          published in the European Court Reports)                    No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983 (2 ) and of Article 51 of the EEC
                                                                      Treaty — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of F. A.
                                                                      Schockweiler, President of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn,
In Case C-417/93 : European Parliament (Agent: C.                     G. F. Mancini, C. N. Kakouris , and J. L. Murray
Pennera ) v. Council of the European Union ( Agents : A. A.           ( Rapporteur ), Judges; C. Gulmann, Advocate-General;
Dashwood and C. Giorgi ) — application for the annulment              H. A. Riihl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
of Council Regulation ( Euratom, EEC ) No 2053/93 of                  given a judgment on 18 May 1995 , in which it has
19 July 1993 concerning the provision of technical                    ruled :
assistance to economic reform and recovery in the
independent States of the former Soviet Union and
Mongolia ( 2 ) — the Court, composed of G. C. Rodriguez                I. Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971
Iglesias, President, F. A. Schockweiler, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C.                on the application of social security schemes to
Gulmann, P. Jann ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini,                  employed persons, to self-employed persons and to
C. N. Kakouris ( Rapporteur ), J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,                    members of their families moving within the
J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Pui'ssochet, G. Hirsch                 Community, as consolidated by Council Regulation
and L. Sevôn, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate-General; L.                         (EEC) No 2001 /83 of2 June 1 983, applies to legislation
Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment                   which, like the Coordinatiewet Sociale Verzekering,
on 10 May 1995 of which the operative part is as                             coordinates the various branches of social security in a
follows :                                                                    Member State.
                                                                      2 . Provisions which, like Article 16b (5) and Article 16b (8)
1 , the application is dismissed;
                                                                             ofthe Coordinatiewet Sociale Verzekering, make a main
                                                                             contractor liable for social security contributions left
                                                                             unpaid by a defaulting subcontractor do not fall within
2 , the Parliament is ordered to pay the costs.
                                                                             the scope of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 .
í 1 ) OJ No C 306 , 12 . 11 . 1993 .                                  í 1 ) OJ No C 228 , 4 . 9 . 1992 .
(2 ) OJ No L 187, 29 . 7. 1993 , p. 1 .                                ( 2 ) OJ No L 230 , 22 . 8 . 1983 , p . 6 .


title: Case C-323/07: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy)) — Termoraggi SpA v Comune di Monza (Public procurement — Public service and public supply contracts — Award without call for tenders — Award by a local authority to an undertaking whose capital it controls)

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/11

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy)) — Termoraggi SpA v Comune di Monza
   (Case C-323/07) (1)

   (Public procurement - Public service and public supply contracts - Award without call for tenders - Award by a local authority to an undertaking whose capital it controls)
   (2008/C 171/19)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia
   Parties

      Applicant: Termoraggi SpA

      Defendant: Comune di Monza

      Intervener: Acqua Gas Azienda Municipale (AGAM)
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Interpretation of Article 6 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1) — Scope — National provisions attributing, outside of the procedures for the award of public works contracts laid down in the directive, the management of heating installations of certain buildings in a commune to a municipal undertaking
   Operative part of the order
   Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts and Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts do not apply to a contract concluded between a local authority and a person legally distinct from it, where the local authority exercises over the person concerned a control which is similar to that which it exercises over its own departments and, at the same time, that person carries out the essential part of its activities with the controlling local authority or authorities.
   Article 6 of Directive 92/50 is applicable only if there are legislative, regulatory or administrative provisions published which grant the beneficiary an exclusive right concerning the subject-matter of the contract awarded.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 6.10.2007.


title: Case T-118/13: Judgment of the General Court of 22 June 2016 — Whirlpool Europe v Commission (Actions for annulment — State aid — Household appliances — Restructuring aid — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market, subject to compliance with certain conditions — Decision taken following the annulment by the Court of the earlier decision concerning the same procedure — Lack of individual concern — No substantial effect on the competitive position — Inadmissibility)

text:
               1.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 June 2016 — Whirlpool Europe v Commission
   (Case T-118/13) (1)

   ((Actions for annulment - State aid - Household appliances - Restructuring aid - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market, subject to compliance with certain conditions - Decision taken following the annulment by the Court of the earlier decision concerning the same procedure - Lack of individual concern - No substantial effect on the competitive position - Inadmissibility))
   (2016/C 279/38)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Whirlpool Europe BV (Breda, Netherlands) (represented by: F. Wijckmans and H. Burez, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, É. Gippini Fournier and P.-J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Electrolux AB (Stockholm, Sweden), represented by F. Wijckmans and H. Burez, lawyers)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, D. Colas and J. Bousin, acting as Agents) and Fagor France SA (Rueil-Malmaison, France) (represented by: J. Derenne and A. Müller-Rappard, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision 2013/283/EU of 25 July 2012 on State aid SA.23839 (C 44/2007) that France plans to grant to FagarBrandt (OJ 2013 L 166, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

               2.

               Orders Whirlpool Europe BV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

               3.

               Orders the French Republic, Electrolux AB and Fagor France SA to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 141, 18.5.2013.


title: Case C-240/09: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia)) — Lesoochranárske zoskupenie VLK v Ministerstvo životného prostredia Slovenskej republiky (Environment — Aarhus Convention — Public participation in the decision-making process and access to justice in environmental matters — Direct effect)

text:
               30.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 130/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia)) — Lesoochranárske zoskupenie VLK v Ministerstvo životného prostredia Slovenskej republiky
   (Case C-240/09) (1)

   (Environment - Aarhus Convention - Public participation in the decision-making process and access to justice in environmental matters - Direct effect)
   2011/C 130/07
   Language of the case: Slovakian

      Referring court

   Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Lesoochranárske zoskupenie VLK

      Defendant: Ministerstvo životného prostredia Slovenskej republiky

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic — Interpretation of Article 9(3) of the Council Decision of 17 February 2005 on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Aarhus Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters (OJ 2005 L 124, p. 1) — Direct effect of that provision — Interpretation of the concept of ‘acts of public authorities’ — Inclusion or not of the decisions of a public authority, the unlawfulness of which lies in their effect on the environment

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 9(3) of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005 does not have direct effect in European Union law. It is, however, for the referring court to interpret, to the fullest extent possible, the procedural rules relating to the conditions to be met in order to bring administrative or judicial proceedings in accordance with the objectives of Article 9(3) of that convention and the objective of effective judicial protection of the rights conferred by European Union law, in order to enable an environmental protection organisation, such as the Lesoochranárske zoskupenie, to challenge before a court a decision taken following administrative proceedings liable to be contrary to European Union environmental law.

      (1)  OJ C 233, 26.9.2009.


title: Case T-637/11: Action brought on 15 December 2011 — Euris Consult v Parliament

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/41

         Action brought on 15 December 2011 — Euris Consult v Parliament
   (Case T-637/11)
   2012/C 32/82
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Euris Consult Ltd (Floriana, Republic of Malta) (represented by: F. Moyse, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Directorate-General for Translation of the European Parliament taken in the framework of call for tenders MT/2011/EU, concerning provision of translation services into Maltese, rejecting at the opening the offer submitted by the applicant for breach of confidentiality;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant;

               —

               order that the applicant be permitted to seek damages for harm caused by the contested decision.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           violation of Article 98, paragraph 1, of the Financial Regulation, Article 143 of the Implementing Rules and Article 2.4 of call for tenders MT/2011/EU, and thus the inapplicability exception under Article 277 TFEU;

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           violation of the principle of proportionality;

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           violation of the principle of equal treatment;

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           violation of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in that the contracting authority failed to hear the applicant before adopting the contested decision;

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the contested decision was not sufficiently reasoned.


title: Case T-247/09: Action brought on 16 June 2009 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/43

         Action brought on 16 June 2009 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
   (Case T-247/09)
   2009/C 205/79
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and M. Dermitzakis, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the Commission’s decision to reject the bid of the applicant, filed in response to the open Call for Tenders AO 10186 for the ‘Production and dissemination of the Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union: TED website, OJS DVD-ROM and related Offline and Online media’ (OJ 2009/S 2-001445), communicated to the applicant by a letter dated 7 April 2009, and all further decisions of the Commission including the one to award the contract to the successful contractor;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant’s damages suffered on account of the tendering procedure in question for an amount of EUR 1 490 215,58;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant’s legal costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if the current application is rejected.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the present case the applicant seeks the annulment of the defendant’s decision to reject its bid submitted in response to a call for an open tender for services of production and dissemination of the Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union: TED website, OJS DVD-ROM and related Offline and Online media (AO 10186) and to award the contract to the successful contractor. The applicant further requests compensation for the alleged damages in account of the tender procedure.
   In support of its claims the applicant puts forward following pleas in law.
   First, the applicant claims that the defendant committed various and manifest errors of assessment and that it refused to provide any justification or explanation to the applicant in breach of the financial regulation (1) and its implementing rules as well as in breach of directive 2004/18 (2) and of Article 253 EC. It states that the Commission never informed the applicant on the relative merits of the winning tenderer as it was obliged, despite the applicant’s written request. In the applicant’s opinion the comments given by the Commission were vague, unsubstantiated and telegraphic and do not constitute reasonable motivation. The applicant further argues that the Commission corrected ex-post the motivation of the contested decision after the evaluation committee reviewed its report and decided to remove a comment regarding the successful tenderer.
   Second, the applicant claims that the defendant infringed Articles 106 and 107 of the financial regulation as well as the principles of transparency and of non-discrimination by not excluding tenderers relying on work performed in non WTO/GPA countries; should it allow this participation, the applicant contends that it should proceed on a fair, transparent and non-discriminatory manner, clarifying the selection criteria it would use for excluding certain companies or accepting others.
   Third, the applicant claims that the defendant committed manifest errors of assessment in respect of the applicant’s bid in comparison with other tenderers and that it failed to state reasons as the negative considerations given by the evaluation committee in respect to the applicant’s bid were vague and unsubstantiated.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1)

      (2)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114)


title: Case C-472/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen (Sweden) lodged on 20 October 2014  — Canadian Oil Company Sweden AB, Anders Rantén v Riksåklagaren

text:
               15.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 448/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen (Sweden) lodged on 20 October 2014 — Canadian Oil Company Sweden AB, Anders Rantén v Riksåklagaren
   (Case C-472/14)
   (2014/C 448/19)
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Högsta domstolen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Canadian Oil Company Sweden AB, Anders Rantén

      Defendant: Riksåklagaren

      Questions referred

               1)

               Does it run counter to REACH (1) that a person who, in the course of a business, imports a chemical product into Sweden — in respect of which there is an obligation to notify under REACH — must notify it in accordance with the Swedish legislation to the Kemikalieinspektionen for registration in the Swedish product register?

               2)

               If the answer to question 1 is negative, does the Swedish obligation to notify run counter to Article 34 TFEU, having regard to the exceptions in Article 36 TFEU?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1).


title: Case T-589/11: Action brought on 17 November 2011 — Phonebook of the World v OHIM — Seat Pagine Gialle (PAGINE GIALLE)

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/28

         Action brought on 17 November 2011 — Phonebook of the World v OHIM — Seat Pagine Gialle (PAGINE GIALLE)
   (Case T-589/11)
   2012/C 32/58
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Phonebook of the World (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Bertrand, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Seat Pagine Gialle SpA (Milan, Italy)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 August 2011 in case R 1541/2010-2;

               —

               Annul the registration of the Community trade mark ‘PIAGINE GIALLE’ No 161380, registered in classes 16 and 35 by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘PAGINE GIALLE’, for goods and services in classes 16 and 35 — Community trade mark registration No 161380

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The party requesting the declaration of invalidity grounded its request for invalidity pursuant to Article 52(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, namely that the Community trade mark was registered in breach of the provisions of Article 7(1)(c) and (d) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the request for declaration of invalidity

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Articles 7(1)(b) to 7(1)(d) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal refused to apply the general principles of community law, and especially the principles set by the judgement rendered by the Court of First Instance in case T-322/03, Telefon & Buch/OHMI — Herold Business Data (WEISSE SEITEN), and also refused to apply its own findings, that the words ‘PAGINE GIALLE’ were devoid of any distinctive character for the Italian public.


title: Action brought on 14 July 1995 by etablissements J. Richard Ducros against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-149/95)

text:
No C 248/ 16            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      23 . 9 . 95
He states in this connection that his staff report for the             — order the Parliament to pay the costs .
period 1991 /93 was notified to him only on 1 July 1994,
belatedly in relation to what is laid down in the provisions           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
applicable; notification in fact took place after publication
of the list of officials most deserving of promotion drawn up
by Directorate-General XX for 1994 . When examining the                The applicant challenges the decision by the Parliament,
                                                                       notified by letter of 29 September 1994 , to take steps to
applicant's case, the promotions committee therefore had
available only a belated and inaccurate staff report, since it         recover, pursuant to Article 85 of the Staff Regulations, part
was subsequently amended after the applicant had                       of the household allowance that she had been receiving from
submitted a compliant. The applicant concludes that the list           1 June 1987 corresponding to the prime de menage paid to
of officials most deserving of promotion drawn up on that              her husband by the Luxembourg authorities over the same
basis by the promotions committee, and the subsequent                  period . She considers that the rule against overlapping
promotion decisions adopted by the appointing authority,               benefits is not applicable in her case, since both the legal
are void pursuant to Article 45 of the Staff Regulations .             nature and the conditions for granting the household
                                                                       allowance are completely different from those governing the
                                                                       prime de menage.
The applicant states further that the promotions committee
committed a manifest error of assessment in calculating his
seniority in the grade . He considers that that seniority              The applicant points out in this connection that under
should have been calculated from 1985 , the date on which              Luxembourg legislation the prime de menage: ( a ) is
he was promoted to LA 5 , and not from 1989 , the date on              contractual in nature; ( b ) is paid regardless of family
which he was appointed to Grade A 5 having succeeded in                expenses; and ( c ) is subject to tax. She concludes that despite
internal competition COM/2/87 for transfer from the                    its name, the prime de menage is not a family allowance , in
Language Service to Category A.                                        contrast to the household allowance paid by the European
                                                                       Communities .
Action brought on 13 July 1995 by Genevieve Pavan against              Action brought on 14 July 1995 by etablissements
                     the European Parliament                           J. Richard Ducros against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                         ( Case T-l 47/95 )
                           ( 95/C 248/35 )                                                      ( Case T-149/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 248/36 )
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
An action against the European Parliament was brought
before the Court of First Instance on 13 July 1995 by                  An action against the Commission of the European
Genevieve Pavan, resident in Luxembourg, represented by                Communities was brought before the Court of First
Alain Lorang, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for               Instance of the European Communities on 14 July 1995 by
service in Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers, 51 Rue                 Etablissements J. Richard Ducros, established in Paris,
Albert ler .                                                           represented by Philippe Genin, of the Lyons Bar, with an
                                                                       address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                       Aloyse May, 31 Grand-rue .
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the decision adopted on 29 September 1994 by the
     European Parliament pursuant to Article 85 of the Staff           — annul the decision of the Commission closing the
     Regulations,                                                           procedure which it had initiated,
— declare that the prime de menage received by the                     — order the defendant to pay costs .
     applicant's husband should not be set off against the
     household allowance received by her,
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— declare that the European Parliament should reimburse                The applicant, a public limited liability company
     all the sums improperly retained pursuant to the decision          incorporated under French law, engaged in the metal
     of 29 September 1994 ,                                             construction and boiler-marking sector, contests the
                                                                        Decision of the Commission, published in the Official
— declare that the applicant should receive in their entirety          Journal of the European Communities of 16 May 1995
     all the household allowance payments that should have              under No C 120, p. 4 , in which it decided to close the
     been paid from December 1994 ,                                     procedure initiated on 11 March 1992 under Article 93 ( 2 )
 ---pagebreak--- 23 . 9 . 95          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 248/ 17
of the Treaty of Rome and to authorize the aid granted to           The applicant claims that the Court should :
CMF SUD and CMF by the Italian authorities in the form of
successive financial contributions .
                                                                    — annul in its entirety the Commission decision set out in
                                                                         its Notice C 25/94 ( ex N 11 /94 ) concluding that aid
According to the applicant, it is because of the public                 which the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg proposed
financing in favour of those two undertakings that, when                 granting to ProfilARBED SA conformed to Article 3 of
tenders were sought by the Marseilles Chamber of                         Commission Decision No 3855/91 /ECSC and was thus
Commerce and Industry in relation to certain works to be                 compatible with the common market,
carried out at Marseilles airport, the tender submitted by
CMF SUD was preferred to that submitted by the applicant.
The difference between the prices tendered by the two               — order the Commission to pay the costs of the action
companies was found upon comparison to amount to                         including those of the applicant.
33% .
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The Commission decided not to oppose the financial
contributions at issue, on the basis of commitments given by
the Italian authorities in the context of a privatization           The applicant, an association representing British Iron and
programme undertaken by Iritecna, the parent company of             Steel producers, challenges the Commission Decision ,
CMF SUD and CMF . Those commitments consisted in                    reproduced in Commission Notice C 25/94, declaring
particular of the liquidation of CMF SUD and of the                 compatible with the Common market an aid which
privatization of CMF by no later than 30 June 1995 .                the Luxembourg authorities proposed to grant to Arbed
                                                                    for the construction of a new electric steel plant at the
The applicant maintains that the contested aid is illegal ,         Esch-Shifflange steel complex, replacing the existing LDAC
since it was authorized in contravention of Article 93 ( 3 )        Steel complex. The contested Decision concludes that the
of the Treaty and such illegality cannot be regularized             aid is compatible with the common market because it is in
retroactively. According to the applicant, the Commission           conformity with Article 3 of the Fifth Steel Aid Code ( SAC ),
disregarded the conditions governing the grant of aid to            which authorizes the grant of aid for environmental
undertakings in difficulties, as defined in the strict approach     protection in certain circumstances .
taken in the ' Eighth Report on Competition Policy' and the
communication concerning 'New Community guidelines on               The applicant submits that the contested decision purports
State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty '.     to interpret Article 3 of the fifth SAC as providing that an aid
There was never any plausible aim of making the recipient           may be qualified as environmental aid where it is to be used
undertakings viable ; no requirement was imposed in                 for the construction of new plant, and that such an
relation to any serious recovery plan; and, lastly, those           interpretation is contrary to the plain and unambiguous
 undertakings have received aid on four occasions, whereas it       wording of Article 3 of the Fifth SAC, according to which
 should not have been necessary to provide restructuring aid        aid granted to steel undertakings for bringing them into line
 more than once .                                                   with new statutory environmental standards may be
                                                                    deemed compatible with the common market.
                                                                    The point of view of the Commission presupposes that the
                                                                    same principles of interpretation should be applicable to all
                                                                    forms of aid for environmental protection whether
                                                                    authorized under the EC Treaty or the ECSC Treaty .
                                                                    However, whereas the EC Treaty permits the granting of aid
 Action brought on 19 July 1995 by The British Iron and              by Member States in certain circumstances set out in
 Steel Producers ' Association against Commission of the             Article 92 , Article 4 ( c ) of the ECSC Treaty provides that all
                   European Communities                              subsidies or aids granted by States in any form whatsoever
                        Case T-150/95 )                              are to be prohibited .
                         ( 95/C 248/37 )
                                                                     On the other hand the SAC is, in itself, a derogation from the
                                                                     ECSC principle of prohibition of State aid, prompted by the
                Language of the case: English                        severe problems that ECSC undertakings had and have still
                                                                     to face . The applicant considers, therefore, on the basis of an
                                                                     overriding principle of law, that derogations from a Treaty
 An action against the Commission of the European                    principle should be interpreted restrictively and that the
 Communities was brought before the Court of First                   Commission may not seek to bring the Fifth SAC within the
 Instance of the European Communities on 19 July by The              EC framework on environmental aid by purporting to
 British Iron and Steel Producers' Association , represented         interpret Article 3 ( 1 ) of the Fifth SAC more broadly .
 by John Boyce and Philip Raven, Solicitors of Slaughter &
 May, London, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
 the Chambers of Wagner & Rukevina, 10a Boulevard de la
 Foire .


title: Case F-37/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 19 November 2015 — van der Spree v Commission (Civil service — Remuneration — Termination of service — Article 6(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Resettlement allowance at the base rate of two months’ basic salary — Applicant’s change of residence — Residence of the applicant’s daughter — Proof)

text:
               11.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/36

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 19 November 2015 — van der Spree v Commission
   (Case F-37/15) (1)

   ((Civil service - Remuneration - Termination of service - Article 6(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Resettlement allowance at the base rate of two months’ basic salary - Applicant’s change of residence - Residence of the applicant’s daughter - Proof))
   (2016/C 007/47)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Daniel van der Spree (Eischoll, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and T.S. Bohr, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s request to be paid double the resettlement allowance following his relocation to Switzerland.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Declares that Mr van der Spree is to bear his own costs and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 178, 1/6/2015, p. 26.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 May 2005 in Case C-335/04: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2000/43/EC — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

text:
               9.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/5

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 4 May 2005
   in Case C-335/04: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2000/43/EC - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)
   (2005/C 171/10)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-335/04, Commission of the European Communities (Agents: D. Martin and H. Kreppel) v Republic of Austria (Agent: E. Riedl) — action for failure to fulfil obligations brought pursuant to Article 226 EC on 30 July 2004 — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, P. Kūris and J. Klučka (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 4 May 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 239 of 25.09.2004.


20150731042616992015/C 270/443072015TC27020150817EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20150605353621Case T-307/15: Action brought on 5 June 2015 — 1&1 Telecom v Commission
 ---documentbreak--- C2702015EN3510120150605EN0044351362Action brought on 5 June 2015 — 1&1 Telecom v Commission
   (Case T-307/15)2015/C 270/44Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: 1&1 Telecom GmbH (Montabaur, Germany) (represented by: J. Murach, J. Schmidt and R. Klotz, lawyers, and P. Alexiadis, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            annul the European Commission’s decision C(2014) 4443 adopted on 2 July 2014 in Case No COMP/M.7018 — Telefónica Deutschland/E-Plus (the ‘Decision’) declaring the concentration between Telefónica Deutschland Holding AG and EPlus Mobilfunk GmbH & Co. KG compatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement, subject to Telefónica’s compliance with the commitments set out in the Annexes to the Decision; and

            —

            order the Commission to bear its own costs and those of the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

            1.

            First plea in law, alleging that in establishing whether the Concentration gives rise to a significant impediment to effective competition (‘SIEC’), the Commission infringed essential procedural requirements by failing to state reasons, including its duty of care, and engaged in a manifest error in the application of EU merger control rules in relation to:

                     —

                     the omission to conduct an analysis of the vertical effects of the Concentration;

                     —

                     the insufficiency of the reasoning in support of the conclusion that it can be left open whether the Concentration gives rise to an SIEC on the wholesale market for access and call origination in Germany; and

                     —

                     the insufficiency of the reasoning as regards conclusions drawn regarding horizontal coordinated effects in the wholesale market for access and call origination and in the retail mobile telecommunications market in Germany.

            2.

            Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed serious errors of law and manifest errors of assessment when it:

                     —

                     accepted the Final Commitments proposed by Telefónica;

                     —

                     concluded that these Final Commitments would address in full the SIEC; and

                     —

                     authorised the Concentration subject to Telefónica’s compliance with the Final Commitments.

            3.

            Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission, in adopting its Decision, misused its powers by taking account policy considerations unrelated to competition rather than pursuing the competition objectives of the Treaties and the European Union Merger Regulation (‘EUMR’) (
                  1
               ).

      (
         1
      )	Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation) (OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1).


title: Case T-562/08: Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2014  — Repsol Lubricantes y Especialidades and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements — Paraffin waxes market — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price fixing and division of markets — Proof of the existence of the agreement — Duration of the infringement — 2006 Guidelines for calculating the amount of fines — Equal treatment — Presumption of innocence — Whether unlawful conduct attributable — Liability of a parent company for infringements of the competition rules committed by its subsidiaries — Decisive influence exercised by the parent company — Presumption in the case of a 100 % shareholding)

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/40

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2014 — Repsol Lubricantes y Especialidades and Others v Commission

   (Case T-562/08) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements - Paraffin waxes market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price fixing and division of markets - Proof of the existence of the agreement - Duration of the infringement - 2006 Guidelines for calculating the amount of fines - Equal treatment - Presumption of innocence - Whether unlawful conduct attributable - Liability of a parent company for infringements of the competition rules committed by its subsidiaries - Decisive influence exercised by the parent company - Presumption in the case of a 100 % shareholding))
   (2015/C 046/48)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Repsol Lubricantes y Especialidades, SA, formerly Repsol Lubricantes YPF y Especialidades, SA (Madrid, Spain); Repsol Petróleo, SA (Madrid); and Repsol, SA, formerly Repsol YPF, SA (Madrid) (represented by: J. M. Jiménez-Laiglesia Oñate, J. Jiménez-Laiglesia Oñate and S. Rivero Mena, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, F. Castilla Contreras and C. Urraca Caviedes, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C (2008) 5476 final of 1 October 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.181 — Candle Waxes) and application for a reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Repsol Lubricantes y Especialidades, SA, Repsol Petróleo, SA, and Repsol, SA, to bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.


title: Case C-488/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Debreceni Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 31 October 2012 — Sándor Nagy v Hajdú-Bihar Megyei Kormányhivatal

text:
               16.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Debreceni Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 31 October 2012 — Sándor Nagy v Hajdú-Bihar Megyei Kormányhivatal
   (Case C-488/12)
   2013/C 79/04
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Debreceni Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sándor Nagy

      Defendant: Hajdú-Bihar Megyei Kormányhivatal

      Questions referred

               1.

               Can Article 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that that provision is intended to guarantee the possibility of a legal remedy only for unlawful and unjustified dismissal?

               2.

               Does that provision mean that an employer is bound to provide the employee with reasons in writing on dismissal and the dismissal will then not be unjustified?

               3.

               Does failure to communicate reasons in itself make the measure unlawful or may the employer state reasons subsequently in the course of any employment litigation?


title: Case C-455/01: Action brought on 27 November 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
6.4.2002                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 84/39
       (ii) assignable                                                   Action brought on 27 November 2001 by the Com-
                                                                         mission of the European Communities against the Italian
       before they can be described a ‘goods’ that fall within the                                      Republic
       provisions of 1993 Regulations and/or in the Directive?
                                                                                (Case C-455/01)
                                                                                (2002/C 84/68)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungs-
gerichtshof (Austria) by order of 19 October 2001 in the
case of 1. Margarete Ospelt, 2. Schlössle Weissenberg                    An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
Familienstiftung v Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des                     Court of Justice on 27 November 2001 by the Commission of
                        Landes Vorarlberg                                the European Communities, represented by Richard B. Wain-
                                                                         wright and Roberto Amorosi, acting as Agents.
                         (Case C-452/01)
                          (2002/C 84/67)                                 The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
                                                                         —     Declare that, by keeping in force legislation under which
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         products in respect of which there has not yet been full
European Communities by order of 19 October 2001 by the                        harmonisation, intended for use on merchant vessels
Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Higher Administrative Court, Aus-                      flying the Italian flag, may be marketed only if a certificate
tria), which was received at the Court Registry on 22 November                 of conformity has been issued by a national body — so
2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of 1. Margarete                     that in some cases the right to market the products is
Ospelt, 2. Schlössle Weissenberg Familienstiftung v Unabhän-                   enjoyed only by the grantee of the certificate — and by
giger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Vorarlberg on the following                  not recognising the validity of tests carried out in
questions:                                                                     accordance with international standards by bodies
                                                                               officially recognised in the other Member States or States
1.     Are Article 12 EC (ex Article 6 of the EC Treaty) and                   signatory to the EEA Agreement, even where the relevant
       Article 56 EC et seq. (ex Article 73b et seq. of the EC                 information is made available to the competent authority
       Treaty) to be interpreted as meaning that rules whereby                 and it is clear from the certificates that the equipment
       transactions in agricultural and forestry plots are subject             guarantees an equivalent degree of safety, the Italian
       to restrictions imposed by the administrative authorities               Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
       in the public interest of preserving, strengthening or                  Articles 28 and 30 of the Treaty;
       creating a viable farming community are also permitted
       in relation to Member States of the EEA as ‘third countries’      —     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
       under Article 56(1) EC (ex Article 73b of the EC Treaty)
       having regard to the fundamental freedoms guaranteed
       by an applicable law of the European Union, in particular
       the free movement of capital?
                                                                         Pleas and principal arguments
2.     In the event that the first question is answered in the
       affirmative:
       Are Article 12 EC (ex Article 6 of the EC Treaty) and
                                                                         The slavish application — when not justified by overriding
       Article 56 EC et seq. (ex Article 73b et seq. of the EC
                                                                         requirements — to goods lawfully produced and marketed in
       Treaty) to be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the
                                                                         other Member States of rules laid down for domestically
       appellant must, in the case of transfers of agricultural and
                                                                         produced goods, and in particular the refusal to take account,
       forestry plots, undergo an ‘authorisation procedure’ even
                                                                         for the purposes of issuing ‘type approval declarations’, of
       before the property right is entered in the land register,
                                                                         certificates accompanying such goods, even where they contain
       pursuant to the (Voralberg) Gesetz über den Verkehr mit
                                                                         the information needed to assess how safe they are, undoubt-
       Grundstücken (Land Transfer Law — VGVG 1993)
                                                                         edly constitutes a measure having an effect equivalent to a
       published in Voralberg LGBl. No 61/1993, entails an
                                                                         quantitative restriction on imports which is liable to hinder
       infringement of Community law and of one of the
                                                                         intra-Community trade.
       appellant’s fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the law
       of the European Union, which is also applicable to
       Member States of the EEA as ‘third countries’ under
       Article 56(1) EC (ex Article 73b of the EC Treaty)?               The foregoing is common ground. At issue is the measure
                                                                         adopted by the Italian State in order to adjust its domestic
                                                                         legislation to the principles laid down in Community law once
 ---pagebreak--- C 84/40                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        6.4.2002
such legislation has been found to be non-compliant. It is            Pleas in law and main arguments
untenable to think that service order No 57/2000 of 4 August
2000 issued by the authority governing harbourmasters is
capable of amending Decree No 347/94 containing the                   Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94
contested provisions.                                                 on the Community trade mark (2). Contrary to the view of the
                                                                      Court of First Instance, the mark applied for lacks distinctive
                                                                      character. At the time of the application, neither the tablet
                                                                      shape nor the colour combination, and especially the combi-
In the Commission’s view, the Italian authorities are well aware
                                                                      nation of the two, were typical for a washing powder and they
of the above considerations, as is clear from the undertaking
                                                                      were certainly not technically necessary.
given several times — but so far not fulfilled — to make the
necessary amendments to Presidential Decree No 347/94 in
order to bring Italian legislation into line with Community
law.                                                                  Contrary to the view taken by the Court of First Instance, there
                                                                      is no reason why consumers should in principle be regarded
                                                                      as less attentive when purchasing goods for everyday use;
                                                                      rather, the opposite is true.
                                                                      In the alternative: even if the time of registration were decisive,
                                                                      the possibility cannot be ruled out that the contested trade
                                                                      mark application could serve to designate the origin of the
                                                                      goods, since it is prohibited, when considering the list of
                                                                      goods, to rule out distinctiveness on the grounds that there
Appeal brought on 28 November 2001 by Henkel KGaA                     may be similarities between the goods. That approach conflates
against the judgment delivered on 19 September 2001 by                to an unacceptable degree the issue of registrability with that
the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of                  of scope of protection, or likelihood of confusion. Even where
the European Communities in Case T-335/99, between                    a mark is confusingly similar, it is for the proprietor of the
Henkel KGaA and the Office for Harmonization in the                   mark having priority to obtain refusal of the earlier mark
         Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                    under Article 8 of Regulation 40/94.
                        (Case C-456/01 P)
                                                                      (1) Not yet published in the court reports.
                                                                      (2) OJ L 11, p. 1.
                          (2002/C 84/69)
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 19 September
2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities in Case T-335/99, between Henkel
                                                                      Appeal brought on 28 November 2001 by Henkel KGaA
KGaA and the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
                                                                      against the judgment delivered on 19 September 2001 by
(Trade Marks and Designs) (1), was brought before the Court of
                                                                      the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
Justice of the European Communities on 28 November
                                                                      the European Communities in Case T-336/99, between
2001 by Henkel KGaA, represented by Rechtsanwälte Holger
                                                                      Henkel KGaA and the Office for Harmonization in the
Friedrich Wissel and Dr. Christian Osterrieth, Düsseldorf, with
                                                                               Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                                (Case C-457/01 P)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (2002/C 84/70)
—     partially annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance
      of the European Communities of 19 September 2001 in
      Case T-335/999, served on 1 October 2001;
                                                                      An appeal against the judgment delivered on 19 September
      annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the          2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of              the European Communities in Case T-335/99, between Henkel
      21 September 1999 in Case R 71/1999-3 relating to               KGaA and the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
      Community trade mark application number 703 231;                (Trade Marks and Designs) (1), was brought before the Court of
                                                                      Justice of the European Communities on 28 November
                                                                      2001 by Henkel KGaA, represented by Rechtsanwälte Holger
—     order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market       Friedrich Wissel and Dr. Christian Osterrieth, Düsseldorf, with
      to pay the costs of the proceedings.                            an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Case T-792/14 P: Judgment of the General Court of 17 March 2016 — Vanhalewyn v EEAS (Appeal — Civil Service — Officials — Remuneration — EEAS staff posted to a third country — Withdrawal of the allowance for living conditions of staff posted to Mauritius — Failure to adopt the GIP for Article 10 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations)

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/37

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 March 2016 — Vanhalewyn v EEAS
   (Case T-792/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil Service - Officials - Remuneration - EEAS staff posted to a third country - Withdrawal of the allowance for living conditions of staff posted to Mauritius - Failure to adopt the GIP for Article 10 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations))
   (2016/C 156/48)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Eric Vanhalewyn (Grand-Baie, Mauritius) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European External Action Service (EEAS) (represented by: S. Marquardt and M. Silva, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 25 September 2014 in Osorio and Others v EEAS (F-101/13, ECR-SC, EU:F:2014:223), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 25 September 2014 in Osorio and Others v EEAS (F-101/13) in so far as it dismisses the action brought by Mr Eric Vanhalewyn;

               2.

               Annuls the decision of the Chief Operating Officer of the European External Action Service (EEAS) of 19 December 2012 revising the amount of the allowance for living conditions (ALC) granted to staff posted in a third country in so far as that decision withdraws the ALC laid down in Article 10 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union for officials and other servants posted to Mauritius;

               3.

               Orders the EEAS to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.


title: Case T-371/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2012 — Monier Roofing Components v OHIM (CLIMA COMFORT) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark CLIMA COMFORT — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Right to be heard — Second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Ex officio examination of the facts — Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2012 — Monier Roofing Components v OHIM (CLIMA COMFORT)
   (Case T-371/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark CLIMA COMFORT - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Right to be heard - Second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Ex officio examination of the facts - Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2012/C 366/65
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Monier Roofing Components (Oberursel, Germany) (represented by: F. Ekey, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 April 2011 (Case R 2026/2010-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign CLIMA COMFORT as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Monier Roofing Components GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.


title: Case T-165/00: Action brought on 19 June 2000 by Consorzio Industrie Fiammiferi (CIF) against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 247/34               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     26.8.2000
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           —     award the applicant the sum of 25 000 euros, or such
                                                                                greater or lesser sum as may be determined in the course
The applicant in the present case contests the decision of her                  of the proceedings, by way of compensation for his
immediate superior relieving her from the position of team                      having been rejected for that vacant post and, therefore,
leader in the Italian translation section.                                      the loss of a chance of promotion;
                                                                          —     order the Commission to pay all the costs.
In support of her claim, she puts forward the following pleas:
—     her immediate superior was not competent to adopt the               Pleas in law and main arguments
      contested measure, inasmuch as her appointment as team
      leader had been decided on by the Director of Translation
      himself;                                                            The applicant contests the rejection of his application for the
                                                                          post of Head of Unit, corresponding to Vacancy Notice
—     breach of essential procedural requirements, inasmuch as            COM/091/99 IV/E/2 ‘Basic industries’.
      the Staff Regulations Committee was not consulted;
                                                                          In support of his claim, the applicant pleads:
—     infringement of the rights of the defence, inasmuch as
      the applicant was not given an opportunity to express a             —     infringement of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations and of
      view before the contested measure was adopted;                            the obligation to state reasons;
—     breach of the obligation to state the reasons for measures.         —     infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, of the
                                                                                promotions procedure and of the principle of equal
                                                                                treatment;
                                                                          —     infringement of Article 7 of the Staff Regulations;
                                                                          —     the existence in the present case of a manifest error of
                                                                                assessment and misuse of powers.
Action brought on 16 June 2000 by Carmelo Morello
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-164/00)
                         (2000/C 247/60)
                                                                          Action brought on 19 June 2000 by Consorzio Industrie
                    (Language of the case: French)                        Fiammiferi (CIF) against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on 16 June                                     (Case T-165/00)
2000 by Carmelo Morello, residing in Brussels, represented by
Jacques Sambon and Pierre Paul van Gehuchten, of the Brussels                                      (2000/C 247/61)
Bar.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                  (Language of the case: Italian)
—     annul the Commission’s decision to appoint another
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      official to post COM/091/99 IV/E/2 ‘Basic industries’,
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      corresponding to an A5/A4 Head of Unit post;
                                                                          European Communities on 19 June 2000 by, Consorzio
                                                                          Industrie Fiammiferi (CIF), represented by Antonio Tizzano
—     annul the decision not to accept the applicant’s appli-             and Gian Michele Roberti, of the Naples Bar.
      cation for post COM/091/99 IV/E/2, being a Head of Unit
      post;
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     award the applicant the sum of 100 000 euros, or such
      greater or lesser sum as may be determined in the course            —     annul the decision of the European Commission con-
      of the proceedings, by way of compensation for the non-                   tained in the letter from the Secretariat General of 7 April
      material damage suffered by the applicant as a result of                  2000, refusing access to certain documents concerning
      the inappropriate or incomplete information compiled                      Commission proceedings in relation to the system of
      by the defendant in relation to the applicant’s individual                production and sale of matches in Italy;
      file, and the state of uncertainty and anxiety in which he
      has found himself regarding his professional future;                —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 26.8.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 247/35
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Commission. In those circumstances, the choice of recruitment
                                                                          procedure was not determined in accordance with the interests
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case               of the service.
T-107/00 Consorzio Industrie Fiammiferi v Commission (1).
                                                                          The applicant further claims that, since he had been eligible
(1) Not yet published in the Official Journal.
                                                                          for promotion to grade A4 since 1 April 1998, the contested
                                                                          decision of 13 December 1999, appointing him to the post
                                                                          which he had been occupying for over two years, necessarily
                                                                          removed the obligation to consider the possibility of promot-
                                                                          ing him.
Action brought on 19 June 2000 by Peter Hirschfeldt
         against the European Environment Agency
                          (Case T-166/00)
                                                                          Action brought on 19 June 2000 by ‘D’ against the
                         (2000/C 247/62)                                           Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-167/00)
                   (Language of the case: French)
An action against the European Environment Agency was                                              (2000/C 247/63)
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 19 June 2000 by Peter Hirschfeldt, residing
in Copenhagen, represented by Jean-Noël Louis and Véronique                                  (Language of the case: French)
Peere, of the Brussels Bar.
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 19 June 2000 by ‘D’, residing in
—     annul the decision to annul internal competition                    Luxembourg, represented by Jean-Noël Louis and Véronique
      EEA/T/99/1, notified to the applicant by letter of 27 Sep-          Peere, of the Brussels Bar.
      tember 1999;
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of 13 December 1999 concerning the
      transfer of the applicant from the Commission to the
                                                                          —     annul the Commission’s decision of 20 August 1999
      European Environment Agency, inasmuch as it classifies
                                                                                refusing to recognise his civil status as a party to a ‘stable
      him in step 3 of grade A5 with effect from 1 November
                                                                                homosexual union’ and to grant him and his partner all
      1999;
                                                                                the resulting entitlements including, in particular, cover
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                     under the Joint Sickness and Accident Insurance Scheme,
                                                                                the benefit of the household allowance and the rights
                                                                                conferred by the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 including the right not to be subject to immigration
                                                                                restrictions or to formalities for the registration of aliens;
The applicant pleads as follows in opposition to the contested
                                                                          —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
decisions:
—     infringement of Articles 8, 45 and 27 of the Staff
      Regulations;                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
—     infringement of Article 5 of the Staff Regulations and of           The applicant, a Commission official, concluded with a partner
      the principle of equal treatment;                                   of the same sex, in accordance with the Catalan Law of
                                                                          15 July 1998, a solemn partnership agreement (‘unión estable
—     a misuse of powers in the present case.                             homosexual’). According to the applicant, that agreement
                                                                          creates reciprocal rights and obligations on the part of the
According to the applicant, the annulment of competition                  partners, including in particular the obligation to contribute to
EEA/T/99/1 was decided upon in consequence of an inter-                   household expenses and joint expenditure. The applicant
institutional agreement between the Commission and the                    subsequently submitted a request for recognition of his civil
defendant Agency, according to which a transfer procedure                 status as a party to a ‘unión estable homosexual’ and for the
was chosen in preference to a competition, with a view to                 grant of the household allowance. By the contested decision,
avoiding the risk of the applicant being established in the               the Commission classified the applicant as an unmarried
Agency whilst at the same time retaining his post in the                  person and refused to grant him a household allowance.


title: Case T-367/11: Order of the General Court of 21 October 2013 — Lyder Enterprises v CPVO — Liner Plants (1993) (SOUTHERN SPLENDOUR) (Plant varieties — Application for a Community plant variety right for the plant variety SOUTHERN SPLENDOUR — Objections — Rejection of the application by the Board of Appeal of the CPVO — Competence of the CPVO — Taking of evidence — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               7.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 359/11

         Order of the General Court of 21 October 2013 — Lyder Enterprises v CPVO — Liner Plants (1993) (SOUTHERN SPLENDOUR)
   (Case T-367/11) (1)

   (Plant varieties - Application for a Community plant variety right for the plant variety SOUTHERN SPLENDOUR - Objections - Rejection of the application by the Board of Appeal of the CPVO - Competence of the CPVO - Taking of evidence - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
   2013/C 359/20
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Lyder Enterprises Ltd (Auckland, New Zealand) (represented by: G.J. Pickering, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the CPVO, intervener before the General Court: Liner Plants (1993) Ltd (Waitakere, New Zealand) (represented by: P.S. Jonker, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 4 May 2011 (Case A 7/2010), concerning the grant of a Community plant variety right for the plant variety SOUTHERN SPLENDOUR

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Lyder Enterprises Ltd shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.


title: Case T-27/05: Action brought on 14 January 2005 by Carmela Lo Giudice against Commission of the European Communities

text:
               2.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/40

         Action brought on 14 January 2005 by Carmela Lo Giudice against Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-27/05)
   (2005/C 82/71)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 14 January 2005 by Carmela Lo Giudice, residing in Strombeek-Bever (Belgium), represented by F. Frabetti and G. Bounéou, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul the appraisal exercise for the year 2003 (the period from 01.01.2003 to 31.12.2003);

               2.

               if not, annul the decision of 4 May 2004 which closed the applicant's career development report (CDR) for the period from 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003;

               3.

               decide on the costs, expenses and fees and order the Commission of the European Communities to pay them.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, a Commission official, was on sick leave from 1 December 2003 to 10 May 2004. During that period the Commission established her career development report without her participation in it.
   In support of her action, the applicant first of all claims that the creation, as part of the new system of establishing career development reports, of computer files directly completed on the screen and stored in the computer staff management system, is equivalent to the creation of parallel files in breach of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations.
   The applicant also claims that the lack of any participation by her in the establishment of the report infringes Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, the General Provisions for implementing that article, as well as the principles of sound administration, non-discrimination and prohibition of arbitrary procedures. In the same context, the applicant pleads abuse of power, failure to state reasons, infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and of the rule ‘Patere legem quam ipse fecisti’ (obey the rules which you yourself have made), as well as breach of the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials.


title: Case C-235/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Crown Office), by order of that court of 1 June 2000, in the case of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise against CSC Financial Services Ltd (formerly Continuum (Europe) Ltd)

text:
12.8.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 233/21
      communication of a document would ‘be generally                    Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Crown
      prejudicial to secrets protected by law’. That concept is          Office) of 1 June 2000, which was received at the Court
      not amongst the exhaustive list of exceptions set out in           Registry on 13 June 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case
      Article 3(2) of Directive 90/313/EEC. It is not the same           of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise against CSC
      thing as, and is no less extensive in the area it covers           Financial Services Ltd (formerly Continuum (Europe) Ltd), on
      than, the concept in the directive of ‘confidentiality of          the following questions:
      data’. Even though national authorities are required to
      interpret provisions of domestic law in such a way as to           How is the exemption provided by article 13B(d)(5) (1) in
      ensure compliance with Community law, the wording of               respect of ‘transactions in securities’ to be interpreted? In
      Law No 78-753 is not sufficient objectively to exclude             particular,
      the possibility of a refusal that is not justified under the
      directive, and, contrary to the obligations which follow           (1) does the term ‘transaction in securities’ apply only to a
      from Community law, the legal appearance creates a legal                 transaction in which the parties’ legal rights or obligations
      uncertainty which cannot be allowed.                                     in respect of the security are altered?
—     Failure to transpose the final paragraph of Article 3(2)           (2) does the term ‘transactions, including negotiation, in
      (partial communication of information): A doctrine set                   securities’ apply to a service of providing information to
      out by the (French) ‘Commission on Access to Admi-                       potential investors and receiving and processing applica-
      nistrative Documents’ is no substitute for the correct                   tions from investors for the issue of a security (but not
      transposition of a directive conferring rights on indivi-                including preparing and dispatching the document of
      duals.                                                                   title to the security), where that service is provided to a
                                                                               person who has legal rights or obligations under the
                                                                               security by a person who does not have any legal right or
—     Failure to transpose Article 3(3) (possibility of refusing a
                                                                               obligation under the security?
      manifestly unreasonable request, or one requiring the
      communication of unfinished or internal documents):
      Whilst it is true that Article 3(3) of the directive states        (1) Of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on
      merely a possibility that is open to Member States and                 the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
      not an obligation, it appears that that possibility of                 turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
      rejecting requests is in fact used by the French administra-           basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 13.06.77, p. 1).
      tion when faced with certain requests for information,
      and that individuals are not in a position to discover with
      the required clarity what the limits of their right of access
      to information are, since the assessment of the exceptions
      is carried out only on a case by case basis by the
      administrative courts.
                                                                         Action brought on 13 June 2000 by the Commission of
                                                                         the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
—     Incorrect transposition of Article 3(4) (Possibility of no
                                                                                Luxembourg
      reasons being given for implied rejection decisions).
                                                                                (Case C-236/00)
( 1) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990, p. 56.
                                                                                (2000/C 233/40)
                                                                         An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                         brought before the Court of Justice on 13 June 2000 by the
                                                                         Commission of the European Communities, represented by
                                                                         Gérard Berscheid, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
                                                                         address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                         Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                  Kirchberg.
Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division
(Crown Office), by order of that court of 1 June 2000, in                The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the case of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise                      the Court should:
against CSC Financial Services Ltd (formerly Continuum
                           (Europe) Ltd)                                 —     declare that, by failing to bring into force within the
                                                                               prescribed time-limits the laws, regulations and admi-
                                                                               nistrative measures necessary in order to comply with:
                         (Case C-235/00)
                                                                               —      Commission Directive 98/51/EC of 9 July 1998
                         (2000/C 233/39)                                              laying down certain measures for implementing
                                                                                Council Directive 95/69/EC laying down the condi-
                                                                                tions and arrangements for approving and registe-
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                ring certain establishments and intermediaries ope-
European Communities by an order of the High Court of                                 rating in the animal feed sector (1), and


title: Case C-516/06 P: Appeal brought on 20 December 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 27 September 2006 in Case T-153/04 Ferriere Nord SpA v Commission of European Communities

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/14

         Appeal brought on 20 December 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 27 September 2006 in Case T-153/04 Ferriere Nord SpA v Commission of European Communities
   (Case C-516/06 P)
   (2007/C 42/23)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Di Bucci and F. Amato, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Ferriere Nord SpA
   Form of order sought

               —

               The Court is asked to set aside the judgment appealed against in so far as it declares admissible the action for annulment brought by Ferriere Nord against the Commission's letter of 5 February 2004 and its fax of 13 April 2004;

               —

               declare inadmissible and accordingly dismiss the action for annulment brought by Ferriere Nord against the contested acts;

               —

               order Ferriere Nord to pay the costs of the proceedings, together with the costs of the proceedings at first instance.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In so far as it declares admissible the action brought at first instance, the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2006 in Case T-153/04 Commission of the European Communities v Ferriere Nord SpA infringes the first paragraph of Article 230 EC, read in conjunction with Article 249 EC, concerning the interpretation of the concept of an act against which proceedings can be brought, fails to state reasons or states incorrect reasons and is vitiated by a lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Court of First Instance.
   The Court of First Instance did not demonstrate that the contested acts produced binding legal effects likely to affect the interests of the applicant at first instance, thereby bringing about a significant change in its legal position. The Court of First Instance also based its finding of admissibility on the assumption, also unsubstantiated, that a presumption of lawfulness attached to the acts contested at first instance. Lastly, the Court of First Instance exceeded the powers conferred on it by the Treaty.


               17.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/1

         Decisions adopted by the Court of Justice at its general meeting on 16 May 2006
   (2006/C 143/03)
   At its meeting on 16 May 2006, the Court of Justice of the European Communities decided to assign Mr Tizzano to the Third and Sixth Chambers.
   The composition of the Third and Sixth Chambers is accordingly as set out below.
   Third Chamber
   A. Rosas, President of the Chamber
   J. Malenovský, J.-P. Puissochet, S. von Bahr, A. Tizzano, A. Borg Barthet, U. Lõhmus and A. Ó Caoimh.
   Sixth Chamber
   J. Malenovský, President of the Chamber
   J.-P. Puissochet, S. von Bahr, A. Tizzano, A. Borg Barthet, U. Lõhmus and A. Ó Caoimh.


title: Case C-160/16: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 March 2017 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Energy policy — Energy performance of buildings — Directive 2010/31/EU — Article 5(2) — Report on cost-optimal levels)

text:
               18.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/8

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 March 2017 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-160/16) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Energy policy - Energy performance of buildings - Directive 2010/31/EU - Article 5(2) - Report on cost-optimal levels))
   (2017/C 121/11)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Zavvos and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: N. Dafniou, acting as Agent)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               declares that, since the Hellenic Republic failed to submit a report on cost-optimal levels, as is laid down in Article 5(2) of Directive 2010/31/ΕU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings, as supplemented by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 244/2012 (2) of 16 January 2012 establishing a comparative methodology framework for calculating cost-optimal levels of minimum energy performance requirements for buildings and building elements, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(2) of Directive 2010/31.

               2.

               orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.