title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 July 2001 in Joined Cases T-202/98, T-204/98 and T-207/98: Tate & Lyle plc and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Sugar market — Infringement of Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) — Fines)

text:
5.1.2002               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 3/21
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               5.    Orders the applicant in Case T-204/98 to pay its own costs
                                                                               and those incurred by the Commission in that case, including
                                                                               those relating to the proceedings for interim relief;
                          of 12 July 2001
                                                                         6.    Orders the applicant in Case T-207/98 to pay its own costs
in Joined Cases T-202/98, T-204/98 and T-207/98: Tate &                        and those incurred by the Commission in that case.
Lyle plc and Others v Commission of the European
                         Communities (1)
                                                                         (1) OJ C 48 of 20.2.1999.
(Competition — Sugar market — Infringement of Article 85
        of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) — Fines)
                           (2002/C 3/32)
                   (Language of the case: English)                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 12 July 2001
In Joined Cases T-202/98: Tate & Lyle plc, represented by
R. Fowler QC and A. L. Morris, solicitors, with an address               in Case T-2/99: T. Port GmbH & Co. KG v Council of the
for service in Luxembourg, T-204/98: British Sugar plc,                                          European Union (1)
represented by T. Sharpe QC and D. Jowell, barristers, and
L.R. Lindsay and A. Nourry, solicitors, with an address for
                                                                         (Bananas — Imports from ACP States and third countries
service in Luxembourg, Case T-207/98: Napier Brown & Co.
                                                                         — Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 — Possibility of relying on
Ltd, represented by D. Guy, solicitor, and S. Sheppard,
                                                                         WTO rules — First paragraph of Article 234 of the EC
barrister, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
                                                                         Treaty (now, after amendment, first paragraph of
Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                                                                                Article 307 EC) — Action for damages)
B. Doherty and K. Wiedner) — application for annulment of
Commission Decision 1999/210/EC of 14 October 1998
relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EC                                            (2002/C 3/33)
    Treaty                        (Case                      IV/
F-3/33.708 — British Sugar plc, Case IV/F-3/33.709 — Tate
& Lyle plc, Case IV/F-3/33.710 — Napier Brown & Company                                     (Language of the case: German)
Ltd, Case IV/F-3/33.711 — James Budgett Sugars Ltd) (OJ
1999 L 76, p. 1) — the Court of First Instance (Fourth
Chamber), composed of P. Mengozzi, President, V. Tiili and
R.M. Moura Ramos, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator,           In Case T-2/99: T. Port GmbH & Co. KG, established in
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 July 2001, in              Hamburg (Germany), represented by G. Meier, lawyer, against
which it:                                                                the Council of the European Union (Agents: S. Marquardt and
                                                                         J.-P. Hix) supported by the French Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-
                                                                         Bellanger, C. Vasak, S. Seam and F. Million) and by the
1.    Annuls Article 3 of Commission Decision 1999/210/EC of             Commission of the European Communities (Agent: K.-D. Bor-
      14 October 1998 relating to a proceeding pursuant to               chardt) — application for compensation for the loss which the
      Article 85 of the EC Treaty (Case IV/F-3/33.708 — British          applicant has suffered as a result of the Council introducing,
      Sugar plc, Case IV/F-3/33.709 — Tate & Lyle plc, Case IV/          under Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February
      F-3/33.710 — Napier Brown & Company Ltd, Case IV/                  1993 on the common organisation of the market in bananas
      F-3/33.711 — James Budgett Sugars Ltd) in so far as it             (OJ 1993 L 47, p. 1), provisions which are alleged to conflict
      concerns the applicant in Case T-202/98;                           with Article I.1 and Article XIII of the General Agreement on
                                                                         Tariffs and Trade (GATT) — the Court of First Instance
2.    Fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant in Case      (Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Lindh, President, R. Garcı́a-
      T-202/98 by Article 3 of Decision 1999/210 at 5.6 million          Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke, Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator,
      euros;                                                             for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 July 2001, in
                                                                         which it:
3.    Orders the Commission to pay its own costs and those of the
      applicant in Case T-202/98;                                        1.    Dismisses the action;
4.    Dismisses the applications in Cases T-204/98 and T-207/98;         2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs;


title: Case C-521/09 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — Elf Aquitaine SA v European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Market for monochloroacetic acid — Rules on imputing a subsidiary’s anti-competitive practices to its parent company — Presumption of the actual exercise of a decisive influence — Rights of the defence — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/2

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — Elf Aquitaine SA v European Commission
   (Case C-521/09 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Market for monochloroacetic acid - Rules on imputing a subsidiary’s anti-competitive practices to its parent company - Presumption of the actual exercise of a decisive influence - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons)
   2011/C 340/03
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Elf Aquitaine SA (represented by: E. Morgan de Rivery, S. Thibault-Liger and E. Lagathu, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and F. Castillo de la Torre, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 30 September 2009 in Case T-174/05 Elf Aquitaine v Commission, by which the Court dismissed Elf Aquitaine’s application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 4876 final of 19 January 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement concerning an agreement in the market for monochloroacetic acid and, in the alternative, for annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on it — Failure to comply with the principle of the presumption of innocence and the principle that penalties must be specific to the offender, and with the rules on imputing a subsidiary’s anti-competitive practices to its parent company — Infringement of the rights of the defence and of the obligation to state reasons

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 September 2009 in Case T-174/05 Elf Aquitaine v Commission;

               2.

               Annuls Commission Decision C(2004) 4876 final of 19 January 2005 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/37.773 — AMCA), in so far as it imputes the infringement in question to Elf Aquitaine SA and imposes a fine on it;

               3.

               Orders Elf Aquitaine SA and the European Commission each to pay its own costs relating to this appeal;

               4.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs at first instance.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 13.02.2010.


title: Case F-124/10: Action brought on 26 November 2010 — Labiri v CESE

text:
               26.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/34

         Action brought on 26 November 2010 — Labiri v CESE
   (Case F-124/10)
   2011/C 63/63
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Vassiliki Labiri (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the decision to terminate without further action the administrative inquiry initiated as a result of the complaint of psychological harassment lodged by the applicant.

      Form of order sought by the applicant

               —

               Annul the decision of 18 January 2010 of the Secretary-General of the European Economic and Social Committee not to uphold any allegations against the applicant’s head of unit and to terminate the administrative inquiry initiated jointly by the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions as a result of the complaint of psychological harassment without further action;

               —

               order the European Economic and Social Committee to pay the costs.


title: Case C-81/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León, Sala de lo Social, by order of that court of 28 January 2005 in Anacleto Cordero Alonso v Fondo de Garantía Salarial

text:
               16.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León, Sala de lo Social, by order of that court of 28 January 2005 in Anacleto Cordero Alonso v Fondo de Garantía Salarial
   (Case C-81/05)
   (2005/C 93/30)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León, Sala de lo Social (High Court of Justice of Castille and León, Social Chamber) (Spain) of 28 January 2005, which was received at the Court Registry on 18 February 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Anacleto Cordero Alonso against Fondo de Garantía Salarial.
   The Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León, Sala de lo Social, asks the Court of Justice to give a preliminary ruling on the following questions:

               1.

               Do the obligation imposed on the Member States to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty establishing the European Community or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the Community (Article 10 EC), and the principle of the primacy of Community law over national law imply, of themselves and without the need for specific provisions of national law, that national courts have the power to disapply all provisions of national law which are contrary to Community law, irrespective of the status of such provisions in the hierarchy of norms (regulations, laws and even a constitution)?

               2.

                           (a)

                           Where Spanish administrative and judicial institutions are required to rule on the right of an employee whose employer has been declared insolvent to receive, from the Fondo de Garantía Social, the compensation owed to him as a result of the termination of a contract of employment which, under national legislation, is guaranteed in the event of insolvency, are they applying Community law notwithstanding that Articles 1 and 3 of Directive 80/987/EEC (1) do not specifically provide for compensation in the event of the termination of the contract?

                           (b)

                           If so, when applying Directive 80/987/EC and the provisions of national law transposing the content thereof, are the Spanish administrative and judicial institutions bound by the principle of equality before the law and the prohibition of discrimination deriving from Community law, as defined by the interpretation thereof given by the Court of Justice of the European Communities, notwithstanding that that interpretation does not coincide with the interpretation in the case-law of the Spanish Constitutional Court of the equivalent fundamental right which is enshrined in the Spanish Constitution?

                           (c)

                           If so, does the fundamental right of equality before the law deriving from Community law impose an obligation to treat equally cases where the right of an employee to be compensated for the termination of his contract has been laid down in a court judgment and cases where that right is the result of an agreement between the employee and the employer, entered into under the supervision and with the approval of a court?

               3.

                           (a)

                           Where, prior to the entry into force of Directive 2002/74/EC, a Member State had already conferred on employees a statutory entitlement to protection by a guarantee institution in the event of an employer's insolvency with regard to compensation for the termination of a contract, is it possible to conclude that the Member State has been applying Community law since the entry into force of that directive on 8 October 2002, notwithstanding that the deadline for transposing the directive has not expired, where it governs the payment by the guarantee institution of such compensation for the termination of a contract in a case where an employer was declared insolvent after 8 October 2002?

                           (b)

                           If so, when applying Directive [2002/74/EC] and the provisions of national law transposing the content thereof, are the Spanish administrative and judicial institutions bound by the principle of equality before the law and the prohibition of discrimination deriving from Community law, as defined by the interpretation thereof given by the Court of Justice of the European Communities, notwithstanding that that interpretation does not coincide with the interpretation in the case-law of the Spanish Constitutional Court of the equivalent fundamental right which is enshrined in the Spanish Constitution?

                           (c)

                           If so, does the fundamental right of equality before the law deriving from Community law impose an obligation to treat equally cases where the right of an employee to be compensated for the termination of his contract has been laid down in a court judgment and cases where that right is the result of an agreement between the employee and the employer, entered into under the supervision and with the approval of a court?

      (1)  Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ 1980 L 283, p. 23).


title: Case T-126/15: Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2016 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Grup Supeco Maxor (Supeco) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Supeco — Earlier EU figurative mark SUPER COR — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Extent of the examination carried out by the Board of Appeal — Goods and services on which the opposition is based — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Rule 15(2)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Communication No 2/12)

text:
               4.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2016 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Grup Supeco Maxor (Supeco)
   (Case T-126/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Supeco - Earlier EU figurative mark SUPER COR - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Extent of the examination carried out by the Board of Appeal - Goods and services on which the opposition is based - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Rule 15(2)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Communication No 2/12))
   (2016/C 243/33)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: E. Scheffer and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Grup Supeco Maxor, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: S. Martínez-Almeida y Alejos-Pita, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2014 (Case R 1112/2014-5) relating to opposition proceedings between El Corte Inglés, SA and Grup Supeco Maxor, SL.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders El Corte Inglés, SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 155, 11.5.2015.


title: Case C-433/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 April 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handens Tingsrätt (Sweden)) — Criminal proceedings against Lars Sandström (Directives 94/25/EC and 2003/44/EC — Approximation of laws — Recreational craft — Prohibition of using personal watercraft on waters other than general navigable waterways — Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — Measures having equivalent effect — Access to the market — Impediment — Protection of the environment — Proportionality — Directive 98/34/EC — Article 8 — Amendment to national legislation — Obligation to notify — Conditions)

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/2

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 April 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handens Tingsrätt (Sweden)) — Criminal proceedings against Lars Sandström
   (Case C-433/05) (1)

   (Directives 94/25/EC and 2003/44/EC - Approximation of laws - Recreational craft - Prohibition of using personal watercraft on waters other than general navigable waterways - Articles 28 EC and 30 EC - Measures having equivalent effect - Access to the market - Impediment - Protection of the environment - Proportionality - Directive 98/34/EC - Article 8 - Amendment to national legislation - Obligation to notify - Conditions)
   2010/C 148/03
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Handens Tingsrätt

      Party in the main proceedings

   Lars Sandström

      Re:

   Preliminary ruling — Handens tingsrätt — Interpretation of Articles 28 EC to 30 EC and of Directive 2003/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 June 2003 amending Directive 94/25/EC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to recreational craft (OJ 2003 L 214, p. 18) — Prohibition of the use of maritime vehicles with outboard motors other than on general navigable waterways

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Directive 94/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 June 1994 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to recreational craft, as amended by Directive 2003/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 June 2003, does not preclude national regulations which, for reasons relating to the protection of the environment, prohibit the use of personal watercraft on waters other than designated waterways;

               2.

               Articles 34 TFEU and 36 TFEU do not preclude such national regulations, provided that:

                           —

                           the competent national authorities are required to adopt the implementing measures provided for in order to designate waters other than general navigable waterways on which personal watercraft may be used;

                           —

                           those authorities have actually made use of the power conferred on them in that regard and designated the waters which satisfy the conditions laid down in the national regulations, and

                           —

                           such measures have been adopted within a reasonable period after the entry into force of those regulations.

                     It is for the national court to ascertain whether those conditions have been satisfied in the main proceedings.

               3.

               Article 8(1) 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 is to be interpreted as meaning that an amendment made to a draft technical regulation already notified to the European Commission, pursuant to the first subparagraph of that provision, and which contains, in relation to the notified draft, merely a relaxation of the conditions of use of the product in question and which, therefore, reduces the possible impact of the technical regulation on trade, is not a significant alteration of the draft for the purposes of the third subparagraph of that provision and need not be notified beforehand to the Commission. In the absence of such an obligation of prior notification, the failure to inform the Commission of a non-significant amendment to a technical regulation, prior to its adoption, does not affect the applicability of that regulation.

      (1)  OJ C 36, 11.2.2006.


title: Case C-40/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München (Germany) By order of that court of  19 January 2006  in Juers Pharma Import-Export GmbH v Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München (Germany) By order of that court of 19 January 2006 in Juers Pharma Import-Export GmbH v Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg
   (Case C-40/06)
   (2006/C 86/19)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Finzgericht München (Germany) of 19 January 2006, received at the Court Registry on 25 January 2006, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Jules Pharma Import-Export GmbH and Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg on the following question:
   Is the Combined Nomenclature (‘the CN’) as amended by Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1789/2003 (OJ 2003 L 281, p.1) of 11 September 2003 (1) amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical Nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff to be interpreted as meaning that Melatonin capsules, put up as dietary supplements in the absence of authorisation under the provisions on medical products, are to be classified under heading 3004?

      (1)  OJ L 281, p.1


17.7.1999               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 204/35
2. Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.                     Removal from the register of Case C-320/97 (1)
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                                      (1999/C 204/74)
submitted in Case C-168/99 (2), the period prescribed in
Article 14(2) of the directive expired on 27 June 1997.               By order of 18 March 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                      from the register of Case C-320/97: Commission of the
(1) OJ 1995 L 143, p. 75.                                             European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
(2) See this OJ, p. 28.
                                                                      (1) OJ No C 331 of 1.11.1997.
       Removal from the register of Case C-330/98 (1)
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-5/99 (1)
                         (1999/C 204/71)
                                                                                (1999/C 204/75)
By order of 10 March 1999 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           By order of 18 March 1999 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-330/98 (reference for a preliminary       Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): The Wellcome Foun-             from the register of Case C-5/99 (reference for a preliminary
dation Ltd v Nycomed Austria GmbH.                                    ruling from the Landgericht Regensburg): Business registry
                                                                      case relating to Firma Wiesenhof Geflügelspezialitäten, a
                                                                      branch of Lohmann & Co. AG.
(1) OJ No C 340 of 7.11.1998.
                                                                      (1) OJ No C 86 of 27.3.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-186/97 (1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-245/98 (1)
                         (1999/C 204/72)                                                      (1999/C 204/76)
By order of 18 March 1999 the President of the Court of               By order of 19 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
from the register of Case C-186/97: Commission of the                 the register of Case C-245/98: Commission of the European
European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.                   Communities v French Republic.
(1) OJ No C 212 of 12.7.1997.                                         (1) OJ No C 278 of 5.9.1998.
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-398/96 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case     C-192/97 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 204/77)
                         (1999/C 204/73)
                                                                      By order of 21 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
By order of 18 March 1999 the President of the Second                 of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities           the register of Case C-398/96 (reference for a preliminary
has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-192/97:           ruling from Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio):
Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic             Associazione Produttori Vitivinicoli della Provincia di Treviso
of Germany.                                                           and Others v Ministero delle Risorse Agricole, Alimentari e
                                                                      Forestali (Ministero per le Politche Agricole).
(1) OJ No C 212 of 12.7.1997.                                         (1) OJ C 54 of 22.2.1997.


title: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 9 November 2004 in Case C-203/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division)): The British Horseracing Board Ltd and Others v William Hill Organization Ltd (Directive 96/9/EC — Legal protection of databases — Sui generis right — Obtaining, verification or presentation of the contents of a database — (In)substantial part of the contents of a database — Extraction and re-utilisation — Normal exploitation — Unreasonable prejudice to the legitimate interests of the maker — Horseracing database — Lists of races — Betting)

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/4

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Grand Chamber)
   of 9 November 2004
   in Case C-203/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division)): The British Horseracing Board Ltd and Others v William Hill Organization Ltd (1)

   (Directive 96/9/EC - Legal protection of databases - Sui generis right - Obtaining, verification or presentation of the contents of a database - (In)substantial part of the contents of a database - Extraction and re-utilisation - Normal exploitation - Unreasonable prejudice to the legitimate interests of the maker - Horseracing database - Lists of races - Betting)
   (2005/C 6/06)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-203/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division), made by decision of 24 May 2002, received at the Court on 31 May 2002, in the proceedings between The British Horseracing Board Ltd and Others and William Hill Organization Ltd - the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas and K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur), (Presidents of Chambers), J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi and M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrators, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 November 2004, in which it has ruled:

               1.

               The expression ‘investment in … the obtaining … of the contents’ of a database in Article 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases must be understood to refer to the resources used to seek out existing independent materials and collect them in the database. It does not cover the resources used for the creation of materials which make up the contents of a database.
               The expression ‘investment in … the … verification … of the contents’ of a database in Article 7(1) of Directive 96/9 must be understood to refer to the resources used, with a view to ensuring the reliability of the information contained in that database, to monitor the accuracy of the materials collected when the database was created and during its operation. The resources used for verification during the stage of creation of materials which are subsequently collected in a database do not fall within that definition.
               The resources used to draw up a list of horses in a race and to carry out checks in that connection do not constitute investment in the obtaining and verification of the contents of the database in which that list appears.

               2.

               The terms ‘extraction’ and ‘re-utilisation’ as defined in Article 7 of Directive 96/9 must be interpreted as referring to any unauthorised act of appropriation and distribution to the public of the whole or a part of the contents of a database. Those terms do not imply direct access to the database concerned.
               The fact that the contents of a database were made accessible to the public by its maker or with his consent does not affect the right of the maker to prevent acts of extraction and/or re-utilisation of the whole or a substantial part of the contents of a database.

               3.

               The expression ‘substantial part, evaluated … quantitatively, of the contents of [a] database’ in Article 7 of Directive 96/9 refers to the volume of data extracted from the database and/or re-utilised and must be assessed in relation to the total volume of the contents of the database.
               The expression ‘substantial part, evaluated qualitatively … of the contents of [a] database’ refers to the scale of the investment in the obtaining, verification or presentation of the contents of the subject of the act of extraction and/or re-utilisation, regardless of whether that subject represents a quantitatively substantial part of the general contents of the protected database.
               Any part which does not fulfil the definition of a substantial part, evaluated both quantitatively and qualitatively, falls within the definition of an insubstantial part of the contents of a database.

               4.

               The prohibition laid down by Article 7(5) of Directive 96/9 refers to unauthorised acts of extraction or re-utilisation the cumulative effect of which is to reconstitute and/or make available to the public, without the authorisation of the maker of the database, the whole or a substantial part of the contents of that database and thereby seriously prejudice the investment by the maker.

      (1)  OJ C 180 of 27.7.2002.


title: Case C-8/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg (Germany) lodged on 6 January 2011 — Johann Bilker and Others v EWE AG

text:
               9.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/2

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg (Germany) lodged on 6 January 2011 — Johann Bilker and Others v EWE AG
   (Case C-8/11)
   2011/C 113/03
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Johann Bilker and Others

      Respondent: EWE AG

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 1(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1) to be interpreted as meaning that statutory or regulatory provisions are not subject to the provisions of that directive even in the case where a seller or supplier refers in his contractual terms and conditions to statutory or regulatory provisions which were adopted in respect of a different consumer group and a different type of contract? If the directive is not applicable, does that exclusion of its application also extend to the requirement of plainness and intelligibility contained in Article 5?

               2.

               Are the first sentence of Article 5 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts and the fourth sentence of Article 3(3) of Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 (2) concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC to be interpreted as meaning that there is no ‘plain and intelligible term’ or that ‘high levels of consumer protection, particularly with respect to transparency regarding general contractual terms and conditions’ are not ensured if a seller or supplier seeks to justify a unilateral right to vary prices with the argument that he refers globally, in his general terms and conditions, to a national regulation which was adopted in respect of a different consumer group and a different type of contract and in which, moreover, the provision relevant to the right to vary prices does not satisfy the requirement of transparency?

      (1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

      (2)  Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 57).


title: Case T-596/10: Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2012 — Almunia Textil v OHIM — FIBA-Europe (EuroBasket) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark EuroBasket — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               17.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2012 — Almunia Textil v OHIM — FIBA-Europe (EuroBasket)
   (Case T-596/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark EuroBasket - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 80/29
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Almunia Textil, SA (La Almunia de Doña Godina, Spain) (represented by: J.E. Astiz Suárez, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: FIBA-Europe eV (Munich, Germany) (represented by: T. Hogh Holub, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 October 2010 (Case R 280/2010-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Almunia Textil, SA and FIBA-Europe eV.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Almunia Textil, SA to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and FIBA-Europe eV including, in respect of the latter, the unavoidable costs incurred for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.


title: Case T-451/12: Order of the General Court of 24 October 2013 — Stromberg Menswear v OHIM — Leketoy Stormberg Inter (STORMBERG) (Community trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Earlier Community word mark STORMBERG — Surrender of the disputed mark by the proprietor — Decision to close the revocation proceedings — Request for restitutio in integrum — Obligation to state reasons — Articles 58(1), 76(1) and 81(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               14.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 367/28

         Order of the General Court of 24 October 2013 — Stromberg Menswear v OHIM — Leketoy Stormberg Inter (STORMBERG)
   (Case T-451/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Earlier Community word mark STORMBERG - Surrender of the disputed mark by the proprietor - Decision to close the revocation proceedings - Request for restitutio in integrum - Obligation to state reasons - Articles 58(1), 76(1) and 81(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
   2013/C 367/50
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Stromberg Menswear Ltd (Leeds, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Tsoutsanis, lawyer, and C. Tulley, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Leketoy Stormberg Inter AS (Kristiansand S, Norway) (represented initially by T. Mølsgaard, and subsequently by J. Løje, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 August 2012 (Case R 389/2012-4), relating to revocation proceedings between Stromberg Menswear Ltd and Leketoy Stormberg Inter AS.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Stromberg Menswear Ltd shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 2.3.2013.


title: Case C-333/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bács-Kiskun Megyei Bíróság by order of that court of  12 July 2005  in Ilona Németh v Vám- és Pénzügyőrség Dél-Alföldi Regionális Parancsnoksága

text:
               10.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bács-Kiskun Megyei Bíróság by order of that court of 12 July 2005 in Ilona Németh v Vám- és Pénzügyőrség Dél-Alföldi Regionális Parancsnoksága
   (Case C-333/05)
   (2005/C 315/14)
   Language of the case: Hungarian
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Bács-Kiskun Megyei Bíróság of 12 July 2005, received at the Court Registry on 14 September 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Ilona Németh and Vám- és Pénzügyőrség Dél-Alföldi Regionális Parancsnoksága on the following questions:

               1.

               May a tax imposed by a Member State, such as the Hungarian registration tax, be considered to be a customs duty or a levy having equivalent effect?

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered in the negative, may a tax imposed by a Member State, such as the Hungarian registration tax — which requires payment of a tax as a precondition for the registration and placing into circulation of a passenger car — be considered to be a type of tax?

               3.

               If Question 2 is answered in the negative, is a tax imposed by a Member State, such as the Hungarian registration tax, compatible with the requirements of Article 90 EC or with Article 33 of Directive 77/388/EEC (1), or does the Hungarian registration tax infringe the common system of value added tax?

               4.

               As Community law now stands, is a tax imposed by a Member State, such as the Hungarian registration tax, compatible with the provisions of Community law when the amount of the registration tax payable on new and used passenger cars — without taking into account the environmental classification of the vehicles — does not in any way reflect the depreciation in value of used vehicles and is wholly independent of the date on which the vehicle was placed in circulation and of the time during which it remained in (lawful) circulation?

      (1)  OJ 1977, L 145, p. 1.


title: Case C-262/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 26 May 2011 — Kremikovtsi AD v Ministar na ikonomikata, energetikata i turizma i zamestnik-ministar na ikonomikata, energetikata i turizma (Minister for the Economy, Energy and Tourism and the Deputy Minister for the Economy, Energy and Tourism)

text:
               6.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 26 May 2011 — Kremikovtsi AD v Ministar na ikonomikata, energetikata i turizma i zamestnik-ministar na ikonomikata, energetikata i turizma (Minister for the Economy, Energy and Tourism and the Deputy Minister for the Economy, Energy and Tourism)
   (Case C-262/11)
   2011/C 232/30
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Kremikovtsi AD

      Defendant: Ministar na ikonomikata, energetikata i turizma i zamestnik-ministar na ikonomikata, energetikata i turizma (Minister for the Economy, Energy and Tourism and the Deputy Minister for the Economy, Energy and Tourism)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do the provisions of the Europe Agreement and particularly of the EU-Bulgaria Association Council decisions apply to State aid that was granted prior to the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria to the European Union pursuant to the provisions of the Europe Agreement and, in particular, pursuant to Article 9(4) of Protocol 2 where an assessment of the incompatibility of State aid granted in that way takes place after the date of accession of the Republic of Bulgaria to the European Union? If the answer to this question is in the affirmative the following interpretation is required:

                           (a)

                           Is the second paragraph of Article 3 of the Additional Protocol to the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Bulgaria, of the other part, with regard to an extension of the period laid down in Article 9(4) of Protocol 2 to the Europe Agreement to be interpreted as meaning that only the European Commission may establish whether the restructuring programme and the plans have been fully implemented in accordance with Article 2 of the Additional Protocol and are in compliance with the requirements of Article 9(4) of Protocol 2 to the Europe Agreement? If the answer to this question is in the negative the following interpretation is required:

                           (b)

                           Is the third paragraph of Article 3 of the Additional Protocol to the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Bulgaria, of the other part, with regard to an extension of the period laid down in Article 9(4) of Protocol 2 to the Europe Agreement to be interpreted as meaning that the competent national authority of the Republic of Bulgaria has the right to adopt a decision on the recovery of State aid that does not comply with the requirements of Article 9(4) of Protocol 2 to the Europe Agreement? If the Court of Justice should answer this question in the negative an interpretation of the following question is requested:

               2.

               Is the provision in paragraph 1 of the part of Annex V to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union relating to competition rules to be interpreted as meaning that the State aid in question constitutes ‘new aid’ within the meaning of subparagraph 2 of paragraph 1 of that Annex? If so, are the provisions of Articles 107 and 108 TFEU (Articles 87 EC und 88 EC) on State aid and the provisions of Regulation No 659/1999 (1) to apply in such a case to such ‘new aid’?

                           (a)

                           If the answer to this question is in the negative the following question will have to be answered: Are the provisions in paragraph 1 of Annex V to the Act of Accession to be interpreted as meaning that the competent national authorities cannot take steps to recover State aid such as that in the main proceedings before the Commission has taken a decision by which the State aid at issue is declared incompatible with the common market?

                           (b)

                           If the answer given to the previous question is in the affirmative: Is the Commission Decision of 15 December 2009 produced to the Varhoven administrativen sad (Higher Administrative Court) to be considered a negative decision on unlawful aid within the meaning of Article 14 of Regulation No 659/1999?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1)


title: Case C-307/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg by order of that court of 15 July 1999 in the case of OGT Fruchthandelsgesellschaft mbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-St Annen

text:
C 299/14                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    16.10.1999
     (ii) a substantial proportion of the relevant trace and            — declare TF1’s action inadmissible in so far as it is directed
          public believe that goods of that shape come from the              against the Commission’s failure to act pursuant to Article
          trade mark proprietor, absent a statement to the                   90 of the EC Treaty;
          contrary?
                                                                        — order TF1 to pay the costs of the proceedings before the
6. Does the exclusive right granted by Article 5(1 ) extend to               Court of Justice and give a new ruling on the costs of the
     enable the proprietor to prevent third parties using ident-             proceedings before the Court of First Instance, limiting the
     ical or similar signs in circumstances where that use was               order against the Commission so that it is commensurate
     not such as to indicate origin or is it limited so as to                with the outcome of the present appeal.
     prevent only use which wholly or in part does indicate
     origin?
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
7. Is use of an allegedly infringing shape of goods, which is
     and would be seen as an indication as to the kind of goods
     or the intended purpose thereof, nonetheless such as to            The Court of First Instance erred in its interpretation of Article
     indicate origin if a substantial proportion of the relevant        90 of the EC Treaty (now Article 86 EC): It was wrong of the
     trade and public believe that goods of the shape complai-          Court to lay down, somewhat dogmatically, the principle that
     ned of come from the trade mark proprietor absent a                the purpose of the power conferred upon the Commission by
     statement to the contrary?                                         Article 90 of the EC Treaty is to protect the rights of
                                                                        individuals. On that premise, the Court of First Instance
                                                                        adopted the general view that an individual must be entitled to
(1) First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to           bring an effective legal action against decisions which are
    approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade         capable of adversely effecting rights recognised by the Treaties.
    marks (OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 1).                                   By implying that an action for failure to act must lie, so that
                                                                        the principle of effective legal action may be observed, when
                                                                        Article 90(1) of the EC Treaty is directly effective and can
                                                                        therefore be relied on in proceedings before national courts to
                                                                        set aside State measures falling within that provision, the Court
                                                                        of First Instance misinterpreted Article 90.
Appeal brought on 10 August 1999 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the judgment deliv-
ered on 3 June 1999 by the Third Chamber, Extended
Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the Euro-
pean Communities in Case T-17/96 between Télévision                     Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
Française 1 SA (TF1) and the Commission of the European                 Hamburg by order of that court of 15 July 1999 in the case
       Communities supported by the French Republic                     of OGT Fruchthandelsgesellschaft mbH v Hauptzollamt
                                                                                Hamburg-St Annen
                         (Case C-302/99 P)
                                                                                (Case C-307/99)
                          (1999/C 299/14)
                                                                                (1999/C 299/15)
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 3 June 1999 by
the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-17/96              European Communities by an order of the Finanzgericht
between Télévision Française 1 SA (TF1) and the Commission              (Finance Court) Hamburg of 15 July 1999, which was received
of the European Communities supported by the French                     at the Court Registry on 13 August 1999, for a preliminary
Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the                 ruling in the case of OGT Fruchthandelsgesellschaft mbH v
European Communities on 10 August 1999 by the Com-                      Hauptzollamt Hamburg-St Annen on the following question:
mission of the European Communities, represented by Giulia-
no Marenco, Principal Legal Adviser, and Klaus Wiedner, of its
Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg at             Is the second subparagraph of Article 18(1) of Regulation
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                               (EEC) No 404/93 (1), as amended by Regulation (EC)
                                                                        No 1637/98 (2), inapplicable on the ground of breach of
                                                                        Articles I and XIII of GATT (1994), individuals being able to
The appellant claims that the Court should:                             rely thereon in court proceedings?
— set aside the judgment delivered on 3 June 1999 by the
     Court of First Instance in Case T-17/96 Télévision Française       (1) OJ 1993 L 47, p. 1.
     1 SA ‘TF1’ v Commission, in so far as it was held that             (2) OJ 1998 L 210, p. 28.
     TF1’s action was admissible in as much as it was directed
     against the Commission’s failure to act pursuant to Article
     90 of the EC Treaty (now Article 86);


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 2 October 2001 in Case C-172/97 OP: SIVU du plan d'eau de la Vallée du Lot, otherwise known as SIVU du pays d'accueil de la Vallée du Lot v Commission of the European Communities and Hydro-Réalisations SARL (Arbitration clause — Non-performance of a contract — Proceedings to have a judgment by default set aside)

text:
10.11.2001              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 317/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       2.    Orders SIVU du plan d’eau de la Vallée du Lot, otherwise
                                                                                known as SIVU du pays d’accueil de la Vallée du Lot, and
                                                                                Hydro-Réalisations SARL jointly and severally to pay the
                         (Third Chamber)                                           Commission of the European Communities the sum of
                                                                                EUR 35 404,78, together with contractual interest with effect
                        of 2 October 2001                                          from 30 October 1998 until discharge of the debt in full.
                                                                             3.    Dismisses the remainder of the application by SIVU du plan
in Case C-172/97 OP: SIVU du plan d’eau de la Vallée du                            d’eau de la Vallée du Lot, otherwise known as SIVU du pays
Lot, otherwise known as SIVU du pays d’accueil de la                               d’accueil de la Vallée du Lot.
Vallée du Lot v Commission of the European Communi-                          4.    Orders SIVU du plan d’eau de la Vallée du Lot, otherwise
             ties and Hydro-Réalisations SARL (1)                                  known as SIVU du pays d’accueil de la Vallée du Lot, and the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities to bear their own
                                                                                costs in this application.
(Arbitration clause — Non-performance of a contract —
    Proceedings to have a judgment by default set aside)
                                                                             (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
                          (2001/C 317/01)
                    (Language of the case: French)                                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                                                   of 13 September 2001
                                                                             in Case C-169/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
In Case C-172/97 OP: SIVU du plan d’eau de la Vallée du Lot,                 the Bundesgerichtshof): Hans Schwarzkopf GmbH & Co.
otherwise known as SIVU du pays d’accueil de la Vallée du Lot,               KG v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs
established in La Canourgue (France) (Avocat: T. Vernhet) —                                                    eV (1)
application to have the judgment by default delivered by the
Court of Justice of the European Communities (Third Chamber)                 (Article 6(1)(d), last sentence, of Directive 76/768/EEC, as
on 10 June 1999 in Case C-172/97 Commission v SIVU and                       amended by Directive 93/35/EEC — Prescribed labelling
Hydro-Réalisations [1999] ECR I-3363 set aside, the other                    ‘impossible for practical reasons’ — Justification for putting
parties to the proceedings being: Commission of the European                 abbreviated forms of compulsory warnings on the containers
Communities, (Agents: initially R.B. Wainwright and O. Couv-                 and packaging of cosmetic products — Information provided
ert-Castéra, and, subsequently, R.B. Wainwright and J.-F. Pas-               in nine languages in the interests of greater flexibility in the
quier) and Hydro-Réalisations SARL, established in Rodez                                      marketing of cosmetic products)
(France) — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: C. Gul-
                                                                                (2001/C 317/02)
mann, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur)
and F. Macken, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass,                                     (Language of the case: German)
Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 October 2001, in which
it:                                                                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
1.    Sets aside point 1 of the operative part of the judgment by            In Case C-169/99: reference to the Court under Article 234 of
      default of 10 June 1999 in Case C-172/97 Commission v                  the EC Treaty from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) for a
      SIVU and Hydro-Réalisations.                                           preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that


title: Case C-218/05: Action brought on 17 May 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/31

         Action brought on 17 May 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
   (Case C-218/05)
   (2005/C 182/55)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 May 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by K. Simonsson and C. Loggi, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               (1)

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2002 establishing a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system and repealing Council Directive 93/75/EEC (1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate to the Commission tht it had done so, the Italan Republic has failed to fulfil its oblgations under Article 29 of that directive.

               (2)

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The time-limit for transposing the dirctive was 5 February 2004.

      (1)  OJ L 208 of 05.08.2002, p. 10.


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 146, 29.5.2004

text:
               12.6.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/10

         (2004/C 156/19)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the
         Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 146, 29.5.2004

   Past publications

      OJ C 106, 30.4.2004

      OJ C 94, 17.4.2004

      OJ C 85, 3.4.2004

      OJ C 71, 20.3.2004

      OJ C 59, 6.3.2004

      OJ C 47, 21.2.2004

   These texts are available on:

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

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


title: Joined Cases C-436/08 and C-4367/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 February 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Linz (Austria)) — Haribo Lakritzen Hans Riegel BetriebsgmbH (C-436/08), Österreichische Salinen AG (C-437/08) v Finanzamt Linz (Free movement of capital — Corporation tax — Exemption of nationally-sourced dividends — Exemption of foreign-sourced dividends only if certain conditions are complied with — Application of an imputation system to non-exempt foreign-sourced dividends — Proof required as to the foreign tax creditable)

text:
               2.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/2

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 February 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Linz (Austria)) — Haribo Lakritzen Hans Riegel BetriebsgmbH (C-436/08), Österreichische Salinen AG (C-437/08) v Finanzamt Linz
   (Joined Cases C-436/08 and C-4367/08) (1)

   (Free movement of capital - Corporation tax - Exemption of nationally-sourced dividends - Exemption of foreign-sourced dividends only if certain conditions are complied with - Application of an imputation system to non-exempt foreign-sourced dividends - Proof required as to the foreign tax creditable)
   2011/C 103/02
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Linz

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Haribo Lakritzen Hans Riegel BetriebsgmbH (C-436/08), Österreichische Salinen AG (C-437/08)

      Defendant: Finanzamt Linz

      Re:

   References for a preliminary ruling — Unabhängiger Finanzsenat — Interpretation of Community law — National legislation under which nationally-sourced dividends are subject to an exemption system, whereas that system applies to foreign-sourced dividends only where the threshold of a 25 % holding is reached — Administrative and judicial practice providing, in response to Community law requirements, for the application of an imputation system to foreign-sourced dividends from a holding below the 25 % threshold

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which portfolio dividends from holdings in resident companies are exempt from corporation tax and portfolio dividends from companies established in non-member States party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 are so exempt only if a comprehensive agreement for mutual assistance with regard to administrative matters and enforcement exists between the Member State and non-member State concerned, since only the existence of an agreement for mutual assistance with regard to administrative matters proves necessary for the purpose of attaining the objectives of the legislation in question.

               2.

               Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State under which portfolio dividends which a resident company receives from another resident company are exempt from corporation tax whilst portfolio dividends which a resident company receives from a company established in another Member State or in a non-member State party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 are subject to that tax, provided, however, that the tax paid in the State in which the last-mentioned company is resident is credited against the tax payable in the Member State of the recipient company and the administrative burdens imposed on the recipient company in order to qualify for such a credit are not excessive. Information demanded by the national tax authority from the company receiving dividends that relates to the tax that has actually been charged on the profits of the company distributing dividends in the State in which the latter is resident is an intrinsic part of the very operation of the imputation method and cannot be regarded as an excessive administrative burden.

               3.

               Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, in order to prevent economic double taxation, exempts portfolio dividends received by a resident company and distributed by another resident company from corporation tax and which, for dividends distributed by a company established in a non-member State other than a State party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992, provides neither for exemption of the dividends nor for a system under which a credit is granted for the tax that the company making the distribution pays in the State in which it is resident.

               4.

               Article 63 TFEU does not preclude the practice of a national tax authority which, for dividends from certain non-member States, applies the imputation method where the holding of the recipient company in the capital of the company making the distribution is below a certain threshold and the exemption method above that threshold, whilst it systematically applies the exemption method for nationally-sourced dividends, provided, however, that the mechanisms in question designed to prevent or mitigate distributed profits being liable to a series of charges to tax lead to equivalent results. The fact that the national tax authority demands information from the company receiving dividends relating to the tax that has actually been charged on the profits of the company distributing them in the non-member State in which the latter is resident is an intrinsic part of the very operation of the imputation method and does not affect, as such, the equivalence between the exemption and imputation methods.

               5.

               Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as:

                           —

                           precluding national legislation which grants resident companies the possibility of carrying losses suffered in a tax year forward to subsequent tax years and which prevents the economic double taxation of dividends by applying the exemption method to nationally-sourced dividends, whereas it applies the imputation method to dividends distributed by companies established in another Member State or in a non-member State, in so far as, when the imputation method is applied, such legislation does not allow the credit for the corporation tax paid in the State where the company distributing dividends is established to be carried forward to the following tax years if the recipient company has recorded an operating loss for the tax year in which it received the foreign-sourced dividends, and

                           —

                           not obliging a Member State to provide, in its tax legislation, that a credit is to be granted for the withholding tax levied on dividends in another Member State or in a non-member State in order to prevent the juridical double taxation — resulting from the parallel exercise by the States concerned of their respective powers of taxation — of the dividends received by a company established in the first Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 19, 24.1.2009.


title: Case C-595/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 19 December 2012 — Loredana Napoli v Ministero della Giustizia — Dipartimento Amministrazione Penitenziaria

text:
               23.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 19 December 2012 — Loredana Napoli v Ministero della Giustizia — Dipartimento Amministrazione Penitenziaria
   (Case C-595/12)
   2013/C 86/11
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Loredana Napoli

      Defendant: Ministero della Giustizia — Dipartimento Amministrazione Penitenziaria

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 15 of Directive 2006/54/EC (1) (return from maternity leave) applicable to attendance of a professional training course in the context of an employment relationship and must it be interpreted as meaning that, at the end of the leave period, the female worker concerned has the right to be re-admitted to the same course still under way, or can it be interpreted as meaning that the female worker concerned may be enrolled on a subsequent course, even though the timing, at least, of that subsequent course is uncertain?

               2.

               Must Article 2(2)(c) of Directive 2006/54/EC, which provides that any less favourable treatment related to maternity leave constitutes discrimination, be interpreted as affording female workers protection, which is absolute and cannot be affected by divergent interests, against any substantial inequality (Case C-136/95 Thibault [1998] ECR I-2011), so as to preclude national legislation which, by requiring dismissal from a professional training course and at the same time guaranteeing the option of enrolling on the following course, pursues the objective of providing adequate training but deprives the female worker of the opportunity to take up, at an earlier date, a new post together with male colleagues from the competition and course, and thus to receive the corresponding pay?

               3.

               Must Article 14(2) of Directive 2006/54/EC, under which a difference of treatment based on characteristics constituting a genuine occupational requirement does not amount to discrimination, be interpreted as permitting the Member State to delay access to employment to the detriment of a female worker who has been unable to undergo full professional training as a result of maternity leave?

               4.

               In the scenario set out in [Question 3], and accepting, in abstract terms, that Article 14(2) is applicable to the case set out therein, must that provision none the less be interpreted, in accordance with the general principle of proportionality, as precluding national legislation which requires that a female worker absent on maternity leave be dismissed from the course rather than ensuring that parallel remedial courses be set up in order to allow the training shortfall to be remedied, thereby combining the rights of the working mother and the public interest, but with the organisational and financial costs attached to that option?

               5.

               If it is interpreted as precluding the national legislation referred to above, does Directive 2006/54/EC set out, in that regard, self-executing rules which are directly applicable by the national court?

      (1)  Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23).


title: Action brought on 17 January 1997 by Elf Atochem against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-9/97)

text:
No C 74/26            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     8 . 3 . 97
Action brought on 17 January 1997 by Elf Atochem                    As regards the annulment of the reports themselves, the
   against the Commission of the European Communities               applicant states that the very existence of the documents
                         Case T-9/97 )
                                                                    which its representatives refused to sign, but which were
                                                                    countersigned by the representatives of the Member State,
                         ( 97/C 74/52 )                             constitutes an act adversely affecting it, since those
                                                                    documents — which, whilst imperfect, are in the style of
                                                                    reports — are liable to have an influence on the
                (Language of the case: French)                      establishment of the facts investigated by the Commission,
                                                                    on their characterization, thereby altering the applicant's
                                                                    legal situation to its detriment, on the developments in the
An action against the Commission of the European                    matter and on the preparation of the final act. Instead of
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   running the risk of nullifying the final act which may be
Instance of the European Communities on 17 January                  adopted by the Commission, it would seem preferable, in
 1997 by Elf Atochem, having its seat at Puteaux (France ),         the interest of the sound administration of justice and
represented by Xavier de Roux, of the Paris Bar, with an            providing greater protection for the right to a fair hearing,
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                to declare the acts adversely affecting the applicant null
Marc Loesch, 11 rue Goethe.                                         and void before they produce more serious effects liable to
                                                                    vitiate the whole of the procedure .
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul in their entirety the reports on the investigation
     into the company Elf Atochem and the annexes
     thereto, namely:                                               Action brought on 20 January 1997 by Antoinette Losch
                                                                     against the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-13/97 )
     — the report of the investigation on 18 November
         1996, drawn up on 18 and 19 November 1996,                                           ( 97/C 74/53 )
         comprising, in Annex 1 , a record of the oral
         explanations of Elf Atochem which the
         representatives of that company refused to sign,                            (Language of the case: French)
     — the report of the investigation on 19 and                    An action against the Court of Justice of the European
         20 November 1996 , drawn up on 20 November                 Communities was brought before the Court of First
         1996, comprising, in Annex 1 , a record of the oral        Instance of the European Communities on 20 January
         explanations of Elf Atochem which the                      1997 by Antoinette Losch, residing at Capellen,
         representatives of that company refused to sign.           represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and
                                                                    Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
                                                                    service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
On 8 November 1996 the Commission informed the
applicant by fax that it had decided to undertake an
investigation pursuant to Article 14 ( 2 ) of Regulation            — annul the decision of the Court of Justice rejecting the
No 17 into Elf Aquitaine and its subsidiaries and, in                    applicant's request that her name be entered on the list
particular, the applicant . That investigation took place on             of persons having manifested their interest in being the
18 , 19 and 20 November 1996 .                                           subject of a decision terminating their services as a
                                                                         result of the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden,
The applicant seeks the annulment of the reports drawn
up by the Commission's agents, since it considers that the          — order the defendant to pay the costs .
Commission has infringed its right to a fair hearing, first,
by drawing up, after the event, reports relating to the             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
discussions which they had had with certain members of
the applicant's staff ( for which Article 14 of Regulation
No 17 makes no provision ) and, second, by misusing the             The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as
procedure laid down by Article 14 of Regulation No 17 in            those previously advanced in Case T-154/96 Chvatal and
order to try to obtain information which may be obtained            Others v. Court of Justice (').
only on the basis of Article 11 of that Regulation and
within the framework of the procedural guarantees                   H OJ No C 354, 23 . 11 . 1996, p . 33 .
attaching to its implementation, and, lastly, by drawing up
those documents in a manner which is open to challenge
in any event.


title: Case T-101/05: Action brought on 1 March 2005 by BASF Aktiengesellschaft of Ludwigshafen against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/28

         Action brought on 1 March 2005 by BASF Aktiengesellschaft of Ludwigshafen against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-101/05)
   (2005/C 115/51)
   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 1 March 2005 by BASF Aktiengesellschaft of Ludwigshafen, established in Ludwigshafen (Germany), represented by N. Levy and J. Temple Lang, Solicitors and C. Feddersen, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul or substantially reduce the fine imposed on BASF pursuant to the decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay BASF's legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant contests the fine imposed on it by the Commission's Decision of 9 December 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA (Case COMP/E-2/37.533-Choline Chloride), finding that the applicant was involved in a complex of agreements and concerted practices consisting of price fixing, market sharing and agreed actions against competitors in the choline chloride sector in the EEA.
   In support of its application, the applicant submits that its rights of defence were infringed in that the Statement of Objections did not clearly state the elements relevant to the calculation of the fine imposed on the applicant by the final decision. The applicant states that in particular the 100 % increase of the fine for deterrence was not fully explained to it in the Statement of Objections.
   The applicant also submits that the increase of the fine for deterrence and for size is not permitted under Regulation 17/62 (1), now Regulation 1/2003 (2), or the Fining Guidelines (3), and is furthermore not necessary. According to the applicant, the overall size of a company can only be used to measure the impact of an infringement on the market and not as a basis for an increase of the fine. The applicant also claims that an increase for deterrence should be used with moderation and when there are clear reasons, which was not the case for the applicant.
   The applicant furthermore submits that the 50 % increase of its fine for recidivism, based on infringements that happened almost 40 and 20 years ago, is contrary to the principle of legal certainty and the principle of proportionality. The applicant also states that the increase for recidivism is wrongly calculated because the 50 % was not calculated on the starting amount, but on the starting amount already increased for size and deterrence.
   The applicant claims that is was also entitled to a greater reduction of its fine under section D of the Leniency Notice (4). The applicant states first of all that, since it was entitled to a reduction for not substantially contesting the facts, the only issue is whether the Commission correctly assessed the applicant's cooperation in other respects of the Leniency Notice. According to the applicant, the Commission, because it lost parts of the case file, made a wrong and incomplete assessment of the applicant's cooperation. According to the applicant, the decision incorrectly describes the content of certain submissions of the applicant, omits other elements of the applicant's cooperation with the investigation and contains inconsistent descriptions of the cooperation. The applicant claims also that it was in any event entitled to a greater reduction of its fine.
   Finally, the applicant submits that the Commission erred in finding that there was one continuous infringement and that the disclosure of the amount of the fine to the media prior to the adoption of the decision constitutes an infringement of the Commission's obligation of professional secrecy and its duty of good administration which impeded a proper evaluation and an independent review of the case by the College of Commissioners.

      (1)  EEC Council: Regulation No 17: First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (OJ English special edition: Series I Chapter 1959-1962, p. 87)

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

      (3)  Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 15 (2) of Regulation No 17 and Article 65 (5) of the ECSC Treaty (OJ 1998 C 9, p. 3)

      (4)  Commission Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 1996 C 207, p. 4)


title: Case C-362/01: Action brought on 24 September 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

text:
C 317/20               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10.11.2001
Appeal brought on 21 September 2001 by British Sugar                    Pleas in law and main arguments
plc against the judgment delivered on 12 July 2001 by the
Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        The appellant maintains that the facts relied upon by the Court
European Communities in Joined Cases T-202/98,
                                                                        of First Instance fail to establish that the agreement/concerted
T-204/98 and T-207/98 (1) between Tate & Lyle plc, British
                                                                        practice in question was capable of having an effect on inter-
Sugar plc, Napier Brown & Co. Ltd and the Commission
                                                                        State trade. The Court of First Instance also failed to have
                of the European Communities
                                                                        sufficient regard to the structure of the relevant market, a
                                                                        factor which, according to the Appellant, ought to have been
                                                                        taken into account as a mitigating factor. The Appellant
                                                                        therefore maintains that, on the basis of the fact and law as
                        (Case C-359/01 P)                               found by the Court of First Instance, that Court ought to have
                                                                        held that the fine imposed by the Commission was grossly
                                                                        disproportionate.
                         (2001/C 317/36)
                                                                        (1) OJ C 48, 20.2.1999, p. 29-30.
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 July 2001 by
the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Joined Cases T-202/98, T-204/98
and T-207/98 between Tate & Lyle plc, British Sugar plc,                Action brought on 24 September 2001 by the Com-
Napier Brown & Co. Ltd and the Commission of the European                  mission of the European Communities against Ireland
Communities, was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 21 September 2001 by British                                             (Case C-362/01)
Sugar plc, represented by Messrs Thomas Sharpe QG, Daniel
Jowell, barrister, et Alex Nourry, solicitor, with an address for
                                                                                (2001/C 317/37)
service in Luxembourg.
                                                                        An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities on 24 September
                                                                        2001 by the Commission of the Europe an Communities,
The Applicant claims that the Court should find that:                   represented by Karen Banks, acting as agent, with an address
                                                                        for service in Luxembourg.
1)   the agreement/concerted practice was not capable of                The Applicant requests that the Court should:
     having an effect on trade between Member States; alterna-
     tively                                                             1)    declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                              or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                              European Parliament and Council Directive 98/5/EC of
                                                                              16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession
2)   the fine imposed was disproportionate
                                                                              of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other
                                                                              than that in which the qualification was obtained (1), or
                                                                              in any event by failing to inform the Commission of
and seeks an order in the following terms:                                    those measures, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                              under that Directive.
1)   that the Judgment of the Court of First Instance be set            2)    order Ireland to pay the costs of this action.
     aside: and
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
2)   the contested Decision be annulled in whole, or alterna-
     tively in part; alternatively                                      Article 249 EC under which a directive shall be binding as to
                                                                        the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by
                                                                        implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the
3)   Articles 3 and 4 of the contested Decision be annulled or          period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period
     the fine reduced; and                                              expired on 14 March 2000 without Ireland having enacted the
                                                                        provisions necessary to comply with the directive referred to
                                                                        in the conclusions of the Commission.
4)   the Commission pay British Sugar’s costs incurred in
     relation to this Appeal and the costs relating to Case,            (1) OJ L 77, 14.3.1998, p. 36-43.
     T-204/98 including those relating to the proceedings for
     interim relief.


title: Case C-536/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 4 December 2008 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v X

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/33

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 4 December 2008 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v X
   (Case C-536/08)
   (2009/C 44/55)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Defendant: X
   Question referred
   Must Article 17(2) and (3) and Article 28b(A)(2) of the Sixth Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that, if the place of an intra-Community acquisition is deemed, on the basis of the first subparagraph of the latter provision, to be within the territory of the Member State which issued the VAT identification number under which the person acquiring made the acquisition, the aforementioned person acquiring the goods has the right immediately to deduct the VAT thus due in that Member State?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).


title: Case T-174/02: Action brought on 4 June 2002 by Micole Wieme against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 180/34              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     27.7.2002
Action brought on 30 May 2002 by Laurent Druet against                  Action brought on 4 June 2002 by Micole Wieme against
         Commission of the European Communities                                  Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-174/02)
                        (Case T-172/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 180/59)
                        (2002/C 180/58)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 4 June 2002 by Micole Wieme,
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        residing in Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot, lawyer, with
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        an address for service in Luxembourg.
European Communities on 30 May 2002 by Laurent Druet,
residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Etienne
Marchal and Albert, Coolen, lawyers, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.                                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        —     annul the decision of the appointing authority of 13 July
                                                                              2001 not to accept the applicant’s application for the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   post of Head of Unit DG TAXUD/A/3;
—     annul the decisions of the Promotions Committee not to            —     annul the express rejection of the complaint, receipt of
      include the applicant’s name on the list of officials                   which was acknowledged by the applicant on 8 March
      deemed most deserving of promotion and that of the                      2002;
      Commission not to promote him to Grade B 4 in the
      2001 promotions procedure, according to the publication           —     annul the appointment to the post of Head of Unit DG
      in Administrative Information No 71/2001 of 10 August                   TAXUD/A/3, implying in particular rejection of the
      2001 of the list of officials deemed most deserving of                  applicant’s application for the vacant post;
      promotion and No 72/2001 of the list of officials
      promoted to that grade;
                                                                        —     order, in any event, the defendant to pay the costs.
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         In support of the present action, the applicant pleads infringe-
                                                                        ment of Articles 29(1)(a) and 45(1) of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                        irregularity of the procedure, misuse of powers and disregard
                                                                        for general principles of law such as legitimate expectations,
In support of his application, the applicant pleads breach of           equal treatment, the principle that officials should have
the obligation to give adequate reasons and infringement of             reasonable career prospects, equal opportunities and equal
Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, breach of the principles of        treatment of men and women.
equal treatment, that officials should have reasonable career
prospects, good administration and sound management.
                                                                        The applicant claims in particular that by rejecting the
                                                                        application for the post and appointing someone else, the
According to the applicant, the defendant decided to promote            defendant has not applied the Staff Regulations properly or
instead certain officials who were clearly less deserving than          the abovementioned general principles of law, basing its
he.                                                                     decision instead on reasons which are inaccurate both in fact
                                                                        and law.