title: Case F-60/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 14 January 2014  — Lebedef v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Registration of absences on account of sickness — Irregular absence — Deduction made by the Appointing Authority from annual leave — Application made by e-mail — Knowledge of the person concerned that a decision existed — Failure to open an e-mail and to investigate, by clicking on a hyperlink, the content of that decision — Admissibility — Time-limits — Determination of the date at which the person involved could become aware of the content of the decision)

text:
               14.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/68

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 14 January 2014 — Lebedef v Commission
   (Case F-60/13) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Officials - Registration of absences on account of sickness - Irregular absence - Deduction made by the Appointing Authority from annual leave - Application made by e-mail - Knowledge of the person concerned that a decision existed - Failure to open an e-mail and to investigate, by clicking on a hyperlink, the content of that decision - Admissibility - Time-limits - Determination of the date at which the person involved could become aware of the content of the decision))
   2014/C 223/70
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Giorgio Lebedef (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Berscheid, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the implied decision to reject the request, made by the applicant on the basis of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations, for adjustment of the entries in respect of the applicant’s absences on account of sickness in the SysPer2 application.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Mr Lebedef shall bear his own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013, p. 29.


title: Case C-168/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) by order of that Court of 9 April 2002 in the case of Rudolf Kronhofer against (1) Marianne Maier, (2) Christian Möller, (3) Wirich Hofius and (4) Zeki Karan

text:
13.7.2002               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 169/19
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                  Action brought on 8 May 2002 by the Commission of the
the Court should:                                                        European Communities against the Portuguese Republic
—     declare that, by failing to communicate measures trans-
      posing into national law the provisions of Directive                                       (Case C-171/02)
      1999/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the
      Council of 13 December 1999 relating to the availability
      of consumer information on fuel economy and CO2                                           (2002/C 169/36)
      emissions in respect of the marketing of new passenger
      cars (1), or at any rate by not informing the Commission
      fully thereof, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
      obligations under that directive;
                                                                        An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
                                                                        the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 May
—     order the French Republic to pay the costs.                       2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        represented by Maria Patakia and António Caeiros, acting as
                                                                        Agents.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
The time-limit for transposition expired on 18 January 2001.
                                                                        I.   Declare that:
(1) OJ L 12 of 18 January 2000, p. 16.
                                                                             1.   inasmuch as the system for issuing authorisations
                                                                                by the Ministro de Administração Interna requires
                                                                                that foreign undertakings, in the private security
                                                                                services sector, wishing to pursue in Portugal activi-
                                                                                ties in the security sector in respect of persons and
                                                                                property:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster
Gerichtshof (Austria) by order of that Court of 9 April                           (a)   must have their main offices in or be estab-
2002 in the case of Rudolf Kronhofer against (1) Marianne                               lished in Portugal;
Maier, (2) Christian Möller, (3) Wirich Hofius and (4) Zeki
                               Karan
                                                                                (b) cannot rely on the guarantees already submit-
                          (Case C-168/02)                                               ted in their Member State of origin;
                         (2002/C 169/35)                                          (c)   must have legal personality;
                                                                                (d) must have a specific amount of capital;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof
                                                                             2.   inasmuch as the employees of foreign security
(Supreme Court) of 9 April 2002, received at the Court
                                                                                undertakings, in the private security services sector,
Registry on 6 May 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case
                                                                                wishing to pursue in Portugal security services
of Rudolf Kronhofer against (1) Marianne Maier, (2) Christian
                                                                                activities in respect of persons and property must be
Möller, (3) Wirich Hofius and (4) Zeki Karan on the following
                                                                                in possession of an employer’s identity card issued
question:
                                                                                by the Portuguese authorities;
Is the expression ‘place where the harmful event occurred’
contained in Article 5(3) of the Convention on jurisdiction                  3.   inasmuch as work in the private security sector is not
and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial                          covered by the Community system of recognition of
matters of 27.9.1968 (‘the Convention’) to be construed in                        professional qualifications;
such a way that, in the case of purely financial damage arising
on the investment of part of the injured party’s assets, it also
encompasses in any event the place where the injured party is                the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
domiciled if the investment was made in another Member                       under Articles 39, 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty and
State of the Community?                                                      Directive 92/51/EEC (1);
                                                                        II.  Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.


title: Case C-615/14 P: Appeal brought on 29 December 2014 by AQ against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 December 2014 in Case T-168/11 AQ v European Parliament

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/11

         Appeal brought on 29 December 2014 by AQ against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 December 2014 in Case T-168/11 AQ v European Parliament
   (Case C-615/14 P)
   (2015/C 398/14)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Appellant: AQ

      Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament
   By order of 17 September 2015, the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) ordered that the case be removed from the Register as being manifestly inadmissible.


title: Case C-621/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — N.W, L.W, C.W v Sanofi Pasteur MSD SNC, Caisse primaire d’assurance maladie des Hauts-de-Seine, Carpimko (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 85/374/EEC — Liability for defective products — Article 4 — Pharmaceutical laboratories — Vaccination against hepatitis B — Multiple sclerosis — Proof of defect of vaccine and of causal link between the defect and the damage suffered — Burden of proof — Methods of proof — Lack of scientific consensus — Serious, specific and consistent evidence left to the discretion of the court ruling on the merits — Whether permissible — Conditions)

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/8

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — N.W, L.W, C.W v Sanofi Pasteur MSD SNC, Caisse primaire d’assurance maladie des Hauts-de-Seine, Carpimko
   (Case C-621/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 85/374/EEC - Liability for defective products - Article 4 - Pharmaceutical laboratories - Vaccination against hepatitis B - Multiple sclerosis - Proof of defect of vaccine and of causal link between the defect and the damage suffered - Burden of proof - Methods of proof - Lack of scientific consensus - Serious, specific and consistent evidence left to the discretion of the court ruling on the merits - Whether permissible - Conditions))
   (2017/C 277/10)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: N.W, L.W, C.W

      Defendants: Sanofi Pasteur MSD SNC, Caisse primaire d’assurance maladie des Hauts-de-Seine, Carpimko

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 4 of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products must be interpreted as not precluding national evidentiary rules such as those at issue in the main proceedings under which, when a court ruling on the merits of an action involving the liability of the producer of a vaccine due to an alleged defect in that vaccine, in the exercise of its exclusive jurisdiction to appraise the facts, may consider that, notwithstanding the finding that medical research neither establishes nor rules out the existence of a link between the administering of the vaccine and the occurrence of the victim’s disease, certain factual evidence relied on by the applicant constitutes serious, specific and consistent evidence enabling it to conclude that there is a defect in the vaccine and that there is a causal link between that defect and that disease. National courts must, however, ensure that their specific application of those evidentiary rules does not result in the burden of proof introduced by Article 4 being disregarded or the effectiveness of the system of liability introduced by that directive being undermined.

               2.

               Article 4 of Directive 85/374 must be interpreted as precluding evidentiary rules based on presumptions according to which, where medical research neither establishes nor rules out the existence of a link between the administering of the vaccine and the occurrence of the victim’s disease, the existence of a causal link between the defect attributed to the vaccine and the damage suffered by the victim will always be considered to be established when certain predetermined causation-related factual evidence is presented.

      (1)  OJ C 48, 8.2.2016.


title: Case T-503/16: Order of the General Court of 14 November 2016 — Dulière v Commission

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/60

         Order of the General Court of 14 November 2016 — Dulière v Commission
   (Case T-503/16) (1)

   (2017/C 022/83)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 4.5.2013 (case initially registered before the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union under number F-15/13 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).


title: Case T-745/15: Action brought on 22 December 2015 — FH Scorpio v OHIM — Eckes-Granini Group (YO!)

text:
               15.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 59/45

         Action brought on 22 December 2015 — FH Scorpio v OHIM — Eckes-Granini Group (YO!)
   (Case T-745/15)
   (2016/C 059/52)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: FH Scorpio (Łódź, Poland) (represented by: R. Rumpel, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Eckes-Granini Group GmbH (Nieder-Olm, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant for the contested mark: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘YO!’ — Application for registration No 11 208 436

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 October 2015 in Case R 1546/2014-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the action well founded;

               —

               annul the contested decision in so far as it concerns registration of the mark ‘YO!’ 011208436;

               —

               alter the contested decision in such a way that the mark may be registered for all goods and services claimed;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case C-471/14: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien — Austria) — Seattle Genetics Inc. v Österreichisches Patentamt (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual and industrial property — Proprietary medicinal products — Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 — Article 13(1) — Supplementary protection certificate — Duration — Concept of the ‘date of the first authorisation to place the product on the market in the European Union’ — Whether account is to be taken of the date of the decision granting authorisation or the date on which notification was given of that decision)

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/6

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien — Austria) — Seattle Genetics Inc. v Österreichisches Patentamt
   (Case C-471/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual and industrial property - Proprietary medicinal products - Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 - Article 13(1) - Supplementary protection certificate - Duration - Concept of the ‘date of the first authorisation to place the product on the market in the European Union’ - Whether account is to be taken of the date of the decision granting authorisation or the date on which notification was given of that decision))
   (2015/C 398/07)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Wien

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Seattle Genetics Inc.

      Defendant: Österreichisches Patentamt

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products must be interpreted as meaning that the ‘date of the first authorisation to place the product on the market in the [European Union]’ is determined by EU law;

               2.

               Article 13(1) of Regulation No 469/2009 is to be interpreted as meaning that the ‘date of the first authorisation to place the product on the market in the [European Union]’ within the meaning of that provision is the date on which notification of the decision granting marketing authorisation was given to the addressee of the decision.

      (1)  OJ C 462, 22.12.2014.


title: Case F-22/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 13 December 2006 — Neophytou v Commission (Officials — Open competition — Selection Board — Composition — Equal treatment — Conditions for admission)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/45

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 13 December 2006 — Neophytou v Commission
   (Case F-22/05) (1)

   (Officials - Open competition - Selection Board - Composition - Equal treatment - Conditions for admission)
   (2006/C 331/101)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Neophytos Neophytou (Itzig, Luxembourg) (represented by: S.A. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and H. Kraemer, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the decision of the selection board EPSO/A/1/03 for the constitution of a reserve list of deputy administrators (A8) of Cypriot nationality not to include the applicant on the reserve list drawn up following that competition
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 155, 25.6.2005 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under number T-165/05 and transferred to the European Civil Service Tribunal by order of 15.12.2005).


               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/41

         Removal from the Register of Case T-372/04 (1)

   (2005/C 115/76)

      (Language of the case: French)

   By order of 31 January 2005, the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-372/04, Coopérative d'exportation du Livre Français (C.E.L.F:) v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 300 of 4.12.2004.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 June 2005 in Case T-349/03 Corsica Ferries France SAS v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Action for annulment — Restructuring aid — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the common market — Commission guidelines — Duty to give statement of reasons — Compliance with the conditions — Minimal character of the aid)

text:
               20.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/19

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 15 June 2005
   in Case T-349/03 Corsica Ferries France SAS v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (State aid - Action for annulment - Restructuring aid - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the common market - Commission guidelines - Duty to give statement of reasons - Compliance with the conditions - Minimal character of the aid)
   (2005/C 205/33)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-349/03: Corsica Ferries France SAS, established in Bastia (France), represented by S. Rodrigues and C. Scapel, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Giolito and H. van Vliet, with an address for service in Luxembourg), supported by the French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and S. Ramet, with an address for service in Luxembourg) and by Société nationale maritime Corse Meditérranée (SNCM) SA, established in Marseille (France), initially represented by H. Tassey, then by O. d'Ormesson and A. Bouin, lawyers — action for annulment of Commission Decision 2004/166/EC of 9 July 2003 on aid which France intends to grant for the restructuring of the Société Nationale Maritime Corse-Méditerranée (SNCM) (OJ 2004 L 61, p. 13) — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of M. Jaeger, President, V. Tiili and O. Czúcz, Judges; I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 June 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision 2004/166/EC of 9 July 2003 on aid which France intends to grant for the restructuring of the Société Nationale Maritime Corse-Méditerranée (SNCM);

               2.

               Orders the Commission to pay the applicant's costs and to bear its own costs.

               3.

               Orders the French Republic and SNCM to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 7 of 10. 01. 2004


title: Case C-461/09 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 July 2010 — The Wellcome Foundation Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Serono Genetics Institute SA (Appeals — Community trade mark — Word mark FAMOXIN — Application for a declaration of invalidity made by the proprietor of the national word mark LAMOXIN — Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity)

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/26

      Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 July 2010 — The Wellcome Foundation Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Serono Genetics Institute SA
      (Case C-461/09 P) (1)

      (Appeals - Community trade mark - Word mark FAMOXIN - Application for a declaration of invalidity made by the proprietor of the national word mark LAMOXIN - Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity)
      (2010/C 288/45)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: The Wellcome Foundation Ltd (represented by: R. Gilbey, avocat)

         Other parties to the main proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent), Serono Genetics Institute SA

         Re:

      Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 23 September 2009 in Joined Cases T-493/07, T-26/08 and T-27/08 GlaxoSmithkline — Laboratórios Wellcome de Portugal — The Wellcome Foundation v OHIM, in which the Court of First Instance dismissed an action for annulment brought by the proprietor of the national word mark ‘LANOXIN’ for goods in Class 5 against Decision R 8/2007-1 of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 14 September 2007 dismissing the appeal brought against the decision of the Cancellation Division rejecting the application for a declaration of invalidity submitted by the applicant concerning the Community word mark ‘FAMOXIN’ for goods and services in Class 5

         Operative part of the order

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the appeal;

                  2.

                  Orders The Wellcome Foundation Ltd to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 37, 13.02.2010.


title: Case C-337/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 7 August 2006 — Bayerischer Rundfunk, Deutschland Radio, Hessischer Rundfunk, Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk, Norddeutscher Rundfunk, Radio Bremen, Rundfunk Berlin-Brandenburg, Saarländischer Rundfunk, Südwestrundfunk, Westdeutscher Rundfunk, Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen v GEWA, Gesellschaft für Gebäudereinigung und Wartung mbH

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 7 August 2006 — Bayerischer Rundfunk, Deutschland Radio, Hessischer Rundfunk, Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk, Norddeutscher Rundfunk, Radio Bremen, Rundfunk Berlin-Brandenburg, Saarländischer Rundfunk, Südwestrundfunk, Westdeutscher Rundfunk, Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen v GEWA, Gesellschaft für Gebäudereinigung und Wartung mbH
   (Case C-337/06)
   (2006/C 281/28)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Bayerischer Rundfunk, Bayerischer Rundfunk, Deutschland Radio, Hessischer Rundfunk, Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk, Norddeutscher Rundfunk, Radio Bremen, Rundfunk Berlin-Brandenburg, Saarländischer Rundfunk, Südwestrundfunk, Westdeutscher Rundfunk, Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen

      Respondent: GEWA, Gesellschaft für Gebäudereinigung und Wartung mbH

      Intervening party: Heinz W. Warnecke, trading as Großbauten Spezial Reinigung
   Questions referred

               1.

               Where it appears in the first alternative of letter (c) of the second subparagraph of Article 1(9) of Directive 2004/18/EC (1), is the term ‘financed … by the State’ to be interpreted as including indirect financing given to bodies by means of fees imposed, on persons who have receiving equipment available for use, by the State pursuant to the obligation imposed on it by constitutional law to ensure the independent financing and existence of those bodies?

               2.

               If the first question is answered in the affirmative, where it appears in the first alternative of letter (c) of the second subparagraph of Article 1(9) of Directive 2004/18/EC, is the term ‘financed … by the State’ to be interpreted as being satisfied only in circumstances in which the State has direct influence on the award of contracts by the body financed by the State?

               3.

               If the second question is answered in the negative, is letter (c) of the second subparagraph of Article 1(9) of Directive 2004/18/EC to be interpreted, in the light of Article 16(b), as meaning that the only services removed from the Directive's scope of application are those specified in Article 16(b) and that other services which are not related to programme material but are of a subsidiary or ancillary nature are within the Directive's scope of application (by argumentum a contrario)?

      (1)  OJ L 134, p. 114.


title: Case C-466/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Immigration Appellate Authority (United Kingdom), by order of that court of 19 December 2000, in the case of Arben Kaba against Secretary of State for the Home Department

text:
C 61/4                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      24.2.2001
The Commission submits that:                                              Question 2
—     the possibility of making certain operations subject to
      prior administrative authorisation, in the circumstances            1.    The Immigration Adjudicator having found that the
      described in the articles cited, constitutes a restriction                Appellant, and the spouse of a person present and settled
      on the free movement of capital and the freedom of                        in the United Kingdom were (or would be) afforded
      establishment, which are provided for in Article 56 EC                    different treatment in that
      (ex Article 73b) and Article 43 EC (ex Article 52);
—     the system of administrative authorisation laid down by                   a)    the Appellant, having entered the United Kingdom
      Law 5/1995 can in no way be justified by overriding                             as the spouse of an EU citizen exercising free
      reasons of public interest and clearly involves the exercise                    movement rights, was required to have been in the
      of discretion. That discretionary power is a key factor                         United Kingdom for four years before he could
      conducive to a negative assessment as regards the require-                      apply for indefinite leave to remain, whereas
      ment of proportionality and to the conclusion that what
      is involved is a system allowing indirect discrimination.
                                                                                b)    the spouse of a person who was present and settled
                                                                                in the United Kingdom (whether a British national
(1) Law 5/1995 of 23 March 1995 on the rules applying to the sale                     or as a person who had been granted indefinite leave
    of public shareholdings in certain companies (Boletı́n Oficial del                to remain) would qualify after one year for indefinite
    Estado No 72 of 25 March 1995).
                                                                                leave to remain.
                                                                          2.    No evidence (or argument) concerning justification of the
                                                                                differential treatment between the applicant and such a
                                                                                spouse of a person present and settled having been
                                                                                presented to the referring court either at the hearing
                                                                                leading up to the Order for Reference of 25 September
                                                                                1998, in the written or oral observations made by the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Immigration                           Respondent before the European Court of Justice or the
Appellate Authority (United Kingdom), by order of that                          hearing leading up to the present Order for Reference,
court of 19 December 2000, in the case of Arben Kaba                            despite the request by the Adjudicator for full argument,
    against Secretary of State for the Home Department                          the Immigration Adjudicator asks
                         (Case C-466/00)
                                                                                1.    Whatever the answer to the first question set out
                          (2001/C 61/08)                                              above, is the Court’s judgment of 11 April 2000 in
                                                                                this case (Case-356/98) to be interpreted as stating
                                                                                that, in these circumstances, there was discrimi-
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                nation contrary to Article 39 EC and/or Article 7(2)
European Communities by an order of the Immigration                                   of Regulations 1612/68 (2)?
Appellate Authority (United Kingdom) of 19 December 2000,
which was received at the Court Registry on 27 December
2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Arben Kaba                        2.    After re-assessment of the facts, is there discrimi-
against Secretary of State for the Home Department, on the                            nation contrary to Article 39 EC and/or Article 7(2)
following questions:                                                                  of Regulations 1612/68?
Question 1
                                                                          (1) Judgment of the Court of 11 April 2000 in Case C-356/98, Arben
1.    What mechanisms are there for the referring court or the                Kaba against Secretary of State for the Home Department (ECR
      parties to the proceedings (before the referring court and              p. I-2623).
      the ECJ) to ensure that the totality of the proceedings             (2) Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968
      comply with the obligations under Article 6 ECHR and                    on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ
      therefore to ensure that no liability for breach of Article             L 257, 19.10.1968, p. 2 [SE SER1 68(H) p. 475]).
      6 ECHR arises either under the domestic human rights
      statute or before the Court of Human Rights? and
2.    Was the procedure followed in this case in compliance
      with the requirements of Article 6 ECHR and, if not, how
      does this affect the validity of the first judgment (1)?


title: Action brought on 24 February 1997 by Deborah Gabriel against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-32/97)

text:
26 . 4 . 97            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 131 /21
had 12 years and several days' specific professional                  Action brought on 24 February 1997 by Deborah Gabriel
experience, he should have been classed in Grade A 5 in                  against the Commission of the European Communities
accordance with Article 2, second paragraph, of the                                             ( Case T-32/97)
Commission's decision of 1 September 1983 , in the
appropriate step.                                                                                ( 97/C 131/50 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
In support of his application he argues, alternatively, that
the decision was unlawful in so far as it states that
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
Article 2, first paragraph, thereof applies to members of             Communities was brought before the Court of First
the temporary staff recruited under Article 2 ( a ) of the            Instance of the European Communities on 24 February
Regulations applicable to Other Servants; that it fails to            1997 by Deborah Gabriel, residing in Brussels, represented
fulfil the obligation to state reasons; that it infringes             by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations; and that the               service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
Commission committed a manifest error of assessment.
                                                                      Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange.
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                      — annul the Commission's decision of 20 June 1996
                                                                          rejecting the applicant's request that it give
Action brought on 24 February 1997 by Francisco                           consideration to the possible application of
Fernandez Ruiz against the Commission of the European                     Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
                           Communities
                         (Case T-31/97)                               — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision
                                                                           adopted by the Commission on 22 November 1996
                          ( 97/C 131 /49 )                                expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,
                (Language of the case: French)                        — order the defendant to pay all the costs.
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 24 February                   The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                                                                      Case T-16/97 O.
1997 by Francisco Fernandez Ruiz, residing in Waterloo
( Belgium), represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                 (') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p. 27.
offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                      Action brought on 24 February 1997 by Luc Jacobs
— annul the Commission's decision of 17 June 1996                        against the Commission of the European Communities
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give
     consideration to the possible application of                                               (Case T-33/97)
     Article 31 (2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                                                     97/C 131/51 )
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision                                  (Language of the case: French)
     adopted by the Commission on 22 November 1996
     expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,                   An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities on 24 February
— order the defendant to pay all the costs.                           1997 by Luc Jacobs, residing in Koekelberg ( Belgium ),
                                                                      represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an
                                                                      address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange, L-1320 Lux
                                                                      embourg.
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
Case T-16/97 t 1 ).                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
 H OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.                                  — annul the Commission's decision of 20 June 1996
                                                                           rejecting the applicant's request that it give
                                                                           consideration to the possible application of
                                                                           Article 31 (2 ) of the Staff Regulations,


title: Case T-95/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2006 — Asociación de Estaciones de Servicio de Madrid and Federación Catalana de Estaciones de Servicio v Commission (State aid — Legislation providing for urgent measures to promote competition in the sector for the retail supply of petroleum products — Decision not to raise any objections — Admissibility — Legal persons — Measure of individual concern to them — Manifest error of assessment — Duty to state reasons — Duty to initiate the formal investigation procedure — Reasonable period of time)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/31

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2006 — Asociación de Estaciones de Servicio de Madrid and Federación Catalana de Estaciones de Servicio v Commission
   (Case T-95/03) (1)

   (State aid - Legislation providing for urgent measures to promote competition in the sector for the retail supply of petroleum products - Decision not to raise any objections - Admissibility - Legal persons - Measure of individual concern to them - Manifest error of assessment - Duty to state reasons - Duty to initiate the formal investigation procedure - Reasonable period of time)
   (2006/C 331/68)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicants: Asociación de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio de la Comunidad Autónoma de Madrid (Madrid, Spain) and Federación Catalana de Estaciones de Servicio (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Jiménez Laiglesia, M. Delgado Echevarría and R. Ortega Bueno, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Buendía Sierra, Agent, and J. Rivas Andrés and J. Gutiérrez Gisbert, lawyers)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: initially by E. Braquehais Conesa, and subsequently by M. Muñoz Pérez, Agents) and Asociación Nacional de Grandes Empresas de Distribución (ANGED) (Madrid) (represented by J. Pérez-Bustamante Köster and J. Passás Ogallar, lawyers),
   Re:
   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2002) 4355 final of 13 November 2002 concerning Spanish legislation on the opening of service stations by hypermarkets
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicants to bear three quarters of their own costs, three quarters of those incurred by the Commission and all of the costs incurred by the Asociación Nacional de Grandes Empresas de Distribución;

               3.

               Orders the Commission to bear a quarter of its own costs and a quarter of those incurred by the applicants;

               4.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 112, 10.5.2003.


title: Case F-127/06: Action brought on 3 November 2006 — H v Council

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/85

         Action brought on 3 November 2006 — H v Council
   (Case F-127/06)
   (2006/C 326/171)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

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

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Forms of order sought

               —

               annul the Council's decision of 15 March 2006 automatically to retire the applicant on 31 March 2006 in so far as it allows her an invalidity pension pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, who was retired with effect from 30 April 2003 due to her invalidity, was reintegrated on 1 November 2004. Following a number of absences due to illness, the Council once again retired her and granted her the invalidity allowance provided for in the first paragraph of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations, with effect from 1 April 2006.
   In support of her action, the applicant claims that the Invalidity Committee did not rule on the origin of her illness or on a possible causal link between the deterioration of her illness and her working conditions. In those circumstances, the Council did not have the necessary information to determine whether the applicant was entitled to the allowance provided for by the first paragraph of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations or the one provided for in the fifth paragraph of that article. The Council's choice, less favourable to the applicant, is unlawful.
   The applicant adds that the contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment as regards the nature of her illness, which indeed deteriorated due to her return to work and the stress linked to her carrying out her professional duties.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) of 5 February 1998 in Case C-30/96 P: Giovanni Battista Abello and Others, Gerhard Riesch v. Commission of the European Communities, supported by Council of the Euroepan Union (Officials - Pay slips - Weightings - Regulations (EEC) No 3761/92, (EEC) No 3765/92 and (EEC) No 3766/92 - Plea of inadmissibility)

text:
28.3.98              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 94/5
Emden (Germany), represented by Detlef Schumacher and                1. The appeal is dismissed.
Wilhelm Wiltfang, Rechtsanwalt Ð appeal against the
order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of
19 February 1997 in Case T-117/96 Intertronic v.                     2. Mr Abello and Others and Mr Riesch shall pay the
Commission [1997] ECR II-141, seeking to have that                       costs.
order set aside, the other party to the proceedings being
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: Klaus                 (1) OJ C 108, 13.4.1996.
Wiedner) Ð the Court (First Chamber), composed of: M.
Wathelet, President of the Chamber, D. A. O. Edward and
L. Sevón (Rapporteur), Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate-
General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 15 January
1998, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                     Action brought on 22 December 1997 by the Commission
1. The appeal is dismissed.                                          of the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                                (Case C-434/97)
2. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.                                                 (98/C 94/11)
(1) OJ C 212, 12.7.1997.
                                                                     An action against the French Republic was brought before
                                                                     the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                     22 December 1997 by the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities, represented by HeÂleÁne Michard and Enrico
                                                                     Traversa, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an
                                                                     address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                  ORDER OF THE COURT                                 Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                      (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
                     of 5 February 1998
in Case C-30/96 P: Giovanni Battista Abello and Others,
Gerhard Riesch v. Commission of the European                         Ð declare that, by maintaining in force legislative
Communities, supported by Council of the Euroepan                        provisions under which beverages with an alcohol
                           Union (1)                                     content exceeding 25 % vol. are subject to a special
                                                                         contribution calculated per decilitre or parts thereof,
(Officials Ð Pay slips Ð Weightings Ð Regulations (EEC)                  the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
No 3761/92, (EEC) No 3765/92 and (EEC) No 3766/92                        under Article 3(2) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC (1)
                  Ð Plea of inadmissibility)                             of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for
                                                                         products subject to excise duty and on the holding,
                         (98/C 94/10)                                    movement and monitoring of such products, read in
                                                                         conjunction with Council Directive 92/83/EEC (2) of
                                                                         19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the
                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                         structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic
                                                                         beverages,
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)                    Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.
In Case 30/96 P: Giovanni Battista Abello and Others,                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Gerhard Riesch (Agents: Michele Tamburini and Franco
Colussi) Ð appeal against the judgment of the Court of               Failure to fulfil obligations under Directive 92/12/EEC
First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth                   inasmuch as the French social security' contribution:
Chamber) of 7 December 1995 in Joined Cases T-544/93
and T-566/93 Abello and Others v. Commission [1995]
ECR-SC II-815, seeking to have that judgment set aside,              Ð is calculated per decilitre of beverage and not by
the other party to the proceedings being: Commission of                  reference to the quantity of pure alcohol contained in
the European Communities (Agent: Gianluigi Valsesia,                     the beverage in question,
assisted by Alberto Dal Ferro), supported by Council of
the European Union (Agent: Anna Lo Monaco) Ð the
Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm,                   Ð applies to beverages with an alcohol content exceeding
President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray (Rapporteur) and                  25 % vol, whereas the Community customs duty
K. M. Ioannou, Judges; P. LeÂger, Advocate-General; R.                   category of ethyl alcohol (Article 20 of Directive 92/
Grass, Registrar, made an order on 5 February 1998, the                  83/EEC) covers products with an alcohol content
operative part of which is as follows:                                   exceeding 22 % vol.


title: Case C-573/11 P: Appeal brought on 15 November 2011 by ClientEarth against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 6 September 2011 in Case T-452/10: ClientEarth, supported by Kingdom of Denmark, Republic of Finland and Kingdom of Sweden, v Council of the European Union

text:
               11.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/9

         Appeal brought on 15 November 2011 by ClientEarth against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 6 September 2011 in Case T-452/10: ClientEarth, supported by Kingdom of Denmark, Republic of Finland and Kingdom of Sweden, v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-573/11 P)
   2012/C 39/15
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: ClientEarth (represented by: P. Kirch, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Kingdom of Denmark, Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Sweden, Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the General Court's order of 6 September 2011 in Case T-452/10

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay all costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in its interpretation of the concepts of ‘independence’ and ‘third party’ in the context of the application of the first, third and fourth paragraphs of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 43(1) of the Rules of Procedure.


title: Case F-105/15: Action brought on 20th July 2015 — ZZ and ZZ v CEPOL

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/53

         Action brought on 20th July 2015 — ZZ and ZZ v CEPOL
   (Case F-105/15)
   (2015/C 320/73)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ and ZZ (represented by: L. Levi, A. Blot, lawyers)

      Defendant: CEPOL (European Police College)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of CEPOL by which it accepted the resignation of the two applicants as a consequence of their refusal to work at the new headquarters of the agency, in Budapest (Hungary), and claim for compensation in respect of the material and non-material damage allegedly sustained.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of CEPOL of 22 December 2014 by which CEPOL ‘accepted’ the resignation of two applicants;

               —

               so far as necessary, annul the CEPOL’s decisions dated 10 April 2015, rejecting the Applicants’ complaints lodged between 13 January and 17 February 2015, against the aforementioned decision;

               —

               compensate the material prejudice suffered by the Applicants;

               —

               compensate the moral prejudice suffered by the Applicants;

               —

               order CEPOL to pay all the costs incurred by the Applicants for the present appeal.


title: Joined Cases C-447/05 and C-448/05: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 March 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Paris — France) — Thomson Multimedia Sales Europe (C-447/05), Vestel France (C-448/05) v Administration des douanes et droits indirects (Community Customs Code — Implementing measures — Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 — Annex 11 — Non-preferential origin of goods — Television receivers — Concept of substantial processing or working — Criterion of added value — Validity)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/11

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 March 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Paris — France) — Thomson Multimedia Sales Europe (C-447/05), Vestel France (C-448/05) v Administration des douanes et droits indirects
   (Joined Cases C-447/05 and C-448/05) (1)

   (Community Customs Code - Implementing measures - Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Annex 11 - Non-preferential origin of goods - Television receivers - Concept of substantial processing or working - Criterion of added value - Validity)
   (2007/C 95/17)
   Language of the cases: French
   Referring court
   Cour d'appel de Paris
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Thomson Multimedia Sales Europe (C-447/05), Vestel France (C-448/05)

      Defendant: Administration des douanes et droits indirects
   Re:
   Preliminary ruling — Cour d'appel de Paris — Validity of Annex 11 to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1) — Criteria for determining the non-preferential origin of goods — Television manufactured in Poland but the cathode ray tube of which, representing 42.43 % of the value of the apparatus, originates in Korea
   Operative part of the judgment
   Consideration of the questions raised has disclosed nothing capable of affecting the validity of the provisions in column three, under heading 8528 of the Combined Nomenclature, set out in Annex 11 to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code.

      (1)  OJ C 48, 25.2.2006.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 June 2003 in Case T-72/01 Norman Pyres v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Internal competition — Exclusion from the oral test)

text:
C 213/30                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                       6.9.2003
       as it charges to the applicant, for the mission to the Hague of       President, and P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges; J. Plingers,
       12 to 18 August 1999, a sum overclaimed in respect of air             Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
       travel costs of BEF 1 921 instead of BEF 1 291;                       25 June 2003, in which it:
2.     Orders the defendant to repay to the applicant the sum of             1.     Dismisses the application;
       EUR 15,62 together with interest to run from 26 June 2000,
       at the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for principal
       refinancing operations applicable for the period in question,         2.     Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
       increased by two points;
3.     Dismisses the remainder of the application;                           (1 ) OJ No C 150 of 19 May 2001.
4.     Orders the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay one-sixth
       of those incurred by the applicant.
( 1) OJ No C 79 of 10 March 2001.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 3 July 2003
                                                                             in Case T-122/01: Best Buy Concepts Inc. v Office for
                                                                             Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                         Designs) (OHIM) ( 1)
                                                                             (Community trade mark — Figurative mark containing the
                           of 25 June 2003                                   word mark ‘best buy’ — Absolute ground for refusal —
                                                                             Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
                                                                                No 40/94)
in Case T-72/01 Norman Pyres v Commission of the
                     European Communities ( 1)
                                                                                (2003/C 213/58)
(Officials — Internal competition — Exclusion from the oral
                                  test)                                                         (Language of the case: German)
                           (2003/C 213/57)
                                                                             In Case T-122/01, Best Buy Concepts Inc., established in Eden
                                                                             Prairie, Minnesota (United States), represented by S. Rojahn,
                      (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             lawyer, v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                                                                             (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: G. Schneider):
                                                                             Application for annulment of the decision of the Third Board
                                                                             of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                             Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 March 2001 (Case
In Case T-72/01 Norman Pyres, a former member of the                         R 44/2000-3) concerning an application for registration of a
temporary staff, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by              figurative mark containing the word mark ‘best buy’ as a
G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, avocats, against the Commission                 Community trade mark, the Court of First Instance (Second
of the European Communities (Agent: J. Currall) — application                Chamber), composed of: N.J. Forwood, President, J. Pirrung
for annulment of the decision of the Selection Board in                      and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for
competition COM/TA/99 excluding the applicant from the                       the Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 July 2003, in which
oral test in the competition and of all subsequent operations                it:
and acts in the competition and, additionally, a claim for
damages for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant — the
Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of V. Tiili,              1.     Dismisses the application;


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte Suprema di Cassazione by order of that court of 6 November 2003 in the case of Aro Tubi Trafilerie S.p.A. against Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze
   (Case C-46/04)
   (2004/C 94/39)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Supreme Court of Cassation) of 6 November 2003, received at the Court Registry on 6 February 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Aro Tubi Trafilerie S.p.A. against Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze on the following question:
   Must Directive 69/335/EEC (1) concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Directives 73/80/EEC (2) and 85/303/EEC (3), be interpreted as meaning that it precludes the levying of proportional registration duty on a merger through acquisition where all the share capital is owned not by the acquiring company but by the company acquired, in particular with regard to the possible existence of a restriction on the free movement of capital in this special case?

      (1)  OJ, English Special Edition 1969(II), p. 412

      (2)  OJ L 103 of 18.4.1973, p. 15

      (3)  OJ L 156 of 15.6.1985, p. 23


title: Case T-437/10: Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2013 — Gap granen & producten v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Import of high-quality durum wheat — Import duties — Regulation (EC) No 919/2009 — Regulation (EC) No 1249/96 — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Material loss — Causal link)

text:
               29.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 189/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2013 — Gap granen & producten v Commission
   (Case T-437/10) (1)

   (Non-contractual liability - Import of high-quality durum wheat - Import duties - Regulation (EC) No 919/2009 - Regulation (EC) No 1249/96 - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Material loss - Causal link)
   2013/C 189/32
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Gap granen & producten (Zoersel, Belgium) (represented by: C. Ronse, A. Hansebout, K. Claeyé and J, Muyldermans, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and B. Burggraaf, Agents)

      Re:

   Action for compensation under Article 340 TFEU for compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the fixing of import duties on high-quality durum wheat by Commission Regulation (EC) No 919/2009 of 1 October 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 915/2009 fixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 1 October 2009 (OJ 2009 L 259, p. 5).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               The European Commission is ordered to compensate Gap SA granen & producten NV for the loss suffered by it as a result of the application of Commission Regulation (EC) No 919/2009 of 1 October 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 915/2009 fixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 1 October 2009, in so far as that regulation did not take account of the fob quotation or use a calculation method which was representative of actual freight costs for the fixing of import duties for high-quality durum wheat.

               2.

               Gap granen & producten and the Commission are ordered to provide the General Court with the amounts to be paid, established by common agreement, within six months of the date of judgment;

               3.

               If the parties fail to reach an agreement, Gap granen & producten and the Commission are to provide the General Court with their forms of order sought, including figures, within the same period;

               4.

               Costs are reserved.

      (1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.


title: Case F-96/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 16 June 2011 — Andrecs and Others v Commission (Staff cases — Annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/55

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 16 June 2011 — Andrecs and Others v Commission
   (Case F-96/10) (1)

   (Staff cases - Annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants - No need to adjudicate)
   2011/C 252/120
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Stefan Robert Andrecs (Uccle, Belgium) and Others (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and D. Martin, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the defendant's decision adjusting the applicants’ remuneration, pensions and other allowances with effect from 1 July 2009, as set out in their salary slips, within the framework of the annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants pursuant to Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1296/2009 of 23 December 2009.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on Case F-96/10 Andrecs and Others v Commission.

               2.

               The applicants are ordered to bear their own costs and to pay the European Commission's costs.

      (1)  OJ C 30, 29.01.2011, p. 63.


title: Case T-46/01: Action brought on 1 March 2001 by Alessandrini Srl and Others against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
5.5.2001              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 134/27
The applicants claim that the Court should:                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the Commission’s decision dated 14 November
      2000;                                                              —     annul the decision of the Commission, notified by letter
                                                                               of 8 December 2000 AGR No 030905, which arrived on
—     order the Commission to compensate the applicants for                    21 December 2000, signed by Director-General for
      the loss of earnings, pension, benefits and privileges                   Agriculture J.M. Silva Rodrı́guez, pursuant to Articles 230
      occasioned to them by breaches of Community law;                         and 231 of the EC Treaty;
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         —     and/or order the Commission to pay compensation under
                                                                               Article 235 and the second paragraph of Article 288 of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                the EC Treaty;
The action is brought against a decision of the Join European
Torus (JET) Appointing Authority declining a request for                 —     in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs.
compensation made by the applicants for losses resulting from
the Commission’s method of engaging them to work on the
JET project without recruiting them to temporary Commission
posts.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants claim that, in so doing, the Commission:
—     was in breach of the fundamental principle of non-
      discrimination in that in several respects the applicants          The applicant companies have for many years marketed third-
      were materially disadvantaged, to a significant extent,            country bananas. In 2000, like 1999, they were allocated a
      compared to those in temporary Commission posts; and               reference quantity established by reference to the average
                                                                         quantity of bananas imported from third countries in the
                                                                         three-year period 1994/1995/1996, and so they regularly
—     was in breach of, or alternatively ultra vires, the Statutes
                                                                         submitted, during 2000, applications for quarterly licences to
      governing the JET Project, prior to the amendment of the
                                                                         import bananas from third countries. For the fourth quarter of
      Statutes which took effect on 21 October 1998; in so
                                                                         2000, the applicants submitted applications for import licences
      far as the said amendment purported to preclude the
                                                                         in respect of the quantities left over from the yearly quantity
      Commission from recruiting the applicants to temporary
                                                                         allocated to them, indicating as origins for the product they
      posts, the amendment was to the extent unlawful and
                                                                         sought to import one or more third countries.
      invalid.
                                                                         Under Article 18 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2362/98
                                                                         of 28 October 1998 laying down detailed rules for the
                                                                         implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93
                                                                         regarding imports of bananas into the Community (1), the
                                                                         applicants could have submitted applications for licences for
Action brought on 1 March 2001 by Alessandrini Srl                       the fourth quarter of 2000, but only in respect of the
and Others against the Commission of the European                        traditional ACP countries, for which there were still
                          Communities                                    329 787,675 tonnes, the other sources having by now been
                                                                         completely exhausted. Since in 1999 they had requested and
                                                                         obtained import licences for ACP countries up to their
                         (Case T-46/01)                                  reference quantity, but had not been able to use them because
                                                                         it had been impossible to find bananas from those origins in
                        (2001/C 134/58)                                  2000, they renounced their use of the licence in order not to
                                                                         risk losing the security lodged, as had happened the previous
                                                                         year.
                  (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                The applicants therefore requested the Commission to issue
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               them import licences in respect of third-country bananas for a
European Communities on 1 March 2001 by Alessandrini Srl                 reduced amount, even if the quota was exhausted, or to
and others, represented by Wilma Viscardini Donà and Gabrie-             compensate them for the losses suffered as a result of their not
le Donà, of the Padua Bar, with an address for service in                being able to use up the whole of their respective reference
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, rue Mathias                 quantities. The defendant’s refusal in this regard is at the heart
Hardt.                                                                   of the present proceedings.
 ---pagebreak--- C 134/28               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       5.5.2001
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied          The applicant submits that the Commission justifies that
on in Case T-93/00 Alessandrini and Others v Commission (2).             decision by alleging that the Paraguayan authorities have
                                                                         expressed reservations about him but that it fails to mention
                                                                         the factual and legal matters of which the applicant should be
                                                                         aware in order, if necessary, to be able to defend his own
(1) OJ 1998 L 293, p. 32.                                                professional conduct.
(2) OJ 2000 C 176, p. 25.
                                                                         The applicant considers that the decision at issue infringes
                                                                         Article 7 of the Staff Regulations since it is contrary to the
                                                                         interest of the service. In his view, the interest of the service
                                                                         specifically requires him to remain in his current post and
                                                                         continue the complex work which has been assigned to him
                                                                         and of which he has already gained sound experience.
                                                                         The applicant further submits that the decision is vitiated by a
Action brought on 6 March 2001 by Juergen Schaefer                       complete failure to state the grounds and has been adopted
  against the Commission of the European Communities                     without the Commission at any time taking account of the
                                                                         views of the party concerned, contrary to the requirements of
                                                                         case-law.
                          (Case T-52/01)
                        (2001/C 134/59)
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                         Action brought on 6 March 2001 by Poste Italiane S.p.A.
                                                                             against Commission of the European Communities
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 6 March 2001 by Juergen Schaefer,                                         (Case T-53/01)
represented by Juan Ramón Iturriagagoitia, lawyer.
                                                                                (2001/C 134/60)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 12 February 2001
      relating to the applicant’s transfer back from Montevideo          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      (Uruguay) to Brussels;                                             ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 6 March 2001 by Poste Italiane
                                                                         S.p.A., represented by Gian Michele Roberti, Petrus Mathijsen,
—     annul, if appropriate, the Commission’s note of 30 No-             Alessandra Perrazzelli, Elisabetta Rubini and Andrea Sandulli,
      vember 2000 informing the applicant of the decision to             avvocati.
      transfer him back from Montevideo (Uruguay) to Brussels;
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     order the immediate suspension and, if appropriate, the
      subsequent annulment of any procedure initiated with a             —     annul the contested decision
      view to filling the vacancy arising from the order
      transferring the applicant;                                        —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
—     order, if appropriate, the annulment of the corresponding
      appointment of an official to fill the post;                       Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         By this action, Poste Italiane SpA is seeking the annulment of
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         the decision of the Commission of 21 December 2000,
                                                                         adopted on the basis of Article 86(3) of the Treaty, in relation
                                                                         to the provision of certain new postal services with a
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          guaranteed day- or time-certain delivery. That decision declares
                                                                         incompatible with Article 4(4) of the Treaty Legislative Decree
                                                                         No 261/99 of 22 July 1999 implementing Directive 97/67/EC
The applicant, who is based in the European Commission’s                 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December
Delegation in Montevideo (Uruguay), was notified of a decision           1997 on common rules for the development of the internal
dated 12 February 2001 posting him back to Brussels with                 market of Community postal services and the improvement of
effect from 12 March 2001.                                               quality of service.(1);


title: Case C-387/00: Action brought on 23 October 2000 by the European Parliament against the Council of the European Union

text:
9.12.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 355/15
4.    Is the importer therefor entitled under the Customs Code,         Does Community law, in particular Council Directive
      and in particular Article 236 thereof, to a refund of the         92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 (1), preclude national legis-
      duty paid on the buying commission?                               lation which provides that a life-assurance proposal or, in the
                                                                        absence of a proposal, a life-assurance policy must inform a
                                                                        policy-holder that termination, reduction or redemption of an
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
                                                                        existing life-assurance contract for the purpose of subscribing
    establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 302,
    19.10.1992, p. 1).                                                  to a separate life-assurance contract will generally be detrimen-
                                                                        tal to that policy-holder?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de lo
                                                                        (1) Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the
Social no 1, Pontevedra, by order of that court of                          coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions
28 September 2000 in the case of Marı́a Gardenia Abal                       relating to direct life assurance and amending Directives
Pombo against Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social                     79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (third life assurance Directive) (OJ
        and Tesorerı́a General de la Seguridad Social                       1992 L 360, p. 1).
                         (Case C-382/00)
                        (2000/C 355/29)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Juzgado de lo Social               Action brought on 23 October 2000 by the European
(Social Court) no 1, Pontevedra, Spain, of 28 September 2000,              Parliament against the Council of the European Union
received at the Court Registry on 18 October 2000, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Marı́a Gardenia Abal Pombo
against Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (National                                      (Case C-387/00)
Social Security Institute) and Tesorerı́a General de la Seguridad
Social (General Social Security Fund) on the following question:
                                                                                (2000/C 355/31)
Where, in order for a worker (male or female) who is part of a
family in which other family members are working to be
insured under a special social security scheme for agricultural         An action against the Council of the European Union was
workers, a rule imposes a requirement that the income earned            brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
from the activity to which the scheme applies must be the               ties on 23 October 2000 by the European Parliament,
family’s main income, in the sense of being the highest income,         represented by Ricardo Passos, Head of Division, and Antonio
is the rule contrary to the provisions of Council Directive             Caiola, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address
79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978(1)?                                        for service in Luxembourg at the Post and Registration
                                                                        Department, Bâtiment Tour — Office 017.
(1) OJ L 6, 10.1.1979, p. 24.
                                                                        The European Parliament claims that the Court should:
                                                                        —     Annul, pursuant to Article 230 EC:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d’Appel                        —     Council Decision 2000/527/EC of 14 August 2000
de Bruxelles (Ninth Chamber) by judgment of 17 October                              amending Decision 93/731/EC on public access to
2000 in the case of Axa Royale Belge v Georges Ochoa                                Council documents and Council Decision
                   and Stratégie Finance Sprl                                       2000/23/EC on the improvement of information on
                                                                                the Council’s legislative activities and the public
                         (Case C-386/00)                                            register of Council documents(1);
                        (2000/C 355/30)                                       —     Decision 2000/C239/01 of the Secretary-General of
                                                                                the Council/High Representative for the Common
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                              Foreign and Security Policy of 27 July 2000 on
European Communities by judgment of 17 October 2000 by                              measures for the protection of classified information
the Cour d’Appel de Bruxelles (Brussels Court of Appeal)                            applicable to the General Secretariat of the
(Ninth Chamber), which was received at the Court Registry on                        Council(2), and
23 October 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Axa
Royale Belge v Georges Ochoa and Stratégie Finance Sprl on
the following question:                                                 —     Order the defendant to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 355/16                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       9.12.2000
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            The Commission claims that the Court should:
—     Infringement of an essential procedural requirement: the
      legal basis for the decisions at issue is inappropriate. Since       1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      Article 255 EC enshrined for the first time in primary                     and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      legislation rights of access to documents of the Parlia-                   Council Directive 97/79/EC (1) of 18 December 1997
      ment, the Council and the Commission, the Council no                       amending       Directives    71/118/EEC,        72/462/EEC,
      longer has power to regulate such matters under the head                   85/73/EEC, 91/67/EEC, 91/492/EEC, 91/493/EEC,
      of its powers of internal organisation. Article 28(1) and                  92/45/EEC and 92/118/EEC as regards the organisation
      Article 41(1) of the Treaty on European Union explicitly                   of veterinary checks on products entering the Community
      provide that rights of access extend also to documents                     from third countries and Council Directive 98/46/EC (2)
      concerning the common foreign and security policy and                      of 24 June 1998 amending Annexes A, D (Chapter I) and
      cooperation in the fields of justice and home affairs.                     F to Directive 64/432/EEC on health problems affecting
                                                                                intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine, the
      The obligation to lay down general principles and limits                   Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      upon the rights of access to documents in accordance                       the Treaty and those directives;
      with the codecision procedure (Article 255(2) EC) is,
      admittedly, one that is to be complied with within a
      period of two years. However, that obligation came into
      effect as soon as the Treaty of Amsterdam came into                  2.    order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
      force, which necessarily excludes the adoption of any
      unilateral measures laying down such general principles
      and limits.
—     Breach of the obligation to cooperate in good faith
      (Article 10 EC): despite the fact that the Commission                Pleas in law and main arguments
      adopted a proposal for a regulation, in accordance with
      Article 255(2) EC, and that the Parliament expected to
      collaborate closely with the Council and the Commission
      under the codecision procedure, the Council adopted                  In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 of the
      the measures at issue without the knowledge of the                   Treaty establishing the European Community, directives are
      Parliament.                                                          binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member
                                                                           State to which they are addressed.
—     Breach of the principle of institutional equilibrium: by
      adopting its decision unilaterally and without having
      regard to the procedures laid down in the Treaty,
      the Council also breached the principle of institutional             Under the first paragraph of Article 10 of the Treaty, Member
      equilibrium.                                                         States are to take all appropriate measures, whether general or
                                                                           particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out
                                                                           of the Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions
(1) OJ L 212 of 23.8.2000, p. 9.                                           of the Community.
(2) OJ C 239 of 23.8.2000, p. 1.
                                                                           It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
                                                                           measures to comply with the abovementioned directives.
Action brought on 25 October 2000 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Hellenic Repub-                    The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
                                 lic                                       has not adopted the appropriate measures to incorporate those
                                                                           directive fully into Greek law.
                          (Case C-393/00)
                         (2000/C 355/32)
                                                                           (1) OJ L 24, 30.1.1998, p. 31.
                                                                           (2) OJ L 198, 15.7.1998, p. 22.
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 Octo-
ber 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, of its Legal Service,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
Kirchberg.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 12 October 1995 in Case C-257/94: Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 91/685/EEC - Failure to transpose)

text:
No C 299/ 8            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      11 . 11 . 95
     time Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the                  control of classical swine-fever, the Italian Republic has
     laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the                 failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of Directive
     Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing                91 /685;
     and use of certain dangerous substances and
     preparations, the Kingdom ofBelgium has failed to fulfil          2 . orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
     its obligations under the EC Treaty;
                                                                       (') OJ No C 304 , 29 . 10 . 1994 .
2 . orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
(') OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 , p . 21 .
                                                                       Action brought on 14 August 1995 by Hedwig
                                                                       Kuchlenz-Winter against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                                                                                ( Case C-281 /95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 299/ 13 )
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        ( Sixth Chamber )                              An action against the Commission of the European
                      of 12 October 1995                               Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities on 14 August 1995 by Hedwig
in    Case    C-257/94 :     Commission      of the    European        Kuchlenz-Winter, residing at Domaine du Brameschhof 35 ,
              Communities v. Italian Republic (')                      L-8290 Kehlen , represented by Dieter Rogalla ,
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its- obligations —                Rechtsanwalt, Eicklohken 19 , D-45549 Sprockhovel , with
        Directive 91/685/EEC — Failure to transpose)                   an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                          ( 95 /C 299/ 12 )                            Armin Machmer, Rue Roger Barthel 1 , L-7212
                                                                       Bereldange .
                 ( Language of the case: Italian)                      The applicant claims that the Court should :
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           — declare that the Commission has unlawfully failed to act
          published in the European Court Reports)                          in relation to the applicant, inasmuch as, following the
                                                                            pension rights adjustment effected in her favour
                                                                            pursuant to paragraph 1587 et seq. of the Biirgerliches
In    Case    C-257/94 :     Commission      of the    European             Gesetzbuch ( German Civil Code ), the applicant should
                                                                            not have been excluded from the sickness insurance
Communities ( Agent: Eugenio de March ) v. Italian Republic
( Agents : Umberto Leanza and Maurizio Fiorilli ) —                         scheme, which the defendant prevented by unlawfully
application for a declaration that, by not adopting within                  failing to propose to the competent EC institutions the
the prescribed period the laws, regulations and                             corresponding amendments to the Staff Regulations of
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council                  Officials ,
Directive 91 /685/EEC of 11 December 1991 amending
Directive 80/217/EEC introducing Community measures                    — order the defendant to pay the costs .
for the control of classical swine-fever ( OJ 1991 L377,p . 1 )
and with Council Directive 91 /688/EEC of 11 December                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 1991 amending Directive 72/462/EEC on health and
veterinary inspection problems upon importation of bovine ,            The applicant considers that the Commission is under an
ovine and caprine animals and swine , fresh meat or meat               obligation to cause the Rules on Sickness Insurance for
products from third countries ( OJ 1991 L 377, p. 18 ), the            Officials to be amended so as to provide that the divorced
 Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the       spouse of an official who is entitled , in consequence of a
 EC Treaty — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of C. N.            pension rights adjustment effected pursuant to paragraph
 Kakouris, President of the Chamber, E. A. Schockweiler,                1587 et seq . of the German Civil Code , to part of the
 P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray and H. Ragnemalm                        retirement pension of his or her former spouse should
 ( Rapporteur ), Judges; M. B. Elmer , Advocate-General ;              continue to enjoy the benefit of sickness insurance . She
 R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 October                maintains in particular that, in the absence of such a rule, she
 1995 , in which it:                                                    is obliged for practical purposes to remain in Luxembourg,
                                                                        since it is only there — by contrast with Germany — that she
                                                                        may voluntarily become a member of a statutory sickness
 1 . declares that, by not adopting within the prescribed               insurance scheme ; she regards this as constituting a breach
      period the laws, regulations and administrative                   of her right to freedom of movement .
      provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
      91 /685/EEC of 1 1 December 1991 amending Directive
      80/217/EEC introducing Community measures for the