title: Case C-304/10: Action brought on 22 June 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/22

         Action brought on 22 June 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-304/10)
   ()
   2010/C 246/38
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Wilderspin and D. Milanowska, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to ensure application of Council Directive 2004/82/EC of 29 April 2004 on the obligation of carriers to communicate passenger data, (1) or, in any event, by not informing the Commission of those provisions, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of that directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period within which Directive 2004/82 had to be transposed expired on 5 September 2006.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 261, p. 24.


title: Case F-80/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 23 October 2013 — Gomes Moreira v ECDC (Civil Service — Temporary staff — Anticipated termination of a fixed-term contract — Breach of trust — Disciplinary misconduct)

text:
               21.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 377/20

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 23 October 2013 — Gomes Moreira v ECDC
   (Case F-80/11) (1)

   (Civil Service - Temporary staff - Anticipated termination of a fixed-term contract - Breach of trust - Disciplinary misconduct)
   2013/C 377/44
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Joaquim Paulo Gomes Moreira (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (represented by: A. Ammon, Agent, initially, and subsequently R. Trott, Agent, D. Waelbroek and A. Duron, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision to terminate the applicant’s contract for disciplinary reasons and for payment of a sum by way of compensation for the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of 11 October 2010 in so far as it suspended the applicant from his duties;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 319, 29.10.2011, p. 30.


title: Case T-319/14: Action brought on 30 April 2014  — Drogenhilfe Köln Projekt v OHIM (Rauschbrille)

text:
               7.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/38

         Action brought on 30 April 2014 — Drogenhilfe Köln Projekt v OHIM (Rauschbrille)
   (Case T-319/14)
   2014/C 212/49
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Drogenhilfe Köln Projekt gGmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by V. Schoene, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 29 January 2014 in Case R 1356/2013-1 and refer the case back to OHIM for reconsideration

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Rauschbrille’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 41 and 44

      Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case T-346/13: Action brought on 2 July 2013 — Hellenic Republic v Commission

text:
               24.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/15

         Action brought on 2 July 2013 — Hellenic Republic v Commission
   (Case T-346/13)
   2013/C 245/19
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Khalkias, X. Basakou and A. Vasilopoulou)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission implementing decision of 2 May 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), notified under document C(2013) 2436 and published at OJ 2013 L 123, as regards the part relating to the Hellenic Republic; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In relation to the financial corrections imposed by the contested Commission implementing decision of 2 May 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), notified under document C(2013) 2436 and published at OJ 2013 L 123, in so far as that decision imposes on the Hellenic Republic a financial correction totalling EUR 6 175 094,49 for expenditure incurred by it within the framework of the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, in Axis 2, 2007-13, area related measures in the financial years 2009 and 2010 (claim years 2008 and 2009), the Hellenic Republic puts forward the following pleas for annulment:
   By the first plea for annulment, the Hellenic Republic submits that the decision lacks a lawful basis and a statement of reasons as regards the proposed flat rate correction of 5 % because the on-the-spot controls carried out of all the commitments entered into were not undertaken on all the agricultural parcels that are referred to in the aid applications for the years relevant to the investigation.
   By the second plea for annulment, the Hellenic Republic contends that the decision concerning the imposition of a flat rate correction of 2 % because deficiencies were found in the traceability of the AEM control reports generally, in breach of Article 28(1) of Commission Regulation No 796/2004, (1) was adopted in error as to the facts, and in any event reasons are not stated for the decision.
   By the third plea for annulment, the Hellenic Republic asserts that the decision lacks a lawful basis and a statement of reasons as regards the imposition of a flat rate correction of 2 % in the separate matters ‘Organic Farming’ and ‘Organic Livestock Production’, since, apart from the carrying out, proved during the procedure, of specific controls relating to the measures in question by specialist accredited organic-crop control bodies, the Paying Agency was also obliged to carry out its own controls.
   By the fourth plea for annulment, the Hellenic Republic submits that the principle of proportionality is infringed by the proposed flat rate correction of 5 % because certain commitments and, specifically, those relating to the use of fertiliser, plant protection products, pesticides or other related substances are monitored mainly visually. The reasons stated for the Commission decision are inadequate or otherwise contradictory.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (OJ 2004 L 141, p. 18).


title: Case F-42/08: Action brought on 31 March 2008 — Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               21.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 158/27

         Action brought on 31 March 2008 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-42/08)
   (2008/C 158/50)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, avvocato)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   The subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Confirmation of the fact that, on 18 March 2002, the Delegation of the European Commission in Angola despatched by fax a note, dated 18 March 2002 and addressed to the applicant, to a tele-fax machine which was neither under the applicant's control nor at his disposal; confirmation of the unlawful nature of that action; and an order directing the defendant to pay the sum of EUR 100 000 by way of damages.
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Civil Service Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision — in whatever form — rejecting the application dated 8 March 2007;

               —

               annul, in so far as is necessary, the decision — in whatever form — rejecting the complaint dated 10 September 2007;

               —

               annul, in so far as is necessary, the note dated 9 January 2008;

               —

               confirm that, on 18 March 2002, the Delegation of the European Commission in Angola despatched by fax a note, dated 18 March 2002 and addressed to the applicant, to a tele-fax machine identified by the telephone/fax number +39.0833.54xxxx, and confirm and declare that that action was unlawful;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant, by way of compensation for past and present damage suffered in relation to the act which gave rise to the damage and caused by that act, the sum of EUR 100 000 — or, in the alternative, whatever sum, greater or smaller, that the Tribunal considers to be fair and just — together with compound interest, at the rate of 10 % per annum, calculated from the date of the application dated 8 March 2007 until the date of satisfaction;

               —

               order the defendant to reimburse the applicant in respect of all costs, charges and fees incurred in the proceedings, including those relating to the drawing up of an expert's report, which may prove necessary for the purposes of verifying that there is sufficient evidence to justify ordering the defendant to pay the applicant the abovementioned sums, as well as the existence of any other fact relevant for the purposes of deciding the present dispute.


title: Case T-158/03: Action brought on 9 May 2003 by Industrias Químicas del Vallés, S.A. against Commission of the European Communities

text:
5.7.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 158/27
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Proprietor of mark or         The applicant
                                                                          sign cited in the oppo-
—     annul the Contested Decision in whole or in part,                   sition proceedings:
—     order the Commission to pay the costs of this Case and              Mark or sign cited in         Word mark ‘ARTEX’ registered in
      of Case T-276/02.                                                   opposition:                   France, Portugal and the Benelux
                                                                                for goods in Class 5
                                                                          Decision of the Oppo-         Opposition upheld
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           sition Division:
                                                                          Decision of the Board of      Annulment of the decision of the
The applicant in the present case is the same association as in
                                                                          Appeal:                       Opposition Division and dis-
case T-276/02, Forum against Commission (1). The applicant
                                                                                missal of the appeal
challenges the final decision relating to the same Belgian State
Aid measure which was, as far as the decision to open the                 Pleas in law:                 Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b)
procedure as foreseen by Article 88(2) of the Treaty was                                                of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (like-
involved, the object of that case. The grounds and main                                                 lihood of confusion)
arguments are those submitted in that aforementioned case.
( 1) OJEC C 289, 23.11.02, p. 28.
                                                                          Action brought on 9 May 2003 by Industrias Químicas
                                                                          del Vallés, S.A. against Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
Action brought on 2 May 2003 by Biofarma against the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade                                            (Case T-158/03)
                 Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                                                                                (2003/C 158/50)
                        (Case T-154/03)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
                        (2003/C 158/49)
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 9 May 2003 by Industrias Quí-
                                                                          micas del Vallés, S.A., whose registered office is in Mollet del
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal            Vallés (Barcelona, Spain), represented by Cani Fernández
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before                Vicién, Paloma González-Espejo and Julio Sabater Marotias,
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                lawyers.
2 May 2003 by Biofarma, represented by Antonia Ruiz López
and Víctor Gil Vega, lawyers.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               —     annul Commission Decision 2003/308/EC of 2 May
                                                                                2003,
—     annul the decision of the OHIM (Third Board of Appeal)
      of 5 February 2003 and declare that there is a likelihood           —     order the European Commission to pay all the costs,
      of confusion between the trade marks ARTEX and                            including those incurred for the purposes of making an
      ALREX, which designate similar goods.                                     application for interim relief.
—     order the OHIM to pay the costs.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          This action is directed against Commission Decision 2003/
                                                                          308/EC of 2 May 2003 concerning the non-inclusion of
Applicant for Com-             Bausch & Lomb Pharmaceuticals              metalaxyl in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the
munity trade mark:             Inc.                                       withdrawal of authorisations for plant-protection products
                                                                          containing this active substance (1).
Community trade mark           Word mark ‘ALREX’ — Appli-
sought:                        cation No 789461 for goods in
                               Class 5 (ophthalmological prod-            In support of its claims, the applicant company relies on the
                               ucts)                                      following pleas in law and main arguments:
 ---pagebreak--- C 158/28                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            5.7.2003
—      Infringement of Directive 91/414 (2) and Regulation                         Removal from the register of Case T-297/00 (1)
       No 3600/92 ( 3), in so far as the Commission requires that
       each of the notifying parties submit a complete dossier                                     (2003/C 158/51)
       when presenting a notification collectively with other
       notifiers of active substances and send such complete                                  (Language of the case: French)
       dossier to the defendant within the time-limit referred to
       in Article 6(1) of Regulation No 3600/92. It is also
       contrary to that provision for the defendant institution to
                                                                           By order of 2 April 2003 the President of the First Chamber,
       assume that the applicant is not able to submit data
                                                                           Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the
       relating to the evaluation of metalaxyl. The applicant
                                                                           European Communities ordered the removal from the register
       company therefore takes the view that the contested
                                                                           of Case T-297/00: Company Claude-Anne de Solène v Council
       decision contradicts the interpretation made by the
                                                                           of the European Union and Commission of the European
       Commission itself concerning use of the studies provided
                                                                           Communities.
       by Syngenta in the drawing up of the report by the
       rapporteur Member State.
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 355, 09.12.2000.
—      Infringement of the principle of proportionality. In this
       regard, the applicant would point out, in particular, the
       fact that the effect of the contested decision consists in
       excluding it from the European market when its scientific
       analysis has not even been completed.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-159/01 (1)
—      Misuse of powers, inasmuch as, in the applicant’s view,
       the purpose of the Commission is none other than to
       favour an undertaking which is its direct competitor.                                       (2003/C 158/52)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
( 1) OJ 2003 L 113, p. 8.
( 2) Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the
     placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991
     L 230, p. 1).                                                         By order of 31 March 2003 the Court of        First Instance of the
( 3) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992            European Communities (Sole Judge: R.           M. Moura Ramos)
     laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first    ordered the removal from the register          of Case T-159/01:
     stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8 (2) of        Christopher Wilkinson v Commission of         the European Com-
     Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant          munities.
     protection products on the market (OJ 1992 L 366, p. 10).
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 275, 29.09.2001.


title: Case C-577/15 P: Appeal brought on 9 November 2015 by SV Capital OÜ against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2015 in Case T-660/14: SV Capital OÜ v European Banking Authority (EBA)

text:
               18.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/22

         Appeal brought on 9 November 2015 by SV Capital OÜ against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2015 in Case T-660/14: SV Capital OÜ v European Banking Authority (EBA)
   (Case C-577/15 P)
   (2016/C 016/28)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: SV Capital OÜ (represented by: M. Greinoman, Lawyer)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Banking Authority (EBA), European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgement of the General Court dated 9 September 2015 in case T- 660/14 in part (1) declaring action against Decision C 2013 002 of the EBA inadmissible, (2) annulling Decision 2014-C1-02 of the Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities of 14 July 2014 in the part regarding admissibility of the appeal of the appellant and (3) of the costs;

               —

               refer the case back to the General Court;

               —

               order the defendant to bear costs of the appeal and order the intervener to bear its own costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its appeal against the judgment of the General Court dated 9 September 2015 in case T-660/14 the appellant relies on the following pleas and arguments in law:
   The General Court ruled ultra petita;
   The General Court infringed Article 60 (1) of Regulation 1093/2010/EU (1) as the application against Decision EBA C 2013 002 was timely, because it was first ruled on by the Board of Appeal of ESAs;
   The General Court infringed Article 48 (2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court (valid until 31 December 2014);
   The General Court infringed Article 263 TFEU, as the application against Decision EBA C 2013 002 was timely on account of administrative process continuing until 14 July 2014;
   The General Court infringed Article 45 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, as the application against Decision EBA C 2013 002 was timely on account of unforeseeable circumstances;
   The General Court infringed Article 263 TFEU and Articles 60 (1), 61 (1) of Regulation No 1093/2010/EU, as the action against Decision EBA C 2013 002 was admissible both because the decision had been addressed to the appellant and because the appellant had had direct and individual concern in the matter;
   Decision EBA C 2013 002 is vitiated by errors of fact;
   Decision EBA C 2013 002 is vitiated by misuse of discretion;
   Decision EBA C 2013 002 is vitiated by breach of Article 39 (1) of Regulation 1093/2010/EU and Article 16 of the EBA Code of Good Administrative Behaviour in Decision EBA C 2013 002;
   Decision EBA C 2013 002 is vitiated by breach of Articles 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5 of the EBA Internal Rules in Decision EBA C 2013 002;
   Decision EBA C 2013 002 is vitiated by misuse of power and unreasonable conduct of the EBA.

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority), amending Decision No 716/2009/EC and repealing Commission Decision 2009/78/EC OJ L 331, p. 12.


title: Case C-218/07: Action brought on 25 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               9.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/14

         Action brought on 25 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-218/07)
   (2007/C 129/27)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou, W. Bogensberger, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 2003/109/EC (1) of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents by not adopting the necessary legislative and administrative measures for the implementation of that directive, or by failing to communicate such measures to the Commission;

               —

               order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The prescribed period for implementing Directive 2003/109/EC expired on 23 January 2006.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 16, p. 44.


title: Case C-318/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte (Italy) lodged on 26 June 2015 — Tecnoedi Costruzioni Srl v Comune di Fossano

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/24

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte (Italy) lodged on 26 June 2015 — Tecnoedi Costruzioni Srl v Comune di Fossano
   (Case C-318/15)
   (2015/C 311/29)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Tecnoedi Costruzioni Srl

      Defendant: Comune di Fossano

      Question referred

   Must Articles 49 and 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the principles of freedom of establishment, freedom to provide services, equal treatment, non-discrimination and proportionality be interpreted as precluding legislative provisions such as those currently in force in Italy, namely Articles 122(9) and 253(20-bis) of Legislative Decree No 163 of 2006, concerning the automatic exclusion of abnormally low tenders in procedures for the award of works contracts with a value below the threshold which may be of cross-border interest?


title: Case T-1/15: Action brought on 2 January 2015  — SNCM v Commission

text:
               16.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/29

         Action brought on 2 January 2015 — SNCM v Commission
   (Case T-1/15)
   (2015/C 056/40)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Société nationale maritime Corse Méditerranée (SNCM) (Marseille, France) (represented by: F.-C. Laprévote and C. Froitzheim, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul, on the basis of Articles 107 and 263 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter, Decision C(2013) 7066 final of 20 November 2013 in its entirety;

               —

               annul the decision in its entirety to the extent that it finds that the disposal of 75 % of SNCM at the negative price of EUR 158 million constitutes State aid for the purposes of Article 107 TFEU;

               —

               in the alternative, partially annul the decision to the extent that it finds that the increase in capital of EUR 8,75 million to which CGMF subscribed constitutes State aid;

               —

               in the alternative, partially annul the decision to the extent that it finds that the current account advance of EUR 38,5 million constitutes State aid;

               —

               in the alternative, partially annul the Commission’s decision in that it examines jointly the compatibility of the balance of EUR 15,81 million awarded as restructuring aid in 2002 with all of the 2006 measures;

               —

               in the alternative, partially annul the decision to the extent that it concludes that the measures at issue constitute State aid incompatible with the common market;

               —

               order the Commission to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its application, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision 2014/882/UE of 20 November 2013 (notified under document C(2013) 7066 final) by which the Commission found that, first, the balance of the restructuring aid, notified by the French authorities on 18 February 2002, in the amount of EUR 15,81 million and, secondly, the three measures implemented by the French authorities in 2006 in favour of the applicant, namely, the disposal of 75 % of the applicant at the negative price of EUR 158 million, the capital increase of EUR 8,75 million subscribed by Compagnie générale maritime et financière and the current account advance of EUR 38,5 million, constitute State aid which is unlawful and incompatible with the internal market. The Commission consequently ordered recovery of those amounts.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 108(2) and 266 TFEU, and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in that the Commission refused to extend the formal investigation procedure following the partial annulment of Commission Decision 2009/611/EC of 8 July 2008 (1) by the judgment of the Court of 11 September 2012 in Case T-565/08, Corsica Ferries France v Commission
                   (2).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107 TFEU, infringement of the obligation to state reasons and of the principle of equal treatment, and an error in law and a manifest error of assessment in that the Commission found that the negative sale price constituted State aid.

               3.

               Third plea in law, put forward in the alternative, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality and a manifest error of assessment, in that the Commission found that the capital contribution of EUR 8,75 million constituted State aid.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, put forward in the alternative, alleging a manifest error of assessment, in that the Commission found that the measures involving aid to individuals in the sum of EUR 3 8,5 million constituted State aid.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, put forward in the alternative, alleging an error in law and a manifest error of assessment, in that the Commission examined jointly the compatibility of the balance of EUR 15,81 million awarded as restructuring aid in 2002 with all of the 2006 measures.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, put forward in the alternative, alleging manifest errors of assessment and infringement of the obligation to state reasons, in that the Commission declared the restructuring aid awarded in 2002 and 2006 incompatible with the common market.

      (1)  Commission Decision 2009/611/EC of 8 July 2008 concerning the measures C 58/02 (ex N 118/02) which France has implemented in favour of the Société Nationale Maritime Corse-Méditerranée (SNCM) (notified under document C(2008) 3182) (OJ 2009 L 225, p. 180).

      (2)  Judgment of 11 September 2012 in Corsica Ferries France v Commission, T-565/08, ECR, EU:T:2012:415.


title: Case T-528/09: Action brought on 30 December 2009 — Hubei Xinyegang Steel v Council

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/45

         Action brought on 30 December 2009 — Hubei Xinyegang Steel v Council
   (Case T-528/09)
   2010/C 51/82
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Hubei Xinyegang Steel Co. Ltd (represented by: F. Carlin, Barrister, N. Niejahr, Q. Azau and A. MacGregor, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Council Regulation (EC) No 926/2009 of 24 September 2009 imposing a definitive anti–dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel originating in the People’s Republic of China (1) to the extent that it imposes anti–dumping duties on exports by the applicant and collects provisional duties imposed on such exports or, alternatively, to annul the said regulation to the extent that it collects the provisional duties imposed on the applicant;

               —

               Order the Council to pay its own costs and the costs of the applicant in connection with these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of present application the applicant seeks the annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 926/2009 of 24 September 2009 imposing a definitive anti–dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel originating in the People’s Republic of China, in as far as it concerns the applicant.
   In support of its application the applicant puts forward three pleas in law.
   First, it claims that the Council made a manifest error of appraisal of the facts when identifying the ‘products concerned’ by defining over–simplified product categories. In addition, the applicant submits that the Commission made an inappropriate comparison with US-produced goods.
   Second, the applicant contends that the Council breached Article 9(5) of the basic regulation (2) by withdrawing the applicant’s IT status in the contested regulation although that status had initially been granted to the applicant by the Commission during the administrative procedure prior to the publication of the provisional regulation (3).
   Third, the applicant claims that the Council infringed Articles 9(4) and 10(2) of the basic regulation by imposing a definitive duty and deciding to definitively collect the provisional duty imposed on exports of the “products concerned” by the applicant to the EU, because these decisions were based on manifest errors of assessment as to the existence of a threat of material injury.

      (1)  OJ L 262, p. 19

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1)

      (3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 289/2009 of 7 April 2009 imposing a provisional anti–dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel originating in the People's Republic of China, OJ L 94, p. 48


title: Action brought on 9 October 1995 by R against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-187/95)

text:
No C 351 / 12          EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   30 . 12 . 95
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 The applicant claims that the Court should :
                     of 9 November 1995
in Case T-346/94 : France-Aviation v. Commission of the
                                                                        ( 1 ) order the defendants to pay to it DM 2 279 859,69
                                                                              together with interest at the annual rate of 8 % from
                  European Communities ( ] )                                  9 August 1990 pro tanto in return for the assignment of
(Repayment of customs duty — Audi alteram partem —                            the balance of its claim against Iraq for the equivalent
                         Special situation)                                   balance due to it;
                           ( 95/C 351 /24 )
                                                                        ( 2 ) order the defendants to pay the costs;
                (Language of the case: French)                          ( 3 ) declare the judgment enforceable, alternatively,
                                                                              provisionally enforceable subject to the provision of a
In     Case  T-346/94 :        France-Aviation ,  established   at            bank guarantee .
Châteaufort ( France ), represented by Jean-Claude Cavaillé ,
of the Lyon Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
at the Chambers of Guy Arendt, 62 Avenue Guillaume v.
Commission of the European Communities ( Agents :                       The applicant is a German undertaking engaged in the
Richard Wainwright and Jean-Francis Pasquier ) —                        provision of services relating to the implementation of
application for the annulment of Commission Decision                    infrastructure projects . At the time when Regulation ( EEC )
REM 4/94 of 18 July 1994 holding in response to a request               No 2340/90 entered into force , it was carrying out certain
from the French Government that repayment of import                     works in Iraq . That Regulation , which was enacted
duties was not justified in the applicant's case — the Court            following the military occupation of Kuwait by Iraq and in
of First Instance ( First Chamber ), composed of: H.                    accordance with a resolution of the Security Council of the
Kirschner, acting as President, A. Kalogeropoulos and V.                United Nations , prohibited trade with Iraq and Kuwait. The
Tiili , Judges, H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on             applicant claims compensation for the damage suffered by it
9 November 1995 , in which it:                                          as a result of the economic reprisals adopted by the Iraqi
                                                                        authorities against the interests of the Member States of the
                                                                        Community in Iraq . Its capital invested in that country was
 1 . annuls Commission Decision REM 4/94 of 18 July                     blocked and its bank accounts were frozen; the measures
      1994, addressed to the French Republic,                           taken were in the nature of expropriation .
     Directorate-General of Customs and Indirect Taxes ;
                                                                        In the applicant's view, the liability of the Community
2 . dismisses the remainder of the application;                         institutions arises from the fact that they enacted the
                                                                         Regulation in question without providing for measures by
                                                                        way of compensation for the damage which the victims of
 3 . orders the Commission to pay the costs.                             possible economic reprisals on the part of the Iraqi
                                                                         authorities might suffer.
 (') O J No C 351 , 10 . 12 . 1994 .
                                                                         That course of action is inconsistent with the right of
                                                                         ownership, which is a basic right the observance of which is
                                                                         to be ensured by the Community judicature, and which is
                                                                         enshrined as such in the Protocol to the European
                                                                         Convention on Human Rights .
 Action brought on 6 October 1995 by Dorsch Consult
 Ingenieurgesellschaft mbH against the Council of the
        European Union of the European Communities
                         ( Case T-l 84/95 )                              Action brought on 9 October 1995 by R against the
                            ( 95/C 351 /25 )                                     Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-l 87/95 )
                (Language of the case: German)                                                    ( 95/C 351 /26 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
 An action against the Council of the European Union and
 the Commission of the European Communities was brought
 before the Court of First Instance of the European                      An action against the Commission of the European
 Communities on 6 October 1995 by Dorsch Consult                          Communities was brought before the Court of First
 Ingenieurgesellschaft mbH , represented by Karl M. Meessen               Instance of the European Communities on 9 October 1995
 of Messrs Norr, Stiefenhofer & Lutz, Brussels, with an                   by R, residing in Lausanne ( Switzerland ), represented by
 address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                     Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi , of the Brussels Bar,
 Patrick Kinsch of Messrs Arendt & Medernach , 8— 10 Rue                  with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
 Mathias Hardt .                                                          Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 2 Rue Glesener .
 ---pagebreak--- 30 . 12 . 95           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 351 / 13
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          She further pleads breach of the duty to have regard for the
                                                                      welfare of officials and of the principles of good
— annul the decision of 14 December 1994 adopted by the               management and sound administration, by reason of what
    Commission , as the appointing authority, refusing to             she considers to have been the uncooperative attitude and
    accede to the applicant's request of 8 October 1986 for           negative, obstructive approach shown by the appointing
    recognition of an occupational disease, and, in so far as         authority throughout its handling of the matter .
    may be necessary, the implicit decision rejecting the
    applicant's complaint,                                            She also considers that the defendant provided an erroneous
                                                                      statement of reasons , inasmuch as the contested decision is
— award the applicant default interest at the annual rate of          based on contradictory arguments .
     8 % on the sum due to her pursuant to Article 73 of the
    Staff Regulations,                                                Lastly, the applicant observes that, for numerous reasons
                                                                      relating to the ill will shown by the Commission in this
— award the applicant ECU 1 , calculated on a provisional             matter, it is guilty of a misuse of powers , since it deviated
     basis, by way of compensation for the non-material               from its task and from its duty to promote the common
    damage suffered by her,                                           interest .
— order the defendant to pay all of the costs .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant , the widow of a Community official who
worked for 26 years in the nuclear field, states that her
husband died in 1986 as a result of an infection caused by            Action brought on 16 October 1995 by Hitachi Ltd,
the hepatitis B virus which developed into chronic active             Matsushita Electronics Corporation, Mitsubishi Electric
hepatitis . She maintains that the infection from which her           Corporation , NEC Corporation, Oki Electric Industry Co.,
husband suffered only rarely develops into a chronic                  Sanyo Electric Co., Sharp Corporation and Toshiba
complaint resulting in death and observes that, according to          Corporation against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
the medical advice taken at the time , her husband 's lack of
immunity against the hepatitis B virus could have originated                                  ( Case T- 192/95 )
from external factors, of which the only one meriting serious                                   ( 95 /C 351 /27 )
consideration was his exposure to radiation in the course of
his career with the nuclear energy services of the
Community . The applicant consequently submitted a                                    (Language of the case: English)
request on 8 October 1986 for the recognition of her
husband 's illness as an occupational disease . Following a
lengthy and complex procedure, and on the basis of two                An action against the Commission of the European
reports by the medical committee provided for in Article 23           Communities was brought before the Court of First
of the Rules on the insurance of officials of the European            Instance of the European Communities on 16 October 1995
Communities against the risk of accident and of                       by Hitachi Ltd, Matsushita Electronics Corporation,
occupational disease ('the Rules '), the appointing authority         Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, NEC Corporation, Oki
rejected the applicant's request by decision of 14 December           Electric Industry Co ., Sanyo F^lectric Co ., Sharp
 1994 .                                                               Corporation and Toshiba Corporation , represented by Ivo
                                                                      Van Bael , with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
The applicant considers that the appointing authority acted           Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 1 1 Rue Goethe.
unlawfully in a number of respects in its handling of her
request for recognition of an occupational disease .
                                                                      The applicants claim that the Court should :
She maintains, first of all, that the contested decision
disregards Article 73 of the Staff Regulations of officials and       — annul the Commission decision to initiate an interim
Article 3 ( 1 ) of the Rules . She considers that it has been             review contained in notice 95/C 181 /04 of 15 July 1995
established , first, that her husband was exposed to ionizing             in so far as it concerns the undertakings accepted by
radiation and that the development of viral hepatitis into a              Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 165/90 in respect of
chronic condition may be caused by exposure to that type of               imports of certain types of electronic microcircuits
radiation and , second , that the illness from which her                  known as DRAMs originating in Japan,
husband died is included in the European list of
 occupational diseases ; since the criteria of Article 3(1 ) of the   — declare that the applicants are no longer subject to any
 Rules were fulfilled, the defendant should have applied                  anti-dumping measures imposed on imports of DRAMs
 Article 73 of the Staff Regulations of officials .                       originating in Japan and are therefore not to be regarded
                                                                           as interested parties for the purpose of the interim review
 The applicant also contends that the procedure leading to                 of the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports
 the adoption of the contested decision was irregular in                   into the EU of DRAMs originating in Japan initiated by
 several respects .                                                       Notice 95/C 181 /04 , and


title: Case F-113/10: Action brought on 2 November 2010 — AT v EACEA

text:
               5.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/35

         Action brought on 2 November 2010 — AT v EACEA
   (Case F-113/10)
   2011/C 72/56
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: AT (represented by: S. Rodrigues, A. Blot and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for, first, annulment of the applicant’s career development report (CDR) for the period from 1 June to 31 December 2008; second, annulment of the contracting authority’s decision to terminate the applicant’s fixed-term employment contract before its due date, and, third, compensation for the damage suffered.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the applicant’s CDR for 2008, as adopted by the contracting authority’s decision of 29 October 2009;

               —

               annul the contracting authority’s decision of 12 February 2010 by which it terminated the applicant’s contract of employment; and, in so far as necessary,

               —

               annul the contracting authority’s decision rejecting the applicant’s complaints against his CDR for 2008 and the decision to terminate his contract; order the EACEA to pay an amount which should be no less than the amount of the applicant’s salary (and all the benefits provided for in the CEOS), calculated from the date on which the applicant’s employment ended on 12 February 2010 until the date of reinstatement within the agency as a result of the annulment of the decision to terminate his employment, by way of compensation for professional and financial damage, together with late payment interest at the statutory rate from the date of the judgment to be given;

               —

               order the EACEA to pay a sum fixed provisionally at EUR 10 000 by way of compensation for physical damage, together with late payment interest at the statutory rate from the date of the judgment to be given;

               —

               order the EACEA to pay a sum fixed provisionally and ex aequo et bono at EUR 50 000 by way of compensation for non-material damage, together with late payment interest at the statutory rate from the date of the judgment to be given;

               —

               in any event, order the EACEA to pay a sum fixed provisionally and ex aequo et bono at EUR 10 000 by way of compensation for the damage suffered as a result of the fact that a reasonable period was exceeded in preparing the CDR for 2008, together with late payment interest at the statutory rate from the date of the judgment to be given;

               —

               order the EACEA to pay the costs.


title: Action brought on 24 May 1995 by Daniel Chabert against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-122/95)

text:
No C 208/32           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    12 . 8 . 95
been successful; shortly afterwards he learned that an                The applicant claims that the Court should :
external candidate had been appointed to that post. He
therefore lodged a complaint against the decision rejecting           — annul Regulation ( EC ) No 816/92, inasmuch as it does
his candidature, which formed the subject of a decision                   not provide for any award of compensation in respect of
expressly rejecting it.                                                   the suspended proportion of the reference quantity, and ,
                                                                          in addition, award the applicant damages ,
The applicant alleges, first, infringement of Article 25 of the
Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities,           — order the defendants to pay the costs .
claiming that the decision rejecting his candidature
contained no statement of reasons . Alternatively, he claims          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
that the reasoning set out in the decision rejecting his              In the present proceedings, the applicant is applying for the
complaint is incorrect, since of the two candidates the one           annulment of Regulation ( EC ) No 816/92, inasmuch as that
selected was not the one who possessed the qualifications             Regulation provides for the reduction of reference
and abilities necessary for performing the duties of that             quantities, without compensation, in the interests of the
post.                                                                 European milk market; he also claims damages pursuant to
                                                                      Article 178 and the second paragraph of Article 215 of the
Furthermore, the applicant points out that he was the only            EC Treaty for the loss suffered by him as a result of the
internal candidate for the post concerned and that the                application of the aforesaid Regulation .
appointing authority should , consequently, have
interviewed him to ascertain, in the light of his                     By virtue of the 24th Order amending the Milch
qualifications, knowledge , abilities and experience, whether         Garantiemengen-Verordnung ( Milk Guarantee Quantities
he met the conditions required to fill the post. Since such an        Order ), which transposes Regulation ( EC ) No 816/92 into
interview never took place, he considers that his candidature         German law, a partial quantity, constituting 4,74 % of the
was not validly assessed under Article 29 ( 1 ) of the Staff          previous reference quantity, was 'suspended ' with effect
Regulations and that that procedure was not correctly                 from 1 April 1 992 . By contrast with the situation previously
followed with regard to him .                                         prevailing, compensation is now no longer paid . That
                                                                      legislation has the effect of an expropriation measure and is
The applicant also considers that the decision taken by the           incompatible with the basic right to property .
appointing authority not to fill the post at issue using any of
the procedures in Article 29 ( 1 ) of the Staff Regulations, but      Although the Milch-Garantiemengen-Verordnung, which
to follow the exceptional procedure laid down in                      completes Regulation ( EC ) No 816/92, makes provision for
Article 29 (2 ) of the Staff Regulations instead , infringed the      the suspension of quantities, and thus for their withdrawal,
latter provision and also Article 45 of the Staff                     it contains no rules regarding compensation . The same
Regulations .                                                         applies as regards the contested Regulation ( EC ) No 816/92 .
                                                                      Consequently, those provisions infringe Article 14 ( 3 ) of the
Lastly, the applicant claims that even before declaring the           Grundgesetz ( German Basic Law); thus they also
post vacant, the Commission had decided to appoint a                  contravene, by virtue of the foregoing, the right to property
certain person to it. The defendant had therefore committed           enshrined in the legal order of the European Communities,
an abuse of procedure and a misuse of powers; on the same             which is safeguarded in accordance with the constitutional
account it had failed to comply with Articles 7 and 27 of the         conceptions common to the Member States .
Staff Regulations, in so far as those provisions establish the
principle of the prohibition of discrimination in the general         The reduction of the reference quantity without any
rules of the Community civil service and in particular in the         corresponding indemnification or compensation is illegal,
rules governing recruitment procedure .                               since it contravenes the right to property and the principle of
                                                                      the protection of legitimate expectations, and is therefore
                                                                      null and void . Because the applicant has been unable, since
                                                                      the definitive suspension on 29 June 1992 of 4,74 % of his
                                                                      previous reference quantity, to supply 11 612 kg of milk
                                                                      included within that quantity, despite having purchased
Action brought on 12 May 1995 by Alfred Hauer against                 reference quantities of that volume for supply at the then
the Council of the European Union and the Commission of               price of DM 1,60/kg, he has suffered a corresponding loss
                  the European Communities                            for which he should be compensated .
                        ( Case T-119/95 )
                          ( 95/C 208/67 )
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                      Action brought on 24 May 1995 by Daniel Chabert against
                                                                            the Commission of the European Communities
An action against the Council of the European Union and
the Commission of the European Communities was brought                                       ( Case T-122/95 )
 before the Court of First Instance of the European                                             95/C 208/68 )
 Communities on 12 May 19 95 by Alfred Hauer, of
Niederweiler ( Federal Republic of Germany), represented                              (Language of the case: French)
 by Matthias H. Francois, Rechtsanwalt, Bitburg, with an
 address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                 An action against the Commission of the European
 Annie k Wurth .                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of First
 ---pagebreak--- 12 . 8 . 95           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 208/33
Instance of the European Communities on 24 May 1995 by               systematic deduction of sums from his salary by way of
Daniel Chabert, residing at Kraainem ( Belgium ),                    repayment of the sum unduly paid .
represented by Georges Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 Rue Glesener.
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                     Action brought on 1 June 1995 by Karl Fingerhut against
— annul the decision of the Commission of 6 October 1994             the Council of the European Union and the Commission of
    ordering the applicant to repay, in monthly instalments,                          the European Communities
    the sum of Bfrs 215 354 in respect of sums unduly                                      ( Case T-124/95 )
    paid ,                                                                                ( 95/C 208/69 )
— order the repayment of the sums compulsorily deducted                            (Language of the case: German)
    by the Commission from the applicant's salary since
    November 1994 , together with default interest at the
    annual rate of 8 % ,                                             An action against the Council of the European Union and
                                                                     the Commission of the European Communities was brought
— order the defendant to pay all of the costs .                      before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                     Communities on 1 June 1995 by Karl Fingerhut,
                                                                     Twistetal-Gembeck ( Federal Republic of Germany ),
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  represented by Bernd Meisterernst, Mechtild Düsing,
                                                                     Dietrich Manstetten, Frank Schulze and Winfried
The applicant states that, following his divorce, which was          Haneklaus , Rechtsanwälte, Münster, with an address for
pronounced on 1 February 1984 , he requested the                     service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Dupong &
administration to pay to his former wife the sum which               Associés, 14a Rue des Bains .
would have been due to her if she had been the person
entitled to receive the household allowance, namely 5 % of
her basic salary, with the balance being paid into the               The applicant claims that the Court should :
applicant's account; the administration carried out that
request, without objection, from 1 March 1 984 . For ten and         1 . order the defendants jointly to pay to the applicant
a half years, from March 1984 to October 1994, the                       SLOM III compensation for the period from
applicant was thus paid a sum, appearing on his salary slip              15 December 1985 to 29 July 1993 in the amount of
as the household allowance , which was deemed to represent               DM 43 929,06 , together with interest thereon at 8 %
the difference between the household allowance paid to his               from 19 May 1992 , and jointly to pay the costs of the
                                                                         proceedings;
former wife, corresponding to 5 % of her salary, and the
balance due to the applicant. It subsequently transpired that
the Commission did not, during that period , adjust that part        2 . join the present action to that already pending in Case
                                                                         T-77/93 Hülseberg and Others v. Council and
of the allowance which was payable to the applicant's
former wife in line with the alterations in her salary; thus             Commission and also stay the proceedings .
although the allowance was increased in line with the salary
increases of the applicant's former wife, it was paid to her on      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
an unchanging basis only, and the applicant consequently
received a residual sum which grew progressively. The                The pleas in law and arguments are identical to those in Case
                                                                     T-20/95 .
payment was thus indeed irregular, but that irregularity was
entirely due to the defendant and the applicant was not
aware of it .
The applicant bases his case on a single plea , namely,
infringement of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations . The
defendant maintains that it is appropriate in the present case       Action brought on 5 June 1995 by Hassan Belhanbel against
for the undue payment to be recovered , because the                        the Commission of the European Communities
irregularity of the payment was 'patent'. The applicant                                    ( Case T-125/95 )
denies that contention, maintaining that, even if he had                                     ( 95/C 208/70 )
become aware of an increase in the sum paid to him in
respect of the allowance — which he did not — he would
have been legitimately entitled to assume that the amount of                        (Language of the case: French)
that allowance had been increased by an amount greater
than the increase in his former wife's salary, since he was not      An action against the Commission of the European
aware of the extent to which that salary had risen; the error        Communities was brought before the Court of First
on the part of the administration was not, therefore,                Instance on 5 June 1995 by Hassan Belhanbel, of Namur,
patently such that the applicant could not have been                 Belgium,    represented      by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry
unaware of it. Consequently, the applicant considers that            Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an
the defendant has misapplied Article 85 of the Staff                 adress for service in Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire
Regulations and that it has acted unlawfully in ordering the         Myson Sari, 1 Rue Glesener.


title: Case F-104/10: Action brought on 21 October 2010 — De Pretis Cagnodo and Trampuz v European Commission

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/42

         Action brought on 21 October 2010 — De Pretis Cagnodo and Trampuz v European Commission
   (Case F-104/10)
   ()
   2011/C 13/85
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicants: Mario Alberto de Pretis Cagnodo and Serena Trampuz (Trieste, Italy) (represented by: C. Falagiani, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision refusing to reimburse 100 % of certain medical expenses in connection with the hospitalisation of the wife of a retired official.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Suspend, or in any event prohibit provisionally, implementation of the compulsory recovery procedure for the sums at issue, in the light of the prima facie case disclosed by the present application, the serious material loss which the applicants would otherwise suffer and the lack of clarity in relation to the computation of the contested sums and, consequently, prohibit temporarily the automatic deduction of such sums from the pension of Mr de Pretis Cagnodo;

               —

               declare that that the applicants are not required to reimburse any payments made by the claims settlement office, Ispra and, consequently, order the Commission to withdraw the claim for reimbursement of the sum of EUR 41 833 — or any other such sum claimed — and to desist from any automatic deduction of that amount from the pension of Mr de Pretis Cagnodo, it having been confirmed and declared that Mrs Trampuz can in no way be criticised or censured regarding the calculation and payment of the costs of the hospital stay as claimed by the hospital where she was admitted, the illness which caused her to be hospitalised and the surgery which she underwent have been categorised as ‘serious’, and the length of time for which she was admitted regarded as inevitable and clinically correct;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case C-2/12: Order of the President of the Court of 19 April 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Trianon Productie BV v Revillon Chocolatier SAS

text:
               4.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/12

         Order of the President of the Court of 19 April 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Trianon Productie BV v Revillon Chocolatier SAS
   (Case C-2/12) (1)

   2012/C 235/30
   Language of the case: Dutch
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 98, 31.3.2012.


title: Case C-35/16 P: Appeal brought on 21 January 2016 by Matratzen Concord GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 19 November 2015 in Case T-526/14 Matratzen Concord GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               25.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/16

         Appeal brought on 21 January 2016 by Matratzen Concord GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 19 November 2015 in Case T-526/14 Matratzen Concord GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

   (Case C-35/16 P)
   (2016/C 270/25)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Matratzen Concord GmbH (represented by: I. Selting, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Mariano Barranco Rodriguez, Pablo Barranco Schnitzler
   By order of 28 April 2016, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.


Avis juridique important

|

E2003P0004

Action brought on 19 December 2003 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway (Case E-4/03)

Official Journal C 051 , 26/02/2004 P. 0004 - 0004

Action brought on 19 December 2003 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway (Case E-4/03)(2004/C 51/05)An action against the Kingdom of Norway was brought before the EFTA Court on 19 December 2003 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Niels Fenger, Director and Arne Torsten Andersen, Officer, Legal and Executive Affairs Directorate, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 74, Rue de Trèves, B-1040 Brussels.The applicant claims that the Court should:1. Declare that, by adopting Regulation of 28 August 1998 No 853 regarding type approval of gaming machines (Forskrift av 28. august 1998 nr. 853 om typegodkjenning av gevinstautomater) without notifying the EFTA Surveillance Authority at the drafting stage, the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 8 of the Act referred to at point 1 of Chapter XIX of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations, as amended and adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto; and2. Order the Kingdom of Norway to pay the costs of the proceedings.Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:- Article 8 of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations, as amended (the "Act"), obliges Norway to immediately communicate to the EFTA Surveillance Authority any draft technical regulation.- Except in special cases referred to in Article 8 of the Act, Article 9 of the Act requires the EFTA States to postpone adoption of technical regulations for a period of three months subsequent to its notification to the Authority.


title: Case C-198/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 June 2014  — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Internal market in energy — Gas transmission — Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 — Articles 14(1) and 16(1) and (2)(b) — Obligation to guarantee maximum capacity — Virtual reverse flow gas capacity — Admissibility)

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 June 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria
   (Case C-198/12) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Internal market in energy - Gas transmission - Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 - Articles 14(1) and 16(1) and (2)(b) - Obligation to guarantee maximum capacity - Virtual reverse flow gas capacity - Admissibility))
   2014/C 253/06
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann, S. Petrova, O. Beynet and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Bulgaria (represented by: D. Drambozova, E. Petranova and Y. Atanasov, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 14(1) and Article 16(1) and (2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on conditions for access to the natural gas transmission networks and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1775/2005 (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 36) — Obligation to ensure that all market participants are guaranteed maximum capacity — No physical interconnection between the transit system and the national gas transmission system — Intergovernmental agreements preventing compliance with the obligation to make maximum capacity available — Scope of the obligation set out in the second paragraph of Article 351 TFEU

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 194, 30.6.2012.


title: Case F-2/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 7 May 2014  — Deweerdt and Lebrun v Court of Auditors

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/65

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 7 May 2014 — Deweerdt and Lebrun v Court of Auditors
   (Case F-2/14) (1)

   2014/C 421/99
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 61, 1.3.2014, p. 22.


title: Case T-191/12: Order of the General Court of 7 October 2013 — Roland v OHIM — Textiles Well (wellness inspired by nature) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               7.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 359/13

         Order of the General Court of 7 October 2013 — Roland v OHIM — Textiles Well (wellness inspired by nature)
   (Case T-191/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of opposition - No need to adjudicate)
   2013/C 359/23
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Roland SE (Essen, Germany) (represented by: O. Rauscher and C. Onken, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Textiles Well (Le Vigan, France) (represented by: E. Cornu and É. De Gryse, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 February 2012 (Case R 2552/2010-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Textiles Well SA and Roland SE, formerly Roland-Schuhe GmbH & Co. Handels KG.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               The applicant and intervener shall bear their own costs and each shall pay one half of the costs borne by the defendant.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 14.7.2012.


title: Case C-291/14 P: Appeal brought on 12 June 2014 by Faci SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 20 March 2014 in Case T-46/10: Faci SpA v European Commission

text:
               8.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/20

         Appeal brought on 12 June 2014 by Faci SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 20 March 2014 in Case T-46/10: Faci SpA v European Commission
   (Case C-291/14 P)
   2014/C 303/26
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Faci SpA (represented by: Messrs S. Piccardo, Avvocato, S. Crosby, Advocaat)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of 20 March 2014 of the General Court in Case T-46/10, or

               —

               in the alternative cancel or substantially reduce the fine imposed on the Appellant, or

               —

               send the case back to the General Court for re-assessment, and

               —

               in any event order the European Commission to pay the Appellant’s costs at first instance and in this appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appeal is brought against the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 20 March 2014 in Case T-46/10. In the judgment the General Court dismissed the appellant’s action of 28 January 2010 brought against Commission Decision C(2009) 8682 final of 11 November 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 (EC) and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38589 — Heat Stabilisers) (1).
   The Appellant raises two grounds of appeal:
   By the first ground of appeal the appellant alleges that the General Court erred in law by not examining the gravity of the infringement after November 1996 by reference to the change in the nature of the cartel thereby failing to take all the circumstances into account relevant for the calculation of the fine imposed on the appellant and so infringed Point 20 of the 2006 fining guidelines and/or Article 23 of Regulation 1/2003 (2) and Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
   By the second ground of appeal the appellant alleges that the General Court failed to conduct an effective and in depth judicial review of the decision by holding without examination of the facts that the appellant had behaved exactly like all the other undertakings involved except that its implementation was less rigorous and by dismissing without any assessment that the ground that competition had been illegally distorted to the appellant’s detriment by application of Point 35 of the fining Guidelines to a competitor, Bärlocher.

      (1)  OJ C 307, 12.11.2010, p. 9

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, OJ L 1, 04.01.2003, p. 1


title: Case T-447/04: Action brought on 15 November 2004 by Capgemini Nederland B.V. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               18.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/27

         Action brought on 15 November 2004 by Capgemini Nederland B.V. against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-447/04)
   (2004/C 314/62)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 15 November 2004 by Capgemini Nederland B.V.,Utrecht, The Netherlands, represented by M. Meulenbelt and H. Speyart, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the Commission's decision, notified to the applicant by letter dated 13 September 2004, not to retain the applicant's offer in the context of the call for tender JAI-C3-2003-01;

               —

               Annul the Commission's decision to sign a contract with another tenderer;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay its own costs and those of the applicant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   On 25 June 2003 the Commission published a Contract Notice for the development and installation of a large scale information system in the field of justice and home affairs, referred to as SIS II and VIS. The applicant submitted a bid. By letter dated 13 September 2004 the Commission notified the applicant of its decision not to retain its offer and to award the contract to another tenderer. In the same letter it informed the applicant that it would not be signing the contract with the successful tenderer before the expiry of a period of two weeks from the date of the letter. An exchange of correspondence between the applicant and the Commission followed, in the course of which the Commission confirmed its intention to award the contract to another tenderer. On 26 October 2004 the Commission published a press release stating that it had signed a contract with the successful tenderer.
   By its application the applicant requests the annulment of both the Commission's decision to reject its offer as well as the decision to sign a contract with the successful tenderer. In support of the request to annul the decision rejecting the applicant's offer, the applicant invokes a number of alleged violations of Regulation 1605/2002 (1) (the Financial Regulation) and of Regulation 2342/2002 (2) laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the Financial Regulation. In this context the applicant submits that the method of price evaluation chosen by the Commission is unusual in that it is not based on a fixed price for the project but rather on price ratios between the price offered by each particular tenderer and the lowest price offered, calculated at the level of each of the 15 individual items included in the project, which all carry equal weight even though they are of greatly diverging sizes. Use of this method, according to the applicant, did not result in a fair and equitable outcome. The applicant further alleges that the Commission failed to react to abnormally low prices in the successful tenderer's offer, failed to take into account a corrigendum submitted by the applicant and failed to reject the successful tenderer's offer in spite of non-compliance with technical criteria. The applicant also claims that the commission violated the ‘best value for money’ principle since the total contract value for the successful tenderer is higher than that for the applicant.
   In support of its request to annul the decision to sign a contract with the successful tenderer the applicant submits that by concluding that contract the Commission willingly deprived the applicant of an effective remedy. The applicant also invokes, in this context, a violation of Article 230 EC arguing that, by informing the applicant that it would only wait for two weeks before signing the contract with the successful tenderer, the Commission effectively shortened the two-month time limit for the introduction of an application set out in that article. Finally, the applicant argues that the Commission violated Article 103 of Regulation 1605/2002 by failing to suspend the procedure leading to the decision to sign the contract even though the applicant, by its letters, had drawn its attention to possible irregularities in the award procedure.

      (1)  OJ 2002, L 248 p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2002, L 357 p. 1.


title: Case T-669/14: Action brought on 15 September 2014 — Trioplast Industrier v Commission

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/50

         Action brought on 15 September 2014 — Trioplast Industrier v Commission
   (Case T-669/14)
   2014/C 409/72
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Trioplast Industrier AB (Smålandsstenar, Sweden) (represented by: T. Pettersson, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant seeks from the General Court the following relief:

               1)

               Annulment:

                           a)

                           the annulment of the European Commission’s letter of 3 July 2014 in Case COMP/38354 — Industrial Bags — Trioplast Industrier AB;

                           b)

                           the cancellation of, or a reduction in the amount of, the late-payment interest of EUR 6 74  033,32 imposed on the Applicant under the Commission’s letter;

                           c)

                           an order that the Commission reimburse the Applicant for the expenses of EUR 4  686,64 incurred in providing security for payment of the late-payment interest.

               2)

               In the alternative, damages pursuant to Article 340(2) TFEU as a result of the breaches of EU law set out in the application, for:

                           a)

                           the amount of the late-payment interest, or part thereof; and

                           b)

                           the expenses of EUR 4  686,64 incurred in providing security for the late-payment interest.

               3)

               Damages pursuant to Article 340(2) TFEU as a result of the breaches of EU law related to the period when the Commission did not release or reduce the bank guarantee amount following the General Court’s judgment in case T-40/06, for the expenses incurred in providing security, to an amount of EUR 22  783,90, or part thereof.

               4)

               Interest on such sums as are found to be due.

               5)

               An order that the Commission pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s letter lacks legal basis:

                           —

                           the Commission’s decision of 30 November 2005 as amended by Commission decision of 7 December 2005 in Case COMP/38354 — Industrial Bags — Trioplast Industrier AB (‘the 2005 Decision’) never constituted a valid basis for a claim against the applicant with regard to the order for late-payment interest, since it did not specify an exact and unconditional amount of the fine for which the applicant was liable. Moreover, the decision was annulled by the General Court in its judgment of 13 September 2010 in case T-40/06 Trioplast Industrier AB v Commission (‘the 2010 judgment’), as far as it related to setting out a fine for the applicant.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of an essential procedural requirement and lack of competence:

                           —

                           the Commission’s letter constitutes a decision unlawfully taken by a member of DG Budget who lacked competence to engage the Commission in the taking of such a decision. The Commission’s letter cannot be considered to merely give effect to a previous decision and, as such, be considered as an accessory measure of management. Instead, as neither the 2005 decision nor the 2010 judgment set the amount to be paid by the applicant, the Commission’s letter is the decision that sets the actual amount of the fine. Such a decision cannot be taken by anyone else than the College of Commissioners to bring about binding legal effects.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of legal certainty and the principle that penalties should be specific to the offender and to the offence:

                           —

                           in requiring the applicant to pay the contested interest amount, the Commission is in effect sanctioning the applicant for a situation created by the former's breach of the principle of legal certainty and the principle that penalties should be specific to the offender and to the offence. The Commission has not yet remedied that breach.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 266 TFEU:

                           —

                           the Commission has infringed Article 266 TFEU by not acting in accordance with the 2010 judgment. The Commission’s letter demonstrates the Commission’s final decision not to adopt a new formal decision specifying the exact amount that the applicant needs to pay, despite its obligation to do so after the 2010 judgment. The letter is therefore a definite and final statement that shows that the Commission will not fulfil its obligations under Article 266 TFEU.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of proportionality:

                           —

                           the Commission did not respect the principle of proportionality when ordering the applicant to pay late-payment interest on a fine, the sum of which has never been clear and which had been annulled in its totality, without the Commission taking a new final decision as to the amount of fine to be paid by the applicant. The purposes of the rules that give the Commission the right to claim late payment interest in other cases are not fulfilled in the present case. In the alternative, it is at least disproportionate to impose an interest rate of a punitive character, since the applicant has been prevented from avoiding that cost as a result of the Commission’s own conduct.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law when it refused to release the applicant’s bank guarantee subsequent to the 2010 judgment:

                           —

                           in the said judgment, the General Court annulled the 2005 decision, originally ordering the payment of fines, leaving the Commission without any legal claim against the applicant until the adoption of a new decision. In refusing to release the bank guarantee after the 2010 judgment, the Commission acted contrary to the ruling. This error in law directly caused the applicant further costs for continuing to provide the bank guarantee. In the alternative, the Commission should at least have reduced the amount of the bank guarantee immediately after the judgment to the maximum amount established by the General Court.


title: Case T-351/15: Action brought on 30 June 2015 — Papapanagiotou v Parlement

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/49

         Action brought on 30 June 2015 — Papapanagiotou v Parlement
   (Case T-351/15)
   (2015/C 311/54)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Papapanagiotou AVEEA (Serres, Greece) (represented by: S. Pappas and I. Ioannidis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Decision D(2015)12887 of 27 April 2015 of the Director-General of the Directorate-General for Infrastructure and Logistics, whereby the tender submitted by the applicant for Lots 1, 2 and 4 of tendering procedure ‘Office Furniture’ No INLO.AO-2012-017-LUX-UAGBI-02 ‘for the acquisition of standard, executive and high-end office furniture and accessories’ was rejected and with which the Director-General informed the applicant that, for the evaluation of all the tenders in the above tender procedure, he had not taken into consideration one of the award criteria specified in the tender documents;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

      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 the contested decision is unlawful, due to the exclusion of the ‘construction (resistance to breakage, abrasion, scratching and decolouration)’ award subcriterion during the tender procedure, which violates the tender specifications, Articles 110(1) and 113(1) Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the European Union (‘the Financial Regulation’) and the general principles of equal treatment and transparency.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a failure of the contracting authority to state reasons, namely the characteristics and relative advantages of the successful tenders, in violation of Article 113(2) of the Financial Regulation, Article 161(3) of the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (‘Rules of Application of the Financial Regulation’), Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 296 TFUE.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the principle of transparency according to Article 102 of the Financial Regulation and Article 15(3) TFUE, as the contracting authority failed to provide information and evidence on whether the samples provided by the tenders for the re-evaluation of the tenders were identical to the samples originally evaluated in the first evaluation procedure that was subsequently cancelled.