title: Case C-509/06 P: Appeal brought on 15 December 2006 by Akzo Nobel NV against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 27 September 2006 in Case T-330/01 Akzo Nobel NV v Commission

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/15

         Appeal brought on 15 December 2006 by Akzo Nobel NV against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 27 September 2006 in Case T-330/01 Akzo Nobel NV v Commission

   (Case C-509/06 P)
   (2007/C 56/27)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Appellant: Akzo Nobel NV (represented by: C. Swaak, advocaat)

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

               —

               Set aside the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (CFI) on 27 September 2006 in Case T-330/01;

               —

               Annul Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Decision C(2001) 2931 final of 2 October 2001;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of the present appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               (1)

               The CFI appears to have erred in law in finding that liability for an infringement committed by a Community undertaking can be attributed not only to its parent companies but also — and primarily — to the head holding company which indirectly holds the shares in one of the two parent companies.

               (2)

               The CFI appears to have erred in law in forming the view that arguments which were not raised in the course of the administrative procedure before the Commission may not be invoked for the first time before the CFI.


title: Case F-49/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 2 December 2013 — Pachtitis v Commission (Civil Service — Open Competition EPSO/AD/77/06 — Access to documents — Request for access to answers to the admission tests — Annulment of the test results — No interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               8.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/35

      Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 2 December 2013 — Pachtitis v Commission
      (Case F-49/12)
      (Civil Service - Open Competition EPSO/AD/77/06 - Access to documents - Request for access to answers to the admission tests - Annulment of the test results - No interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate)
      (2014/C 71/68)
      Language of the case: Greek

         Parties

         Applicant: Dimitrios Pachtitis (Athens, Greece) (represented: initially by P. Giatagantzidis and K. Kyriazi, and subsequently by P. Giatagantzidis and A. Féréti, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by J. Currall and I. Chatzigiannis, and subsequently by J. Currall and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

         Interveners in support of the applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E.-M. Mamouna and K. Boskovits, acting as Agents)
      Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk and S. Johannesson, acting as Agents)
      European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) (represented by: H. Hijmans, acting as Agent)

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  There is no further need to adjudicate on the action.

                  2.

                  Mr Pachtitis and the European Commission shall bear their own respective costs.

                  3.

                  The Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden and the European Data Protection Supervisor, as interveners, shall bear their own respective costs.


title: Composition of the EFTA Court

text:
Avis juridique important

|

E1997J0320(01)

Composition of the EFTA Court

Official Journal C 090 , 20/03/1997 P. 0023 - 0023

Composition of the EFTA Court (97/C 90/08)Election of the President of the Court pursuant to the Transitional Arrangements AgreementOn 5 December 1996, the judges elected Judge Bjørn Haug as President of the EFTA Court under the Transitional Arrangements Agreement and pursuant to Article 30 of the ESA/Court Agreement for a period of three years from 1 January


title: Case T-480/11: Action brought on 9 September 2011 — Technion — Israel Institute of Technology and Technion Research & Development v Commission

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/27

         Action brought on 9 September 2011 — Technion — Israel Institute of Technology and Technion Research & Development v Commission
   (Case T-480/11)
   2011/C 340/55
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Technion — Israel Institute of Technology (Haifa, Israel) and Technion Research & Development Foundation Ltd (Haifa) (represented by: D. Grisay and D. Piccininno, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               admit the present application for annulment based on Article 263 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union;

               —

               declare it admissible and,

               —

               declare the action well founded, and, consequently,

                           —

                           rule that the Commission did not carry out a concrete and individual examination of the documents covered by the request for access,

                           —

                           rule that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in the application of the exceptions provided for by Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001,

                           —

                           rule that the Commission disregarded the right of partial access to documents in accordance with Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001,

                           —

                           rule that the Commission infringed the principle of proportionality by reason of its failure to weigh the exceptions invoked against the public interest;

               —

               on that basis, annul the decision of the Secretariat-General of the European Commission of 30 June 2011;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging failure to carry out a concrete and individual examination of the documents covered by the request for access and, as a result, an inadequate statement of reasons for the contested decision, in so far as the Commission referred to a category of documents (documents pertaining to an audit) rather than to the actual information contained in those documents.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in the application of the exceptions provided for in Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001: (1)

                           —

                           in so far as the Commission took the view that disclosure of the documents to which access was sought would hinder the progress of the audits, whereas (i) the sole purpose of the audit procedure was to check whether or not the costs incurred in performance of a contract were eligible, and (ii) the information in the documents requested is purely factual;

                           —

                           in so far as the Commission took the view that disclosure of the documents requested would undermine the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual, whereas it was necessary for the applicants to see those documents in order to be able effectively to defend their rights in the context of the audit procedure, in which all parties could set out their views.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging disregard of the right of partial access to the documents requested in accordance with Article 4(6) of Regulation No 1049/2001 by reason of the refusal to carry out a concrete and individual examination of the documents to which access was sought.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality resulting from the failure to weigh the exceptions invoked against the public interest, in so far as it would be in the interest of the public to allow it to verify how the Commission conducts its audit procedures and to inform contractors of the procedures to be established in order to meet the formal requirements.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 September 2005 in Case C-140/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen: United Antwerp Maritime Agencies NV v Belgische Staat, and Seaport Terminals NV v Belgische Staat, United Antwerp Maritime Agencies NV (Customs union — Creation of a customs debt on importation — Goods in temporary storage — Unlawful removal of the goods from customs supervision — Person liable for the debt)

text:
               12.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/3

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 15 September 2005
   in Case C-140/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen: United Antwerp Maritime Agencies NV v Belgische Staat, and Seaport Terminals NV v Belgische Staat, United Antwerp Maritime Agencies NV (1)

   (Customs union - Creation of a customs debt on importation - Goods in temporary storage - Unlawful removal of the goods from customs supervision - Person liable for the debt)
   (2005/C 281/07)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-140/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium), made by decision of 11 March 2004, received at the Court on 16 March 2004, in the proceedings between United Antwerp Maritime Agencies NV v Belgische Staat, and Seaport Terminals NV and Belgische Staat, United Antwerp Maritime Agencies NV — the Court (First Chamber) composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), E. Juhász and M. Ilešič, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General, M. Ferreira, Principal administrator, for the, Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 September 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The fourth indent of Article 203(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that ‘the person required to fulfil the obligations arising from temporary storage of the goods’ is the person who holds the goods after they have been unloaded in order to move or store them.

      (1)  OJ C 106 of 30.04.2004.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 April 2005 in Case T-88/01, Sniace SA v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Measure of individual concern to the applicant)

text:
               25.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/11

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 14 April 2005
   in Case T-88/01, Sniace SA v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (State aid - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Measure of individual concern to the applicant)
   (2005/C 155/21)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   In Case T-88/01: Sniace SA, established in Madrid (Spain), represented by J. Baró Fuentes, M. Gómez de Liaño y Botella and F. Rodríguez Carretero, lawyers, against the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: D. Triantafyllou and J. Buendía Sierra, with an address for service in Luxembourg), supported by Republic of Austria (Agents: H. Dossi and M. Burgstaller, with an address for service in Luxembourg), by Lenzing Lyocell GmbH & Co. KG, established in Heiligenkreuz im Lafnitztal (Austria), and by Land Burgenland (Austria), represented by U. Soltész, lawyer — application for annulment of Commission Decision 2001/102/EC of 19 July 2000 on State aid granted by Austria to Lenzing Lyocell GmbH & Co. KG (OJ 2001 L 38, p. 33) — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of P. Lindh, President, R. García-Valdecasas, J.D. Cooke, P. Mengozzi and M.E. Martins Ribeiro, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 April 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as inadmissible.

               2.

               Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission.

               3.

               Orders the interveners to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 186 of 30.6.2001.


title: Case C-236/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle (Belgium) lodged on 29 June 2009 — Association Belge des Consommateurs Test-Achats ASBL, Yann van Vugt, Charles Basselier v Conseil des ministres

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/28

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle (Belgium) lodged on 29 June 2009 — Association Belge des Consommateurs Test-Achats ASBL, Yann van Vugt, Charles Basselier v Conseil des ministres
   (Case C-236/09)
   2009/C 205/47
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour constitutionnelle

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Association Belge des Consommateurs Test-Achats ASBL, Yann van Vugt, Charles Basselier

      Defendant: Conseil des ministres

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 5(2) of Council Directive 2004/113/EC of 13 December 2004 implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services (1) compatible with Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union, and more specifically with the principle of equality and non-discrimination guaranteed by that provision?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is negative, is Article 5(2) of the Directive also incompatible with Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union if its application is restricted to life assurance contracts?

      (1)  OJ L 373, p. 37.


title: Case C-67/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 20 February 2008 — Margarete Block v Finanzamt Kaufbeuren

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 20 February 2008 — Margarete Block v Finanzamt Kaufbeuren
   (Case C-67/08)
   (2008/C 107/29)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Margarete Block

      Defendant: Finanzamt Kaufbeuren
   Questions referred

               1.

               Do the provisions of Article 73d(1)(a) and (3) of the EC Treaty (now Article 58(1)(a) and (3) EC) allow the crediting of Spanish inheritance tax against German inheritance tax to be precluded under Paragraph 21(1) and (2)(1) of the Erbschaftsteuer- und Schenkungsteuergesetz (Law on inheritance and gift tax) in conjunction with Paragraph 121 of the Bewertungsgesetz (Valuation Law) (category restriction) even in the case of deaths which occurred in 1999?

               2.

               Is Article 73b(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 56(1) EC) to be interpreted as meaning that the inheritance tax which another European Union Member State levies in respect of the acquisition, by an heir resident in Germany, of the capital claims of a testator last resident in Germany against credit institutions in that other Member State must be credited against German inheritance tax?

               3.

               In deciding which of the States involved has to avoid double taxation is the justification for the different connecting factors in the national tax law systems relevant and, if so, is the connection to the residence of the creditor more justified than the connection to the registered office of the debtor?


title: Case T-288/15: Action brought on 29 May 2015 — Ezz and Others v Council

text:
               21.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 429/27

         Action brought on 29 May 2015 — Ezz and Others v Council
   (Case T-288/15)
   (2015/C 429/35)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Ahmed Abdelaziz Ezz (Giza, Egypt), Abla Mohammed Fawzi Ali Ahmed Salama (Cairo, Egypt), Khadiga Ahmed Ahmed Kamel Yassin (Giza, Egypt), Shahinaz Abdel Azizabdel Wahab Al Naggar (Giza, Egypt) (represented by: J. Lewis, QC, B. Kennelly and J. Pobjoy, Barristers, J. Binns, Solicitor, J. Bellis and S. Rowe, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Council Decision Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/486 of 20 March 2015 amending Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2015 L 77, p. 16), insofar as it applies to the applicants; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on five pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to identify a proper legal base for the contested decision. The applicants contend that Article 29 TEU is not a proper legal base for the contested decision.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has violated the applicants’ rights under Article 6, read with Articles 2 and 3 of the TEU, and Articles 47 and 48 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, by the Council’s assumption that the judicial proceedings in Egypt complied with fundamental human rights.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to satisfy the criterion for listing the applicants prescribed in Article 1 of Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (JO 2011 L 76, p. 63) (as amended) and Article 2 of Council Regulation Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2011 L 76, p. 4) (as amended). The applicants contend that they have not been ‘identified as responsible’ for the misappropriation of Egyptian State funds or human rights violations in Egypt, or a person associated with anyone properly so identified.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council violated the applicants’ rights of defence and the right to good administration and effective judicial review. In particular the applicants contend that the Council failed to carefully and impartially examine whether the alleged reasons said to justify redesignation were well founded in light of the representations made by the applicants prior to redesignation.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council has infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicants' fundamental rights, including their rights to protection of their property and reputation. The applicants contend that the Council has failed to demonstrate that the freezing of the applicants’ assets and economic resources is related to, or justified by, any legitimate aim, still less that it is proportionate to such an aim.


title: Case T-306/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 16 January 2008 — Scippacercola and Terezakis v Commission (Competition — Abuse of dominant position — Allegation of excessive charges applied by the operator of Athens International Airport — Rejection of the complaint — No Community interest)

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/41

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 16 January 2008 — Scippacercola and Terezakis v Commission
   (Case T-306/05) (1)

   (Competition - Abuse of dominant position - Allegation of excessive charges applied by the operator of Athens International Airport - Rejection of the complaint - No Community interest)
   (2008/C 51/76)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: Isabella Scippacercola (Brussels, Belgium) and Ioannis Terezakis (Brussels) (represented by: A. Krystallidis and G. Stylianakis, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Hellström, A. Nijenhuis and F. Amato, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment in part of the Commission's decision of 2 May 2005 pursuant to Article 7(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 EC and 82 EC (OJ 2004 L 123, p. 18), rejecting complaint No COMP/D3/38469 concerning the levy of certain charges by the operator of Athens International Airport at Spata and by Olympic Fuel Company.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Isabella Scippacercola and Ioannis Terezakis to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 271, 29.10.2005.


title: Case F-102/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 21 January 2014 — Van Asbroeck v Parliament (Civil service — Classification in grade — Applicants placed on the reserve list of a competition to change category following the entry into force of the 2004 Staff Regulations — Compensatory allowance — Decision to re-grade officials benefitting from that compensatory allowance)

text:
               15.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/19

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 21 January 2014 — Van Asbroeck v Parliament
   (Case F-102/12) (1)

   (Civil service - Classification in grade - Applicants placed on the reserve list of a competition to change category following the entry into force of the 2004 Staff Regulations - Compensatory allowance - Decision to re-grade officials benefitting from that compensatory allowance)
   2014/C 78/39
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Van Asbroeck (Dilbeek, Belgium) (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

      Defendant: Parliament (represented by: V. Montebello-Demogeot and S. Seyr, acting as Agents, then by V. Montebello-Demogeot and M. Ecker, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the decision to re-grade the applicant in grade AST 5, step 3, with retroactive effect.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Van Asbroeck.

      (1)  OJ C 366, 24.11.2012, p. 41.


title: Case C-37/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 June 2014  — Nexans SA, Nexans France v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Administrative procedure — Inspection — Decision ordering an inspection — Obligation to state reasons — Reasonable grounds — Geographic market)

text:
               1.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 June 2014 — Nexans SA, Nexans France v European Commission
   (Case C-37/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Competition - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Administrative procedure - Inspection - Decision ordering an inspection - Obligation to state reasons - Reasonable grounds - Geographic market))
   2014/C 292/05
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Nexans SA, Nexans France (represented by: M. Powell, Solicitor, J.-P. Tran-Thiet, avocat, G. Forwood, Barrister, and A. Rogers, Solicitor)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Sauer, J. Bourke and N. von Lingen, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the appeal.

               2)

               Orders Nexans SA and Nexans France SAS to pay the costs of the present appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.


title: Case C-260/12 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 May 2013 — Volkswagen AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Suzuki Motor Corp. (Appeal — Community trade mark — Word mark Swift GTi — Opposition by the proprietor of national and international word marks GTI — Withdrawal of the opposition — Appeal which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/44

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 May 2013 — Volkswagen AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Suzuki Motor Corp.
   (Case C-260/12 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Word mark Swift GTi - Opposition by the proprietor of national and international word marks GTI - Withdrawal of the opposition - Appeal which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)
   2013/C 225/75
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Volkswagen AG (represented by: S. Risthaus, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent), Suzuki Motor Corp.

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 21 March 2012 in Case T-63/09 Volkswagen v OHIM — Suzuki Motor (SWIFT GTi) by which the General Court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 December 2008 (Case R 749/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Volkswagen AG and Suzuki Motor Corp. — Word sign SWIFT GTi — Likelihood of confusion with the word mark GTI — Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the appeal.

               2.

               Volkswagen AG shall pay the costs of these proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 227, 28.7.2012.


title: Case C-288/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Timiș — Romania) — Silvia Ciup v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice (AJFP) Timiș — Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice (DGRFP) Timișoara (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Principle of sincere cooperation — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness — National legislation laying down the detailed rules for the repayment, with interest, of taxes improperly levied — Enforcement of judicial decisions relating to such rights to repayment stemming from the legal order of the European Union — Repayment by instalments spread over five years — Repayment contingent on the existence of funds received from a tax — No possibility of enforcement)

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/4

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Timiș — Romania) — Silvia Ciup v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice (AJFP) Timiș — Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice (DGRFP) Timișoara
   (Case C-288/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Principle of sincere cooperation - Principles of equivalence and effectiveness - National legislation laying down the detailed rules for the repayment, with interest, of taxes improperly levied - Enforcement of judicial decisions relating to such rights to repayment stemming from the legal order of the European Union - Repayment by instalments spread over five years - Repayment contingent on the existence of funds received from a tax - No possibility of enforcement))
   (2016/C 335/04)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Tribunalul Timiș

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Silvia Ciup

      Defendant: Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice (AJFP) Timiș — Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice (DGRFP) Timișoara

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The principle of sincere cooperation must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from adopting provisions making repayment of a tax which has been held to be contrary to EU law by a judgment of the Court, or the incompatibility of which with EU law results from such a judgment, subject to conditions relating specifically to that tax which are less favourable than those that would have applied, in their absence, to such repayment; it is for the referring court to determine whether that principle has been complied with in the present case.

               2.

               The principle of equivalence must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from providing for procedural rules which are less favourable for actions based on an infringement of EU law than those applicable to similar actions based on an infringement of domestic law. It is for the referring court to carry out the necessary checks to ensure compliance with that principle so far as concerns the legislation applicable to the dispute pending before it.

               3.

               The principle of effectiveness must be interpreted as precluding a system of repayment of sums owed under EU law and the amount of which has been established by enforceable judicial decisions, such as the system at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the repayment of such sums by instalments over five years and which makes the execution of such decisions contingent on the availability of funds received in respect of another tax, without the individual having the right to compel public authorities to fulfil their obligations if they do not do so voluntarily.

      (1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.


title: Case T-168/07: Action brought on 16 May 2007 — Professional Tennis Registry v OHIM — Registro Profesional de Tenis (PTR PROFESSIONAL TENNIS REGISTRY)

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/27

         Action brought on 16 May 2007 — Professional Tennis Registry v OHIM — Registro Profesional de Tenis (PTR PROFESSIONAL TENNIS REGISTRY)
   (Case T-168/07)
   (2007/C 170/55)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Professional Tennis Registry, Inc. (Hilton Head Island, United States) (represented by: M. Vanhegan, Barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Registro Profesional de Tenis, SL (Madrid, Spain)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of paragraph (1) of the First Board of Appeal's decision of 28 February 2007 (Case R 1050/2005-1), in which the applicant's Community trade mark application No 2 826 709 for the class 16 and 41 products and services was rejected;

               —

               order that the opposition to the applicant's Community trade mark application No 2 826 709 be rejected in its entirety;

               —

               order that the applicant's Community trade mark application No 2 826 709 proceed to grant in respect of all of the goods and services in classes 16, 25 and 41; and

               —

               order that the defendant pays the applicant its costs incurred before the Board of Appeal and the Court of First Instance.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘PTR PROFESSIONAL TENNIS REGISTRY’ for goods and services in classes 16, 25 and 41 — application No 2 826 709

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Registro Profesional de Tenis, SL

      Mark or sign cited: The national figurative marks ‘RPT Registro Profesional de Tenis, S.L’ and ‘RPT European Registry of Professional Tennis’ for services in class 41

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partial annulment of the Opposition Division's decision and rejection of the trade mark application for the products and services in classes 16 and 41

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal concluded that there was confusing similarity between the applicant's Community trade mark application and Registro Profesional de Tenis' earlier trade marks. The Board of Appeal failed to give proper consideration to the principles to be applied where the trade marks in issue are complex marks.


title: Case F-19/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 21 February 2008 — Semeraro v Commission (Staff cases — Officials — Appraisal — Career development report — 2003 appraisal procedure — Article 43 of the Staff Regulations — Obligation to state reasons — Promotion — Attestation procedure)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/69

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 21 February 2008 — Semeraro v Commission
   (Case F-19/06) (1)

   (Staff cases - Officials - Appraisal - Career development report - 2003 appraisal procedure - Article 43 of the Staff Regulations - Obligation to state reasons - Promotion - Attestation procedure)
   (2008/C 209/124)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Maria Magdalena Semeraro (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and M. Velardo, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the Appointing Authority's decision of 8 November 2005 rejecting the applicant's complaint against her Career Development Report for 2004
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls Ms Serrano's career development report covering the period from 1 January to 31 December 2004;

               2.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 108, 6.5.2006, p. 30.


title: Case T-121/05: Action brought on 15 March 2005 by Borax Europe Ltd against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/38

         Action brought on 15 March 2005 by Borax Europe Ltd against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-121/05)
   (2005/C 143/72)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 15 March 2005 by Borax Europe Ltd., established in Guildford (United Kingdom), represented by D. Vandermeersch and K. Nordlander, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision;

               —

               order the Commission to bear the costs of the procedure.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant contests the decision of the Commission to refuse the applicant access to certain documents and tape recordings related to the preparation of the 30th adaptation to technical progress of Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (1). More in particular, the applicant's requested access to the audio recordings or transcripts of the meeting of the specialised experts in the field of reproductive toxicity on the classification of boric acid and borates.
   In support of its application, the applicant submits that the defendant made a manifest error of assessment and infringed Articles 4(1)(b) and 4(3) of Regulation 1049/2001 (2). According to the applicant, the defendant erred in stating that access to the documents would undermine the integrity of the specialised experts consulted and would expose them to external pressure. The applicant claims furthermore that the defendant erred in applying the exception relating to the protection of the Commission's decision making process and in deciding that there was no overriding public interest in disclosure.
   The applicant finally invokes a violation of the principle of proportionality in failing to grant partial access to the audio recordings.

      (1)  OJ English special edition: Series I Chapter 1967 p. 234

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ L 145, p. 43)


title: Case T-269/14: Order of the General Court of 22 June 2016 — Gain Capital UK v EUIPO — Citigroup (CITY INDEX)

text:
               22.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/53

         Order of the General Court of 22 June 2016 — Gain Capital UK v EUIPO — Citigroup (CITY INDEX)
   (Case T-269/14) (1)

   (2016/C 305/72)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 12 December 1996 in Case T-99/95: Peter Esmond Stott v. Commission of the European Communities (JET Joint Undertaking - Person claiming the status of a member of the temporary staff)

text:
  No C 54/ 18            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      22 . 2 . 97
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 12 December 1996                                                    of 12 December 1996
                                                                         in Case T-74/95 : Viriato Monteiro da Silva v. Commission
 in    Case    T-33/95 :   Maria     Lidia  Lozano    Palacios  v.
                                                                                of the European Communities (')
         Commission of the European Communities (')
                                                                          (Officials — Former national expert on secondment —
  (Officials — Former national expert on secondment —                    Daily subsistence allowance — Installation allowance —
 Daily subsistence allowance — Installation allowance —                                        Place of recruitment)
  Reimbursement of removal expenses — Place of                                                       ( 97/C 54/27 )
                              recruitment)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                             ( 97/C 54/26 )
                                                                         In Case T-74/95 : Viriato Monteiro da Silva, an official of
                                                                         the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
                  (Language of the case: French)                         Brussels, represented by Thierry Demaseure and Ariane
                                                                         Tornel , of the Brussels Bar, and, in the oral procedure, by
                                                                        Jean-Noel Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
                                                                         service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
 In Case T-33/95 : Maria Lidia Lozano Palacios, an official              Sari , 1 rue Glesener, v. Commission of the European
 of the Commission of the European Communities, residing                 Communities ( Agents : Julian Currall and Denis
 in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noel Louis, of the                    Waelbroeck ) — application for annulment of the decision
 Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at              of the Commission of 6 April 1994 fixing Brussels as the
 the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 1 rue Glesener, v.              applicant's place of recruitment and refusing to grant him
 Commission of the European Communities ( Agents : Julian               the installation allowance and daily subsistence allowance
 Currall and Denis Waelbroeck ) — application, first, for               — the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber),
 annulment of the decision of the Commission of 12 April                composed of: H. Kirschner, President, and C. W. Bellamy
 1994 fixing Brussels as the applicant's place of                       and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal
 recruitment and refusing to grant her the installation                 Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
 allowance , to reimburse her removal expenses and to pay                12 December 1996 , in which it:
 the daily subsistence allowance and, second, for an order
 requiring the Commission to make those payments — the                   1 . Annuls the Commission s decision of 6 April 1994
 Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber ), composed of:                     inasmuch as it fixes Brussels as the applicant 's place of
H. Kirschner, President, and C. W. Bellamy and A.                             recruitment and refuses to grant him the installation
 Kalogeropoulos, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator,                  allowance provided for by Article 5 (1 ) of Annex VII
 for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 December                       to the Staff Regulations and the daily subsistence
 1996 , in which it:                                                          allowance provided for by Article 10 (1 ) of that
                                                                              Annex .
                                                                       2 . Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
 1 . Annuls the Commission 's decision of 12 April 1994,
                                                                        (') OJ No C 101 , 22 . 4 . 1995 .
      inasmuch as it refuses to grant the applicant the
      installation allowance provided for by Article 5 ( 1 ) of
      Annex VII to the Staff Regulations.
                                                                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2 . Orders the Commission to pay the said allowance to                                       of 12 December 1996
      the applicant, together with default interest at the rate        in Case T-99/95 : Peter Esmond Stott v. Commission of the
      of 8% per annum from the date when it became                                         European Communities (')
      payable, in accordance with Annex VII to the Staff
      Regulations.                                                      (JET Joint Undertaking — Person claiming the status of a
                                                                                member of the temporary staff)
                                                                                ( 97/C 54/28 )
3 . Dismisses the remainder of the action.                                              (Language of the case: English)
                                                                       In Case T-99/95 : Peter Esmond Stott, represented by
                                                                       Kenneth Parker QC and Rhodri Thompson, Barrister, of
4.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to               the Bar of England and Wales, having an address for
     pay one third of the applicant 's costs. The applicant is         service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Messrs
      ordered to bear two thirds of her own costs.                     Elvinger and Hoss, 15 Cote d'Eich, against Commission
                                                                       of the European Communities ( Agents : Hans Gerald
                                                                       Grassland and Julian Currall ) — application for
(') OJ No C 101 , 22 . 4 . 1995 .
                                                                       annulment of the decision of 28 September 1994 by which
                                                                       the Commission rejected the applicant's complaint against
                                                                       a decision of the Director of JET of 13 June 1994 refusing
 ---pagebreak---  22 . 2 . 97    •     HEN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 54/ 19
 to appoint him as a member of the Commission 's                             his removal expenses as provided for by Article 9 (1 )
 temporary staff, and for reparation of the damage suffered                  of that Annex.
 as a result of that decision — the Court of First Instance
 ( Second Chamber ), composed of H. Kirschner, President,               3 . Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
 C. W. Bellamy and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; B. Pastor,
 Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment            (') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
 on 12 December 1996 , in which it:
 1.   Annuls the Commission 's decision not to recruit the
      applicant to a post on the temporary staff of the
      Community under Article 8.5 of the JET Statutes,
      communicated to him by letter of the Director of JET                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 12 December 1996
      dated 13 June 1994, and the Commission 's decision of
      28 December 1994 rejecting the applicant 's complaint            in Case T-137/95 : Paolo Mozzaglia v. Commission of the
      against the decision first mentioned.                                               European Communities (')
                                                                        (Officials — Former national expert on secondment —
 2 . Dismisses the remainder of the application.
                                                                       Daily subsistence allowance — Installation allowance —
                                                                       Place of recruitment — Reimbursement of travel expenses
 3 . Orders the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay
                                                                                on taking up an appointment)
      those of the applicant.
                                                                                ( 97/C 54/30 )
 (') OJ No C 286 , 28 . 10 . 1995 .
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                       In Case T-137/95 : Paolo Mozzaglia, an official of the
                                                                       Commission of the European Communities, residing in
                                                                       Brussels, represented by Giuseppe Marchesini , advocate
                                                                       with a right of audience before the Italian Court of
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             Cassation, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                      of 12 December 1996                              the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8— 10 rue Mathias Hardt,
in Case T-132/95 : Peter Gammeltoft v. Commission of the               v. Commission of the European Communities ( Agents :
                    European Communities (')                          Julian Currall , Ana Maria Alves Vieira and Alberto Dal
                                                                       Ferro and, in the oral procedure , Denis Waelbroeck ) —
 (Members of the temporary staff — Former national                     application for annulment of the decision of the
expert on secondment — Former member of the auxiliary                  Commission of 1 September 1994 refusing to grant the
staff — Installation          allowance — Reimbursement of
                                                                       applicant the installation allowance , to reimburse his
                        removal expenses)                              travel expenses on his taking up his appointment and to
                             ( 97/C 54/29 )                            pay the daily subsistence allowance — the Court of First
                                                                       Instance ( Second Chamber ), composed of: H. Kirschner,
                  (Language of the case: French)                       President, and C. W. Bellamy and A. Kalogeropoulos,
                                                                      Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the
In Case T-132/95 : Peter Gammeltoft, a member of the                   Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 December 1996, in
temporary staff of the Commission of the European                     which it :
Communities, residing in Brussels, represented by Jean
Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the                1 . Annuls the Commission 's decision of 1 September
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                  1994, inasmuch as it refuses to grant the applicant the
the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 1 rue Glesener, v.                   installation allowance provided for by the first
Commission of the European Communities ( Agents: Julian                     subparagraph of Article 5 (1 ) of Annex VII to the
Currall and Denis Waelbroeck ) — application, in                            Staff Regulations, to reimburse his travel expenses on
particular, for annulment of the decision of the                            his taking up his appointment, as provided for by
Commission of 15 September 1994 refusing to grant the                       Article 7 (1 ) (a) of that Annex, and to pay the daily
applicant the installation allowance and to reimburse his                   subsistence allowance provided for by Article 10 ( 1 )
removal expenses — the Court of First Instance ( Second                     thereof.
Chamber ), composed of: H. Kirschner, President, and
C. W. Bellamy and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; B. Pastor,               2 . Orders the Commission to pay the applicant the
                                                                            installation allowance, the travel expenses incurred on
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 12 December 1996, in which it :                                 his taking up his appointment and the daily
                                                                            subsistence allowance, together with interest at 8%
1 . Dismisses the action as inadmissible, inasmuch as it
                                                                            per annum from the dates when those sums became
                                                                            respectively payable, in accordance with Annex VII to
     seeks payment of the daily subsistence allowance and
                                                                            the Staff Regulations.
     reimbursement of travel costs.
                                                                      3 . Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
2 . Annuls the Commission 's decision of IS September
     1994 inasmuch as it refuses to grant the applicant the           (') OJ No C 229 , 2 . 9 . 1995 .
     installation allowance provided for by Article 5 (1 ) of
     Annex VII to the Staff Regulations and to reimburse


title: Case C-18/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Brisal — Auto Estradas do Litoral SA, KBC Finance Ireland v Fazenda Pública (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 56 TFEU — Freedom to provide services — Restrictions — Tax legislation — Taxation of interest received — Difference in treatment between resident financial institutions and non-resident financial institutions)

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/10

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Brisal — Auto Estradas do Litoral SA, KBC Finance Ireland v Fazenda Pública
   (Case C-18/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 56 TFEU - Freedom to provide services - Restrictions - Tax legislation - Taxation of interest received - Difference in treatment between resident financial institutions and non-resident financial institutions))
   (2016/C 335/12)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Brisal — Auto Estradas do Litoral SA, KBC Finance Ireland

      Defendant: Fazenda Pública

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 49 EC does not preclude national legislation under which a procedure for withholding tax at source is applied to the income of financial institutions that are not resident in the Member State in which the services are provided, whereas the income received by financial institutions that are resident in that Member State is not subject to such withholding tax, provided that the application of the withholding tax to the non-resident financial institutions is justified by an overriding reason in the general interest and does not go beyond what is necessary to attain the objective pursued.
   Article 49 EC precludes national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, as a general rule, taxes non-resident financial institutions on the interest income received within the Member State concerned without giving them the opportunity to deduct business expenses directly related to the activity in question, whereas such an opportunity is given to resident financial institutions.
   It is for the national court to assess, on the basis of its national law, which business expenses may be regarded as being directly related to the activity in question.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.


title: Case T-497/11: Action brought on 19 September 2011 — Euro-Information v OHIM (EURO AUTOMATIC PAIEMENT)

text:
               17.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 370/25

         Action brought on 19 September 2011 — Euro-Information v OHIM (EURO AUTOMATIC PAIEMENT)
   (Case T-497/11)
   2011/C 370/42
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Euro-Information — Européenne de traitement de l’information (Strasbourg, France) (represented by: A. Grolée, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 July 2011 in Case R 370/2011-2;

               —

               Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before OHIM and in the present case

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘EURO AUTOMATIC PAIEMENT’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 36, 37, 38, 42 and 45

      Decision of the Examiner: rejection of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 in so far as the mark submitted for registration is not descriptive.


title: Case T-572/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 July 2014  — Hassan v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Syria — Freezing of funds — Action for annulment — Adaptation of claims — Out of time — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Manifest error of assessment — Right to property — Proportionality — Action for damages)

text:
               1.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 July 2014 — Hassan v Council
   (Case T-572/11) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Syria - Freezing of funds - Action for annulment - Adaptation of claims - Out of time - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Manifest error of assessment - Right to property - Proportionality - Action for damages))
   2014/C 292/37
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Samir Hassan (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: É. Morgan de Rivery and E. Lagathu, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Kyriakopoulou and M. Vitsentzatos, agents)

      Re:

   Application for (i) annulment of Council Implementing Decision 2011/515/CFSP of 23 August 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2011 L 218, p. 20), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 843/2011 of 23 August 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2011 L 218, p. 1), Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/273 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 56), Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 (OJ 2012 L 16, p. 1), Council Decision 2012/739/CFSP of 29 November 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/782 (OJ 2012 L 330, p. 21), Council Implementing Decision 2013/185/CFSP of 22 April 2013 implementing Decision 2012/739 (OJ 2013 L 111, p. 77), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 363/2013 of 22 April 2013 implementing Regulation No 36/2012 (OJ 2013 L 111, p. 1) and Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2013 L 147, p. 14), in so far as those acts concern the applicant, and (ii) payment of damages in compensation for harm allegedly suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action for annulment of Council Decision 2012/739/CFSP of 29 November 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/782/CFSP as being inadmissible.

               2)

               annuls, in so far as the acts concern Mr Samir Hassan:

                           —

                           Council Implementing Decision 2011/515/CFSP of 23 August 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria;

                           —

                           Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 843/2011 of 23 August 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria;

                           —

                           Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/273/CFSP;

                           —

                           Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011;

                           —

                           Council Implementing Decision 2013/185/CFSP of 22 April 2013 implementing Decision 2012/739/CFSP;

                           —

                           Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 363/2013 of 22 April 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012;

                           —

                           Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria.

               3)

               Orders the effects of the annulled decisions and regulations to be maintained as regards Mr Hassan, until the date of expiry of the period for bringing an appeal or, if an appeal is brought in that period, until the date of any dismissal of that appeal.

               4)

               Dismisses the application for damages.

               5)

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay one half of the costs incurred by Mr Hassan.

               6)

               Orders Mr Hassan to bear one half of his own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.


               25.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 334/34

         Action brought on 18 July 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
   (Case E-15/14)
   (2014/C 334/15)
   An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 18 July 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Markus Schneider and Janne Tysnes Kaasin, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Rue Belliard 35, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               Declare that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to adopt the measures necessary to make part of its internal legal order within the time prescribed the Act referred to at point 4d of Chapter XI of Annex II to that Agreement,
               Regulation (EU) No 1007/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2011 on textile fibre names and related labelling and marking of the fibre composition of textile products and repealing Council Directive 73/44/EEC and Directives 96/73/EC and 2008/121/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council,
               as amended by
               Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 286/2012 of 27 January 2012 amending, in order to include a new textile fibre name, Annex I, and for the purposes of their adaptation to technical progress, Annexes VIII and IX to Regulation (EU) No 1007/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council on textile fibre names and related labelling and marking of the fibre composition of textile products,
               and as adapted to the EEA Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto.

               2.

               Order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.

      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, within the time-limits prescribed, with two reasoned opinions delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Regulation (EU) No 1007/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2011 on textile fibre names and related labelling and marking of the fibre composition of textile products and repealing Council Directive 73/44/EEC and Directives 96/73/EC and 2008/121/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, as well as its failure to make part of its national legal order Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 286/2012 of 27 January 2012 amending, in order to include a new textile fibre name, Annex I, and for the purposes of their adaptation to technical progress, Annexes VIII and IX to Regulation (EU) No 1007/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council on textile fibre names and related labelling and marking of the fibre composition of textile products (‘the Acts’), both as referred to at point 4d of Chapter XI of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that by failing to adopt the measures necessary to make the Acts part of its internal legal order, within the time prescribed, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement.


title: Case C-166/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio lodged on 2 April 2010 — Patrizia Banchetti v Ministero dell’Interno

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/30

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio lodged on 2 April 2010 — Patrizia Banchetti v Ministero dell’Interno
      (Case C-166/10)
      (2010/C 161/40)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Patrizia Banchetti

         Defendant: Ministero dell’Interno

         Question referred

      Is a national system under national legislation (introduced as from the Bersani Decree, Decree-Law No 223 of 4 July 2006, converted into Law No 248 of 4 August 2006) compatible with Articles 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty, when it, inter alia:

                  (a)

                  tends generally to protect holders of licences issued at an earlier period following a tendering procedure that unlawfully excluded some operators;

                  (b)

                  in fact ensures the maintenance of acquired commercial positions (by, for example, prohibiting new licensees from locating their kiosks within a specified distance of those already in existence);

                  (c)

                  provides for cases in which the licence may lapse when the licensee directly or indirectly carries on cross- border gaming activities analogous to those under the licence?


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 June 2003 in Case C-234/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Berlin): Arnoud Gerritse v Finanzamt Neukölln-Nord (Income tax — Non-residents — Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC) and Article 60 of the EC Treaty (now Article 50 EC) — Non-taxable threshold amount — Deduction of business expenses)

text:
2.8.2003               EN                             Official Journal of the European Union                                                 C 184/7
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 12 June 2003
                          of 19 June 2003
                                                                              in Case C-234/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
in Case C-149/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                     the Finanzgericht Berlin): Arnoud Gerritse v Finanzamt
the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division):                                                 Neukölln-Nord (1)
Commissioners of Customs & Excise v First Choice Holi-
                              days plc (1)
                                                                              (Income tax — Non-residents — Article 59 of the EC Treaty
                                                                              (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC) and Article 60 of the
                                                                              EC Treaty (now Article 50 EC) — Non-taxable threshold
(Sixth VAT Directive — Article 26(2) — Special scheme for                                amount — Deduction of business expenses)
the taxation of travel agents and tour operators — Taxable
amount — Margin — Total amount to be paid by the
                               traveller)                                                                (2003/C 184/13)
                           (2003/C 184/12)                                                        (Language of the case: German)
                                                                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                the European Court Reports)
                                                                              In Case C-234/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
                                                                              EC by the Finanzgericht Berlin (Germany) for a preliminary
                                                                              ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
In Case C-149/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234                    Arnoud Gerritse and Finanzamt Neukölln-Nord, on the inter-
EC by the Court of Appeal of England & Wales, Civil Division                  pretation of Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amend-
(United Kingdom) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                  ment, Article 43 EC), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
pending before that court between Commissioners of Customs                    M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, C.W.
& Excise and First Choice Holidays plc, on the interpretation of              A. Timmermans, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and A. Rosas, Judges;
Article 26(2) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May                 P. Léger, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Adminis-
1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States                    trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 June
relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added                     2003, in which it has ruled:
tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), the
Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President
of the Second Chamber, acting as President of the Sixth                       1.    Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49
Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), V. Skouris, F. Macken                             EC) and Article 60 of the EC Treaty (now Article 50 EC)
and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate                              preclude a national provision such as that at issue in the main
General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given                    proceedings which, as a general rule, takes into account gross
a judgment on 19 June 2003, in which it has ruled:                                  income when taxing non-residents, without deducting business
                                                                                expenses, whereas residents are taxed on their net income, after
                                                                                deduction of those expenses.
Article 26(2) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May
1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating           2.    However, those articles of the Treaty do not preclude that same
to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform                       provision in so far as, as a general rule, it subjects the income
basis of assessment must be interpreted as meaning that the ‘total                  of non-residents to a definitive tax at the uniform rate of
amount to be paid by the traveller’ within the meaning of that                      25 %, deducted at source, whilst the income of residents is
provision includes the additional amount that a travel agent, acting                taxed according to a progressive table including a tax-free
as intermediary on behalf of a tour operator, must, in circumstances                allowance, provided that the rate of 25 % is not higher than
such as those described in the order for reference, pay to the tour                 that which would actually be applied to the person concerned,
operator on top of the price paid by the traveller and which corresponds            in accordance with the progressive table, in respect of net
in amount to the discount given by the travel agent to the traveller on             income increased by an amount corresponding to the tax-free
the price of the holiday stated in the tour operator's brochure.                    allowance.
(1) OJ C 173 of 16.6.2001.                                                    (1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.


               8.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/31

         Action brought on 10 January 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
   (Case E-2/14)
   (2014/C 138/08)
   An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 10 January 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis and Markus Schneider, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Rue Belliard 35, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               Declare that by failing to adopt, and/or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith of, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 56v of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2005/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of penalties for infringements), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto and by Joint Committee Decision No 65/2009 of 29 May 2009, within the time prescribed, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the Agreement.

               2.

               Order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.

      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than 12 August 2013, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 12 June 2013, regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Directive 2005/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of penalties for infringements (‘the Act’), as referred to at point 56v of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto and by Joint Committee Decision No 65/2009 of 29 May 2009.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16 of the Act, as adapted, and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement, by failing to adopt, and/or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority of, the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.


title: Case T-542/11: Judgment of the General Court of 8 October 2014  — Alouminion v Commission (State aid — Aluminium — Preferential electricity tariff granted by contract — Decision declaring the aid unlawful and incompatible with the internal market — Termination of the contract — Judicial suspension, in interlocutory proceedings, of the effects of the termination of the contract — New aid)

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 October 2014 — Alouminion v Commission
   (Case T-542/11) (1)

   ((State aid - Aluminium - Preferential electricity tariff granted by contract - Decision declaring the aid unlawful and incompatible with the internal market - Termination of the contract - Judicial suspension, in interlocutory proceedings, of the effects of the termination of the contract - New aid))
   2014/C 421/41
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Alouminion AE (Maroussi, Greece) (representanted by: G. Dellis, N. Korogiannakis, E. Chrysafis, D. Diakopoulos and N. Keramidas, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, É. Gippini Fournier, Agents, and by V. Chatzopoulos, lawyer)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI) (Athens, Greece) (representanted by: E. Bourtzalas, D. Waelbroeck, A. Oikonomou, E. Salaka and C. Synodinos, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of Commission Decision 2012/339/EU of 13 July 2011 on the State aid No SA.26117 — C 2/10 (ex NN 62/09) implemented by Greece in favour of Aluminium of Greece SA (OJ 2012 L 166, p. 83).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision 2012/339/EU of 13 July 2011 on the State aid No SA.26117 — C 2/10 (ex NN 62/09) implemented by Greece in favour of Aluminium of Greece SA;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Alouminion AE;

               3.

               Orders Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI) to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 370, 17.12.2011.


title: Case T-263/12: Action brought on 18 June 2012 — Manufacturing Support and Procurement Kala Naft v Council

text:
               25.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 258/24

         Action brought on 18 June 2012 — Manufacturing Support and Procurement Kala Naft v Council
   (Case T-263/12)
   2012/C 258/44
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Manufacturing Support and Procurement Kala Naft Co., Tehran (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: F. Esclatine and S. Perrotet, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012;

               —

               Order the Council to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law, six of which are in essence similar to the first six pleas in law raised in Case T-509/10 Manufacturing Support and Procurement Kala Naft v Council. (1)

   The applicant raises an additional plea in law alleging that the contested regulation is unlawful by reason of the unlawfulness of the preceding measures which were annulled by the judgment of the General Court in Case T-509/10 Manufacturing Support and Procurement Kala Naft v Council [2012] ECR II-0000.

      (1)  OJ 2010 C 346, p. 57.


title: Case T-114/08 P: Appeal brought on 6 March 2008 by Luigi Marcuccio against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 14 December 2007 in Case F-21/07, Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/41

         Appeal brought on 6 March 2008 by Luigi Marcuccio against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 14 December 2007 in Case F-21/07, Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-114/08 P)
   (2008/C 107/69)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought by the appellant
   In any event:

               —

               Annul the judgment under appeal fully and unconditionally;

               —

               declare that the action at first instance was brought by the appellant intra dies;

               —

               declare that the action at first instance was wholly admissible.

         Primarily:

               —

               Grant the claims set out in the action at first instance fully and unconditionally;

               —

               order the respondent to make reimbursement to the appellant of all the costs, disbursement and fees incurred by him in relation to both the proceedings at first instance and the instant appeal proceedings.

         In the alternative:

               —

               Refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal, with a different composition, for a fresh decision.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellant relies on the following grounds of appeal:

               1.

               Absolute failure to state reasons, given the failure to dispel the confusion between the concept of damage and the concept of the occurrence of an event giving rise to the kind of damage referred to in the second paragraph of Article 288 (formerly 215) EC.

               2.

               Infringement of Article 288 EC, the first paragraph of Article 46 of the Statue of the Court of Justice, Article 90 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities (‘the Staff Regulations’), the principles of legal certainty, the right to judicial protection and the right to a fair trial.

               3.

               Incorrect and unreasonable interpretation and application of the concept of starting date or dies a quo for the purpose of determining a reasonable period within which to bring an action under Article 288 EC.

               4.

               Absolute failure to state grounds by reason, inter alia, of a total failure to make preliminary inquiries, and infringement of Article 90 of the Staff Regulations and of the relevant general principles of law in the analysis of the date from which the limitation period for bringing an action under Article 288 EC begins to run.

               5.

               Absolute failure to state grounds in relation to the appellant's alleged delay in bringing an action under Article 288 EC.

               6.

               Infringement of Articles 235 and 288 EC relating to the jurisdiction of the Community court in actions for compensation for damage and unconsidered, arbitrary and illogical failure properly to apply the relevant case-law.

               7.

               Infringement of the standards for fair trials, with reference in particular to the standards laid down by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.


title: Case T-436/07 P: Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2009 — Giannopoulos v Council (Appeal — Staff case — Officials — Recruitment — Classification in grade — Request for reclassification — Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations)

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/34

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2009 — Giannopoulos v Council
   (Case T-436/07 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Staff case - Officials - Recruitment - Classification in grade - Request for reclassification - Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations)
   2010/C 37/44
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Nikos Giannopoulos (Wezembeek-Oppem, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and I. Šulce, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 20 September 2007 in Case F-111/06 Giannopoulos v Council, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               orders Mr Nikos Giannopoulos and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs in connection with the present instance.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.


title: Action brought on 27 October 1997 by Milk Products Holdings (Europe) Limited and Others against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-281/97)

text:
20 . 12 . 97           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 387/25
Action brought on 27 October 1997 by Milk Products                    which, by letter dated 6 August 1997, confirmed the
Holdings ( Europe ) Limited and Others against the                    refusal to disclose key categories of documents.
          Commission of the European Communities
                        ( Case T-281 /97 )                            The applicants state that irrespective of the commercial
                                                                      imperatives which motivated their request, they have a
                          ( 97/C 387/46 )                             legal right under the Code to the documents unless the
                                                                      Commission discharges its burden of demonstrating on the
                                                                      facts that the public-interest exception is applicable . They
                 (Language of the case: English)                      consider that this has not been the case because :
                                                                      — on         the    one    hand,       the     Commission   invokes
An action against the Commission of the European                            international relations as a specific ground for refusal
Communities was brought before the Court of First                           of access under the public-interest exceptions, but
Instance of the European Communities on 27 October                          without giving any substantive explanation as to why
1997 by Milk Products Holdings ( Europe ) Limited and                       or how the disclosure of documents relating to the
Others, represented by Richard McGrane, with an address                     introduction of the criteria in 1981 will have any
for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Andre Marc,                     significant adverse impact on international relations,
56—58 Rue Charles Martel, Luxembourg.                                        and
The applicants claim that the Court should :                          — on the other hand, the Commission claims that
                                                                             disclosure of the documents to one party would
                                                                             interfere with the rights of defence of the other side
                                                                             and would therefore disturb court proceedings, but it
— annul the Commission Decisions of 29 May 1997 and                          does not set out the reasons justifying this assertion .
      6 August 1997 in so far as then relate to the refusal of
      access to the documents requested by the applicants,
                                                                      The applicants conclude therefore that, as a matter of law,
                                                                      the Commission has wholly failed to discharge its burden
— order the Commission to pay the costs of preparing                  of demonstrating that access to the documents could
      the application and these proceedings.                          actually 'undermine ' international relations or court
                                                                      proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   With regard to the ground invoked by the Secretariat
                                                                       General in its decision and relating to the existence of an
                                                                       investigation by the service competent in matters
The applicants explain that the contested decisions arose              concerning fraud into the operation of the New Zealand
as a result of a continuing effort on their part to clarify            butter quota regime over recent years, the applicants stress
the meaning of the criteria to be met by New Zealand                   that this exception was not mentioned by DG I or DG VI,
 butter if it is to be eligible for preferential tariff                with the consequence that the applicants have not had the
 treatments, introduced by Council Regulation No 858/                  opportunity to be heard on this issue in the administrative
 81 ('). The need to clarify the meaning of the criteria and           procedure . In the applicants ' view, this constitutes a
 in particular the phrase 'manufactured directly from milk             breach of the principle of the right to a fair hearing at the
 or cream' arises because the applicants are currently                 administrative stage .
 contesting a claim for retrospective duty from Her
 Majesty's Customs and Excise (' Customs') in the United               (') Council Regulation ( EEC) No 858/81 of 1 April 1981 relating
 Kingdom . It is their case that their products 'Ammix'                     to the import of New Zealand butter into the United Kingdom
 butter and spreadable butter should benefit from the                       on special terms ( OJ L 90 , 4 . 4 . 1981 , p. 18 ).
 preferential tariff arrangements because they are
 manufactured directly from milk or cream . Customs has
 however adopted the opposite position. A test case is
 currently before the relevant English tribunal .
                                                                        Action brought on 28 October 1997 by Antonio Giannini
 In order to clarify the meaning of this phrase by reference               against the Commission of the European Communities
  to the legislative intention of the Community institutions,                                     Case T-282/97)
  the applicants made requests to both DG I and DG VI for
  copies of documents concerning the preparation and                                               ( 97/C 387/47 )
  introduction     of   the     regulation  pursuant    to   the
  Commission 's Code on Public Access to Documents —
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
  Decision 94/90 ( the ' Code '). Both DG VI and DG I
  refused access to the documents by letters dated 29 May
  and 19 June 1997 . The applicants then lodged a request               An action against the Commission of the European
  for review of those decisions with the Secretariat-General,           Communities was brought before the Court of First


title: Case T-151/08: Action brought on 21 April 2008 — Victor Guedes-Indústria e Comércio v OHIM — Consorci de l'Espai Rural de Gallecs (GALLECS)

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/39

         Action brought on 21 April 2008 — Victor Guedes-Indústria e Comércio v OHIM — Consorci de l'Espai Rural de Gallecs (GALLECS)
   (Case T-151/08)
   (2008/C 171/74)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Victor Guedes-Indústria e Comércio, SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: B. Braga da Cruz, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Consorci de l'Espai Rural de Gallecs (Barcelona, Spain)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 January 2008 in case R 986/2007-2;

               —

               order OHIM to refuse the grant of the registration of Community trademark No 3 710 597 in respect of the goods in classes 29 and 31: and

               —

               order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: Consorci de l'Espai Rural de Gallecs

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘GALLECS’ for goods in classes 29 and 31 — application No 3 710 597

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited: The national figurative mark ‘GALLO’ for goods in class 29; the national figurative mark ‘GALLO AZEITE NOVO’ for goods in class 29; the national figurative mark ‘AZEITE GALLO’ for goods in class 29; the national mark ‘GALLO AZEITE NOVO’ for goods in class 29; the Community figurative mark ‘GALLO’ for goods in class 29

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and of Article 8(5) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the contested mark is similar to earlier marks and its use would be detrimental to the distinctive character of such, taking into account the usual practices in the relevant commercial sector as well as the other circumstances of the case.


title: Case C-68/04: Action brought on 13 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/22

         Action brought on 13 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-68/04)
   (2004/C 94/46)
   An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 13 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Gregorio Valerio Jordana and Minas Konstantinidis, of its Legal Service.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt, or in any event to notify to the Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/81/EC (1)of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and arguments
   The period for transposition of the directive into national law expired on 27 November 2002.

      (1)  OJ No L 309, 27.11.2001, p. 22.


title: Case F-36/16: Action brought on 12 July 2016 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/54

         Action brought on 12 July 2016 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-36/16)
   (2016/C 335/70)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: N. de Montigny and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision not to promote the applicant to grade AST 7 in the 2015 annual promotions exercise.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 13 November 2015 publishing the list of officials promoted in the 2015 annual promotions exercise in so far as it does not contain the applicant’s name;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case F-7/11: Action brought on 2 February 2011 — AX v ECB

text:
               21.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/33

         Action brought on 2 February 2011 — AX v ECB
   (Case F-7/11)
   2011/C 152/58
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: AX (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Central Bank

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the ECB's decision suspending the applicant with effect from 5 August 2010 and the claim for damages.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the ECB dated 4 August 2010 suspending the applicant with effect from 5 August 2010;

               —

               as a consequence, order the full reinstatement of the Appellant in his function with the appropriate publicity in order to restore his good name;

               —

               in any case, order the compensation of the moral prejudice suffered by the Appellant evaluated ex aequo et bono at 20 000,00 EUR;

               —

               order the ECB to pay the costs.