title: Case C-98/16: Action brought on 17 February 2016 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

text:
               25.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/25

         Action brought on 17 February 2016 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-98/16)
   (2016/C 145/31)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Roels and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare that the Hellenic Republic, by the adoption and retention in force of legislation which provides that a preferential inheritance tax rate for bequests of which the beneficiaries are non-profit-making bodies established in other Member States of the EU/EEA is subject to a condition of reciprocity, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 TFEU and Article 40 of the EEA Agreement;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Greek legislation provides for a lower tax rate for bequests of which the beneficiaries are non-profit-making (charitable etc) legal persons. However the low rate is not valid for bequests to equivalent foreign legal persons, unless the relevant States themselves grant more favourable treatment with respect to bequests to Greek non-profit-making legal persons (that is, subject to a condition of reciprocity).

               —

               That legislation involves discrimination to the disadvantage of (non-profit-making) legal persons of other Member States of the EU (and the EEA), which constitutes a restriction on the free movement of capital (Article 63 TFEU).

               —

               That restriction is not covered by the exceptions in Article 65 TFEU.

               —

               The restriction cannot be justified by the relief provided to the national budget by the activities of national non-profit-making bodies (the financial argument is unacceptable).

               —

               Last, the principle of reciprocity cannot justify an infringement of the principle of free movement of capital by means of discrimination.


title: Case T-212/03: Action brought on 18 June 2003 by MyTravel Group plc against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 200/28              EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                         23.8.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  damage either the sum of [CONFIDENTIAL] or such
                                                                                amount as the Court in its discretion might order;
Applicant for Community          The applicant
trade mark:
                                                                           —     order that interest is payable in respect of the compensa-
                                                                                tion awarded from the date of judgment establishing the
                                                                                obligation to make good the damage in this case at the
Community       trade   mark     Figurative mark ‘FABER’ Appli-                  rate of 8 % per annum or such other rate as the Court in
sought:                          cation No 676.353 sought for                    its discretion may order;
                                 products 1, 2 and 3 (chemicals
                                 and industrial adhesives)
                                                                           —     order that the costs of this application should be paid by
                                                                                the Commission.
Proprietor of mark or sign       Industrias    Químicas      NABER
cited in the opposition pro-     S.A.
ceedings:
Mark or sign cited in op-        Spanish trade marks ‘NABER’
position:                        (registration     Nos      801.202,       Pleas in law and main arguments
                                 2.072.120,               2.072.121,
                                 2.072.122) for products in
                                 classes 1, 2 and 3
                                                                           The applicant, formerly know as Airtours plc, seeks compensa-
                                                                           tion from the Commission by way of damages for harm
                                                                           caused to it by the decision of the Commission in Case
                                                                           No IV/M.1524 — Airtours/First Choice (1), declaring the
Decision of the Opposition       Rejection of the opposition               concentration between the applicant and First Choice incom-
Division:                                                                  patible with the common market.
Decision of the Board of         Dismissal of the appeal                   The applicant contends that the conduct of the Commission in
Appeal:                                                                    carrying out its review of the proposed acquisition of First
                                                                           Choice by Airtours breaches rules of law which are intended
                                                                           to confer rights on individuals. The applicant claims more in
                                                                           particular that the Commission infringed Article 2 of Council
                                                                           Regulation 4064/89 on the control of concentrations between
Grounds of the application:      Wrongful        application      of
                                                                           undertakings (2) and the general principles of sound adminis-
                                 Article 8(1)(b) of (EC) Regula-
                                                                           tration, care and diligence.
                                 tion No 40/94 (risk of confu-
                                 sion)
                                                                           The applicant submits that in committing these breaches the
                                                                           Commission manifestly and gravely disregarded the limits of its
                                                                           discretion, and that these breaches were sufficiently serious to
                                                                           warrant reparation under Article 288 EC Treaty.
Action brought on 18 June 2003 by MyTravel Group plc
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-212/03)                                   The applicant refers in this respect to the judgment in Case
                                                                           T-342/99, Airtours/Commission (3), annulling the Decision of
                         (2003/C 200/51)                                   the Commission in Case No IV/M.1524 — Airtours/First
                                                                           Choice. The applicant submits that the Court of First Instance
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           made due allowance for the margin of appreciation permitted
                                                                           to the Commission, but nonetheless found that the decision
An action against the Commission of the European Commu-                    was vitiated by a series of manifest errors of assessment
                                                                           regarding the creation of a dominant position. Such a manifest
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           error established in annulment proceedings equates according
European Communities on 18 June 2003 by MyTravel Group
                                                                           to the applicant, to a manifest disregard for the limits of
plc, Manchester, United Kingdom, represented by D. Pannick,
                                                                           discretion and constitutes a sufficiently serious breach.
QC, Mr A. Lewis, Barrister, Mr M. Nicholson and Ms S. Cardell,
Solicitors.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           The applicant also submits that the fact that the Commission
—     order that the Commission should pay to the applicant                enjoys a margin of discretion does not absolve it from the
      under Article 288(2) EC Treaty as compensation for                   obligation to observe the principles of sound administration.
 ---pagebreak--- 23.8.2003               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 200/29
As a result of these breaches, the applicant claims to have                 Action brought on 13 June 2003 by SIGLA, S.A. against
suffered loss. This loss consists firstly of the profits generated          the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
by First Choice as reported in its audited accounts and that                                             (OHIM)
would have accrued to the applicant if the acquisition had not
been prohibited by the Commission. Secondly, the applicant
                                                                                (Case T-215/03)
claims the loss of synergy costs savings that would have been
obtained in consequence of the merger and, thirdly, the costs of
the abortive bid for First Choice which were wasted as a result                                      (2003/C 200/53)
of the Decision of the Commission.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
 1
( ) 2000/276/EC: Commission Decision of 22 September 1999
    declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the common
    market and the EEA Agreement (Case IV/M.1524 — Airtours/First
    Choice) (notified under document number C(1999) 3022) (Text             An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
    with EEA relevance) (OJ L 93 of 2000, p. 1).                            Market (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance
(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on              of the European Communities on 13 June 2003 by SIGLA,
    the control of concentrations between undertakings (text repub-         S.A., with offices in Madrid, represented by E. Armijo Chávarri.
    lished in OJ L 257 of 1990, p. 13).
(3) Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 June 2002, Airtours/
    Commission, T-342/99, ECR II-2585.                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            —     annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM
                                                                                no. R 1127/2000-3 of 1 April 2003 on the ground that
                                                                                it is inconsistent with Article 8(5) of Regulation No 40/
                                                                                94;
Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Francesco Contesso                        —     in the alternative, annul the contested decision on the
      against Commission of the European Communities                              ground that it prejudices SIGLA's rights of defence and
                                                                                the principle underlying Article 74 of Regulation No 40/
                           (Case T-213/03)                                        94; and
                           (2003/C 200/52)                                  —     order OHIM to pay the costs.
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Francesco                           Applicant for Community          ELLENI HOLDING BV
Contesso, residing in Paris, represented by Sebastien Orlandi,              trade mark:
Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 Community       trade    mark    Word mark ‘VIPS’ Application
                                                                            sought:                          No 459.875 sought for pro-
—      annul the decision drawing up the definitive staff report                                             ducts and services within
       for the period from 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2001;                                                      classes 9, 35 and 42 and, sub-
                                                                                sequently, only for services
—      order the Commission to pay the applicant a token one                                                 within class 42 (computer pro-
       euro for compensation for the non-material damage                                                     gramming services for hotels,
       sustained;                                                                                restaurants and cafes)
—      order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                            Proprietor of mark or sign       The applicant
Pleas in law and main arguments                                             cited in the opposition pro-
                                                                            ceedings:
In support of his application, the applicant pleads infringement
of the assessor's prior duty to consult senior assessors before
finalising the staff report, infringement of the assessor's duty to
require them to initial each of the pages and to sign the                   Mark or sign cited in op-        Spanish word mark ‘VIPS’ (re-
definitive staff report, infringement of the duty to give reasons,          position:                        gistration No 551.436) for pro-
in so far as the appeal assessor did not state why he did not                                                ducts of class 42 (supplying
take account of the opinions of the hierarchical superiors                                                   prepared food and drink for
consulted.                                                                                consumption, restaurants, ser-
                                                                                vice stations, canteens, bars and
                                                                                cafeterias and hotel services)


title: Case C-464/10: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons — Belgium) — État belge v Pierre Henfling, Raphaël Davin and Koenraad Tanghe, acting as administrators in the insolvency of Tiercé Franco-Belge SA (Taxation — Sixth VAT Directive — Article 6(4) — Exemption — Article 13(B)(f) — Gambling — Services provided by a commission agent ‘buraliste’ acting in his own name but on behalf of a principal operating a business of taking bets)

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/17

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons — Belgium) — État belge v Pierre Henfling, Raphaël Davin and Koenraad Tanghe, acting as administrators in the insolvency of Tiercé Franco-Belge SA
   (Case C-464/10) (1)

   (Taxation - Sixth VAT Directive - Article 6(4) - Exemption - Article 13(B)(f) - Gambling - Services provided by a commission agent ‘buraliste’ acting in his own name but on behalf of a principal operating a business of taking bets)
   2011/C 269/29
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d’appel de Mons

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: État belge

      Defendants: Pierre Henfling, Raphaël Davin and Koenraad Tanghe, acting as administrators in the insolvency of Tiercé Franco-Belge SA

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour d’appel de Mons — Interpretation of Articles 6(4) and 13(B)(f), of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ L 145, p. 1) — tax exemption in respect of services supplied by a commission agent acting in its own name, but on behalf of a principal who organises supply of services referred to in that directive.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 6(4) and 13(B)(f) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, must be interpreted as meaning that, in so far as an economic operator acts in his own name, but on behalf of an undertaking carrying on a bet-taking business, in the collection of bets covered by the exemption from value added tax under Article 13(B)(f), that latter undertaking is to be considered, in accordance with Article 6(4), to provide that operator with a supply of bets coming under that exemption.

      (1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.


title: Case C-133/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Employment Appeal Tribunal, United Kingdom, by order of that court of 7 April 2000, in the case of Mrs J.R. Bowden, Mrs J.L. Chapman and Mrs J.J. Doyle against Tuffnells Parcels Express Ltd

text:
C 163/20                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      10.6.2000
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Employment
                                                                          Appeal Tribunal, United Kingdom, by order of that court
                                                                          of 7 April 2000, in the case of Mrs J.R. Bowden, Mrs J.L.
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                    Chapman and Mrs J.J. Doyle against Tuffnells Parcels
Case C-105/00 (2); the period for implementation expired on                                          Express Ltd
13 October 1998.
                                                                                (Case C-133/00)
(1) OJ L 328 of 28 November 1997, p. 1.
(2) See p. 10 of this Official Journal.                                                            (2000/C 163/37)
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by an order of the Employment
                                                                          Appeal Tribunal, United Kingdom, of 7 April 2000, which
                                                                          was received at the Court Registry on 10 April 2000, for a
                                                                          preliminary ruling in the case of Mrs J.R. Bowden, Mrs J.L.
                                                                          Chapman and Mrs J.J. Doyle against Tuffnells Parcels Express
                                                                          Ltd, on the following questions:
                                                                          1. Given that the informed view of responsible bodies that
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Länsrätten i                        amendment is needed if a legislative provision is to achieve
Norrbottens Län of 28 March 2000 in the case of Ingemar                       a certain effect is likely to be consistent only with a view
        Nilsson against Länsstyrelsen Norrbottens Län                         that the provision, before amendment, does not have that
                                                                              effect, and given also the previously expressed views of the
                                                                              ESC, the European Parliament, the Commission and the
                           (Case C-131/00)                                    Council’s Common Position Paper on the subject of the
                                                                              exceptions to Article 1.3 of Directive 93/104/EEC(1)
                                                                              suggesting that, as yet, there is an exception from the
                           (2000/C 163/36)                                    benefits of the Directive of all who work in the road
                                                                              transport sector of activity but that such an exception has
                                                                              been and is entirely unjustified, how far, if at all, are we
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        enabled to infer from such non-legislative materials either
European Communities by order of the Länsrätten i Norrbot-                    that:
tens Län of 28 March 2000, received at the Court Registry on
6 April 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ingemar
                                                                              (a) as yet the proper construction of the wording of Article
Nilsson against Länsstyrelsen i Norrbottens Län on the follow-
                                                                                1.3 is one which excludes all such persons, or
ing question:
                                                                              (b) that such a reading would not represent a just and
With reference to Article 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No                        purposive construction of the Article?
3508/92 (1), the Court of Justice is requested to give a
preliminary ruling on the question whether that article is to be
understood as meaning that entitlement to aid is excluded                 2. Whatever the conclusion is to Question 1, if, in the course
where notes have not been made in the animal keeper’s register                of our task of interpreting our national laws in the light of
(stall journal) (2).                                                          the wording and purpose of the Directive, we encounter
                                                                              what we take to be a broad purpose (‘every worker in the
                                                                              European Community will have a right to … annual paid
                                                                              leave’) but also, given no less prominence in the very same
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 of 27 November 1992                   provision, a wording (‘shall apply to all sectors of activity
    establishing an integrated administration and control system for          ... with the exception of .... road .... transport’) which
    certain Community aid schemes (OJ 1992 L 355, p. 1).                      appears to be significantly destructive of that broad
(2) Kept in accordance with Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC)              purpose, at all events on the facts before us, are we entitled
    No 820/97 of 21 April 1997, establishing a system for the                 (and if so, by reference to what principles) to apply our
    identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding           national laws to the facts of the particular case before us
    the labelling of beef products (OJ 1997 L 117, p. 1) and the State        so as to give effect to that broad purpose notwithstanding
    Agricultural Board’s rules (SJVFS 1994:190) on the marking and
                                                                              the clarity of the wording appearing to exclude that
    registration of animals.
                                                                              purpose on such facts?
                                                                          3. To raise similar issues in a less abstract way, are all workers
                                                                              employed in the road transport sector of activity referred
                                                                              to in Article 1.3 necessarily excluded from the scope of
                                                                              Directive 93/104?
 ---pagebreak--- 10.6.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 163/21
4. If all such workers are not necessarily excluded, what test              accordance with the provisions of this Article, that univer-
     should the National Court apply in order to determine                  sal service obligations represent an unfair burden on an
     which workers employed in the road transport sector of                 organization’ that it may establish a mechanism for sharing
     activity are excluded by Article 1.3 and which are not?                the net cost of the universal service obligations. In the
                                                                            Commission’s view, there is nothing in the relevant
                                                                            documentation to show that a national system was needed
(1) Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning              to share the net cost or that the universal service obligations
    certain aspects of the organization of working time (OJ L 307,          represent an unfair burden for France Télécom. On the
    13.12.1993, p. 18).                                                     contrary, France Télécom enjoyed an almost total mo-
                                                                            nopoly in 1997 over fixed telephony.
                                                                         — The timetable for the successive stages leading to the
                                                                            rebalancing of tariffs was not notified to the Commission
                                                                            even though such notification was required by 11 January
Action brought on 17 April 2000 by the Commission of                        1997. That non-notification means that the Commission
 the European Communities against the French Republic                       is not in a position to determine that France has fulfilled
                                                                            its obligations under Article 4e of Directive 90/388/EEC as
                          (Case C-146/00)                                   amended by Directive 96/19/EC in conjunction with the
                                                                            first paragraph of Article 2 of Directive 96/19/EC. Even
                                                                            supposing that that tariff of 65 francs excluding tax given
                          (2000/C 163/38)                                   in the decree on the universal service as the balancing tariff
                                                                            is in fact that tariff, the new subscription tariff of 64.68
An action against the French Republic was brought before the                francs excluding tax in force since 1 March 1999 is still
Court of Justice on 17 April 2000 by the Commission of the                  slightly lower than the latter. The French authorities thus
European Communities, represented by Barry Doherty, of its                  confirm that as from 1 March 1999 the cost of the
Legal Service, and Fabienne Siredey-Barnier, a national civil               imbalance until the end of the year is still 16 million
servant seconded to the Legal Service, acting as Agents, with               francs, financed by the universal service fund, and thus
an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos                admit that the rebalancing has not been completed in
Gómez de la Cruz, also of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,                accordance with their own criteria. Consequently, the
Kirchberg.                                                                  French authorities should either have confirmed that
                                                                            France Télécom was authorised to continue with the
                                                                            rebalancing of its tariffs or notified the timetable provided
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                      for in Article 4c of Directive 90/388/EEC.
the Court of Justice should:
1. Declare that,
                                                                         — Contrary to Article 5(3) of Directive 97/33/EC in conjunc-
     — by failing to comply with Article 4c of Directive                    tion with Annex III thereto, the French rules provide for
         90/388/EEC (1), as amended by Directive 96/19/EC (2),              the taking into account, for the purpose of calculating the
         and                                                                net cost of the universal service, of profitable subscribers,
                                                                            and this unduly increases the amount of the burden which
     — by failing to observe Article 5(1), (3), (4) and (5) of              may give rise to compensation, to the detriment of
         Directive 97/33/EC (3),                                            new market entrants. Moreover, the calculation formula
                                                                            adopted in Article R.20-32 of the French Post and
     the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations;              Telecommunications Code does not allocate the burdens
                                                                            associated with the financing of the universal service to
2. Order the French Republic to pay the costs.                              each undertaking in accordance with objective criteria as
                                                                            required by Article 4c of Directive 90/388/EEC. Finally, it
                                                                            does not take account of the principle of transparency as
Pleas in law and main arguments                                             required by Directive 97/33/EC.
— There was no legal basis for France to require mobile
     phone operators to contribute to the universal service in
     1997. Contrary to the impression given by the French                — Certain components of the universal service cost are fixed
     authorities, recitals 4 and 26 in the preamble to Directive            on a flat-rate basis contrary to the obligation to undertake
     96/19/EC do not create obligations not appearing in the                a specific calculation (Article 5(3) of Directive 97/33/EC).
     operative part of the directive but indicate that for so long          Thus, the net cost of unprofitable subscribers should not
     as the long-standing operator enjoys exclusive rights for              have been fixed on a flat-rate basis. The net cost of the
     the supply of the voice telephony service, no additional               universal service for 1997 should not have been fixed on
     measure is required in order to ensure that the universal              a flat-rate basis. And the contribution paid to France
     service is provided. Article 5(1) of Directive 97/33 is even           Télécom to compensate it for the cost of certain social
     clearer: it is only where ‘a Member State determines, in               tariffs has been fixed in an imprecise manner.


title: Case T-384/00: Action brought on 27 December 2000 by Agnès Ajour and others against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
10.2.2001              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 45/25
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Ajour and others, represented by Jean-Noël Louis and
                                                                          Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar.
—     annul the Commission’s decision appointing another
      person to post COM/001/00 COMP/D/3 ‘Trade and other                 The applicants claim that the Court should:
      services’, being a grade A3 head of unit post;
                                                                          —     annul the decisions of the Commission concerning the
—     annul the Commission’s decision rejecting the application                 drawing-up of the applicants’ pay slips in respect of the
      of the applicant for the post in question;                                arrears of remuneration due to them for the period from
                                                                                15 May to 31 December 1999 and their pay slips drawn
—     award the sum of 120 000 euro, subject to increase or                     up since January 2000, pursuant to Council Regulation
      decrease during the course of the proceedings, by way of                  No 2700/1999 of 17 December 1999 adjusting with
      compensation for the non-material damage suffered by                      effect from 1 July 1999 the remuneration and pensions
      the applicant as a result of the irregular or incomplete                  of officials and other servants of the European Communi-
      information gathered by the defendant in relation to the                  ties and the weightings applied thereto;
      applicant’s personal file and the state of uncertainty and
      worry in which he has been placed with regard to his                —     as regards the applicants to whom the decision of
                                                                                14 April 2000 is not addressed, annul the decisions of
      future career;
                                                                                the Commission concerning the drawing-up of their pay
—     award the sum of 25 000 euro, subject to increase or                      slips since January 2000;
      decrease during the course of the proceedings, by way of            —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
      compensation for the material damage suffered by the
      applicant as a result of his having been rejected as a
      candidate for the post to be filled and of his having thus          Pleas in law and main arguments
      lost an opportunity of promotion;
                                                                          The applicants in the present case are Commission officials or
—     order the Commission to pay all the costs.                          temporary staff seconded to the Food and Veterinary Office in
                                                                          Dublin. They have brought their action as a result of the
                                                                          application to them, with effect from 16 May 1999, of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           the weightings referred to in Article 6(2) of Regulation
                                                                          No 2700/1999 (1).
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
                                                                          In the applicants’ view, the Commission has applied a weight-
Case T-376/00 Morello v Commission.
                                                                          ing which does not guarantee officials of the European
                                                                          Communities who are posted to Dublin a standard of living
                                                                          and purchasing power equivalent to that of officials working
                                                                          in Brussels.
                                                                          In support of their application, the applicants plead:
Action brought on 27 December 2000 by Agnès Ajour                         —     infringement of Articles 64 and 65a of the Staff Regu-
and others against the Commission of the European                               lations of officials of the European Communities and of
                           Communities                                          Annex XI to those Regulations, and breach of the
                                                                                principles of good management and sound adminis-
                         (Case T-384/00)                                        tration;
                                                                          —     breach of the principles of equal treatment, reasonable
                          (2001/C 45/52)                                        career prospects for all European officials and freedom of
                                                                                movement for workers.
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          (1) Council Regulation (EC, ECSC, Euratom) No 2700/1999 of
                                                                              17 December 1999 adjusting with effect from 1 July 1999 the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                     remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                    European Communities and the weightings applied thereto (OJ
European Communities on 27 December 2000 by Agnès                             L 327 of 21.12.1999, p. 1).


title: Case T-266/08 P: Judgment of the General Court of 2 July 2010 — Kerstens v Commission (Appeal — Staff case — Officials — Change of posting — Article 7 of the Staff Regulations — Interests of the service — Distortion of facts and evidence — Obligation on the Civil Service Tribunal to state reasons — Rights of the defence)

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/38

         Judgment of the General Court of 2 July 2010 — Kerstens v Commission
   (Case T-266/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Staff case - Officials - Change of posting - Article 7 of the Staff Regulations - Interests of the service - Distortion of facts and evidence - Obligation on the Civil Service Tribunal to state reasons - Rights of the defence)
   2010/C 221/61
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Petrus Kerstens (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann and M. G. Berscheid, agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 8 May 2008 in Case F-119/06 Kerstens v Commission seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal.

               2.

               Orders Petrus Kerstens to bear his own costs as well as the costs incurred by the Commission in the appeal proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 247, 27.9.2008.


title: Case F-147/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 4 September 2008 — Dragoman v Commission (Staff case — Open competition — Non-admission to the oral test)

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/55

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 4 September 2008 — Dragoman v Commission
   (Case F-147/06) (1)

   (Staff case - Open competition - Non-admission to the oral test)
   (2008/C 313/99)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Adriana Dragoman (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Mihailescu, and, subsequently, by G.-F. Dinulescu, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Herrmann and M. Velardo, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the decision of the selection board for open competition EPSO/AD/44/06 CJ, made for the purpose of establishing a reserve list for the recruitment of Romanian-language lawyer-linguists, to award the applicant a mark of 18/40 in written test (b) and not to admit her to the oral test for that competition
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007, p. 48.


title: Case T-163/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 January 2007 — BA.LA. di Lanciotti Vittorio and Others v Commission

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/39

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 January 2007 — BA.LA. di Lanciotti Vittorio and Others v Commission
   (Case T-163/06) (1)

   (2007/C 56/72)

      Language of the case: Italian

   The President of the Court of First Instance has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 190 of 12.8.2006.


title: Action brought on 14 November 1996 by Mediocurso, Estabelecimento de Ensino Particular Limitada, against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-180/96)

text:
25 . 1 . 97         1 EN |               Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 26 / 7
25 September 1996 , received at the Court Registry on               compliance with stricter noise limits, with the result that
29 November 1996, for a preliminary ruling in the case of           an aircraft admitted to traffic in another Member State
Aher-Waggon GmbH v. Federal Republic of Germany on                  before the said Directive was adopted may no longer be
the following question:                                             granted admission to traffic in Germany because it
                                                                    exceeds German noise limits, even though aircraft of the
Is it compatible with the principles of free movement of            same construction which had already obtained German
goods pursuant to Article 30 of the EC Treaty for German            authorization beforehand may retain it without
law to rely on the noise-emission limits for aircraft               restrictions ?
pursuant to Directive 80/5 1 /EEC ( 1 ) as amended by
Directive 83/206/EEC (2 ), which are laid down as
minimum requirements, in making admission of aircraft to            (') OJN0LI8 , 24 . 1 . 1980, p. 26 .
traffic in the Federal Republic of Germany conditional on           ( 2 ) OJ No L 117, 4 . 5 . 1983 , p . 15 .
                                                   COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT                              Action brought on 14 November 1996 by Mediocurso,
            OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                          Estabelecimento de Ensino Particular Limitada, against the
                     of 29 November 1996                                       Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                Case T-180/96
in Case T- 179/96 R: J. Antonissen v. Council and
           Commission of the European Communities                                                ( 97/C 26/14 )
(Milk quotas — Damage caused by the Community —
Application for interim relief — Application for damages                           (Language of the case: Portuguese)
    against the Community — Provisional nature — None)
                          ( 97/C 26/13 )                            An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 14 November
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)                       1996 by Mediocurso, Estabelecimento de Ensino
                                                                    Particular Limitada, whose registered office is at Rua dos
In Case T-179/96 R, J. Antonissen, residing at Giethem,             Ferreiros a Estrela, n° 9, 2° Dto, Lisbon, represented by
the Netherlands, represented by E. H. Pijnacker Hordijk,            Carlos Botelho Moniz and Paulo Moura Pinheiro, of the
of the Amsterdam Bar, with an address for service in                Lisbon Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 avenue                 the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 , Grand'-Rue, L-1661 ,
Guillaume, against the Council of the European Union                Luxembourg.
(Agents: G. Houttuin, A.-M. Colaert and J. -P. Hix) and
the Commission of the European Communities (Agent: T.               The applicant claims that the Court should :
van Rijn) — application for an order that the European
Community pay, by way of advance, the sum of
Fl 258 565,38 , with interest thereon at the rate of 5%             — annul Commission Decision C(96 ) 1185 of 14 August
calculated from 1 September 1996, together with the sum                    1996 reducing the amount of Decision C(89 ) 0570 of
of Fl 20 000 per annum from the date on which the                          22 March 1989 concerning the granting of assistance
 application for interim relief was lodged until the date on               from the European Social Fund towards the financing
which the Court gives judgment in the main case — the                      in Portugal ( Mediocurso ), within the Community
 President of the Court of First Instance made an order on                 Support Framework, of Objective 1 ,
 29 November 1996, the operative part of which is as
 follows :
                                                                     — order the defendant to pay all the costs of the
                                                                           proceedings .
 1 . The application for interim measures is dismissed.
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 2.   Costs are reserved.
                                                                     The applicant maintains that the contested act is unlawful
                                                                      and should be annulled on the following grounds :
 ---pagebreak--- No C 26/8             I EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      25 . 1 . 97
— Breach of the principle of giving the interested parties              The applicant claims that the Court should:
     an opportunity to be heard beforehand, inasmuch as it
     was adopted without having given the applicant the
     opportunity to comment on its content,                             — annul Commission Decision C(96 ) 1186 of 14 August
                                                                              1996 reducing the amount of Decision C(8 9 ) 0570 of
                                                                              22 March 1989 concerning the granting of assistance
— Breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate                     from the European Social Fund towards the financing
     expectations, inasmuch as, although the claim for                        in Portugal ( Mediocurso ), within the Community
     payment of the balance relating to the file in question                  Support Framework, of Objective 1 ,
     was submitted timeously, the Commission did not
     adopt within a reasonable period a decision thereon,
                                                                        — order the defendant to pay all the costs of the "
— Breach of essential procedural requirements in that                         proceedings .
     Article 6 ( 1 ) of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2950/83
     of 17 October 1983 on the implementation of
     Decision 83/51 6/EEC on the tasks of the European                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     Social Fund 0 ) was infringed inasmuch as the
     Portuguese State was not given an opportunity to
                                                                        The applicant maintains that the contested act is unlawful
     comment ,
                                                                        and should be annulled on the following grounds :
— Breach of the principles of legal certainty and the
     protection of legitimate expectations inasmuch as the              — Breach of the principle of giving the interested parties
     contested act reverses, to the applicant's disadvantage,                  an opportunity to be heard beforehand, inasmuch as it
     the earlier act certifying the accuracy of the facts and                  was adopted without having given the applicant the
     the information submitted by the applicant in its                         opportunity to comment on its content,
     payment claims,
                                                                        — Breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate
— Breach of the obligation to provide a statement of                           expectations, inasmuch as, although the claim for
      reasons, of the principle of observance of acquired                      payment of the balance relating to the file in question
      rights, of the principle of the protection of legitimate                 was submitted timeously, the Commission did not
      expectations, of the principle of proportionality, of the                adopt within a reasonable period a decision thereon,
      rules applicable to the management of the European
      Social Fund and of the act approving the contribution
      in issue, with regard to the legal and factual grounds             — Breach of essential procedural requirements in that
      relied on in support of the reduction of the assistance                  Article 6 ( 1 ) of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2950/83
      which is the subject-matter of the contested act.                        of 17 October 1983 on the implementation of
                                                                               Decision 83/51 6/EEC on the tasks of the European
 (') OJ No L 289 , 22 . 10 . 1983 , p. 1 .                                     Social Fund f 1 ) was infringed inasmuch as the
                                                                               Portuguese State was not given an opportunity to
                                                                               comment,
                                                                         — Breach of the principles of legal certainty and of the
                                                                                protection of legitimate expectations inasmuch as the
 Action brought on 14 November 1996 by Mediocurso,                              contested act reverses, to the applicant's disadvantage,
 Estabelecimento de Ensino Particular Limitada, against the                     the earlier act certifying the accuracy of the facts and
           Commission of the European Communities                               accounts of the documents submitted by the applicant
                          ( Case T-181 /96 )                                    in its payment claims,
                             ( 97/C 26/15 )
                                                                         — Breach of the obligation to provide a statement of
                                                                                reasons, of the principle of observance of acquired
                (Language of the case: Portuguese)                              rights, of the principle of the protection of legitimate
                                                                                expectations, of the principle of proportionality, of the
  An action against the Commission of the European                              rules applicable to the management of the European
  Communities was brought before the Court of First                              Social Fund and of the act approving the assistance in
  Instance of the European Communities on 14 November                            issue, with regard to the legal and factual grounds
  1996 by Mediocurso, Estabelecimento de Ensino                                  relied on in support of the reduction of the assistance
  Particular Limitada, whose registered office is at Rua dos                     which is the subject-matter of the contested act.
  Ferreiros a Estrela, n° 9 , 2° Dto, Lisbon, represented by
  Carlos Botelho Moniz and Paulo Moura Pinheiro, of the                  f 1 ) OJ No L 289 , 22 . 10 . 1983 , p . 1 .
  Lisbon Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
  the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 , Grand'-Rue, L-1661 ,
  Luxembourg.


title: Case T-218/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 September 2008 — Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) Ltd v OHIM — Eurim-Pharm Arzneimittel (Neurim PHARMACEUTICALS) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for a Community figurative mark Neurim PHARMACEUTICALS — Earlier Community and national word marks EURIM-PHARM — Language of appeal proceedings — Time-limits — Admissibility of an appeal to the Board of Appeal — Principle of proportionality — Continuation of proceedings — Restitutio in integrum — Articles 59, 78 and 78a of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Rule 48(1)(c) and (2), Rule 49(1) and Rule 96(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/36

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 September 2008 — Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) Ltd v OHIM — Eurim-Pharm Arzneimittel (Neurim PHARMACEUTICALS)
   (Case T-218/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for a Community figurative mark Neurim PHARMACEUTICALS - Earlier Community and national word marks EURIM-PHARM - Language of appeal proceedings - Time-limits - Admissibility of an appeal to the Board of Appeal - Principle of proportionality - Continuation of proceedings - Restitutio in integrum - Articles 59, 78 and 78a of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Rule 48(1)(c) and (2), Rule 49(1) and Rule 96(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)
   (2008/C 285/65)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) Ltd (Tel Aviv, Israel) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Eurim-Pharm Arzneimittel GmbH (Piding, Germany) (represented by: T. Raab, lawyer)
   Re:
   ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 June 2006 (Case R 74/2006-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Eurim-Pharm Arzneimittel GmbH and Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) Ltd.
   Operative part of the order
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 237, 30.9.2006.


title: Case C-490/09: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 27 January 2011 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 49 EC — Freedom to provide services — Non-reimbursement of costs relating to laboratory analyses and tests carried out in Member States other than the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg — National rules not providing for acceptance of liability in the form of a reimbursement of the costs paid for such analyses and tests — National rules making acceptance of liability for health care benefits subject to compliance with the conditions laid down by those rules)

text:
               12.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/5

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 27 January 2011 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-490/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 49 EC - Freedom to provide services - Non-reimbursement of costs relating to laboratory analyses and tests carried out in Member States other than the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg - National rules not providing for acceptance of liability in the form of a reimbursement of the costs paid for such analyses and tests - National rules making acceptance of liability for health care benefits subject to compliance with the conditions laid down by those rules)
   2011/C 80/08
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Rozet and E. Traversa, Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, Agent, A. Rodesch, avocat)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Article 49 EC (Article 56 TFEU) — National provisions precluding the reimbursement of medical analyses and laboratory tests carried out in other Member States — Costs accepted only where such tests and analyses are carried out within a laboratory which fully complies with the conditions laid down by national legislation

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to provide, under its social security rules, for the possibility of acceptance of liability for costs relating to laboratory analyses and tests, within the meaning of Article 24 of the Luxembourg Social Security Code, in the version applicable to the dispute, which are carried out in another Member State, by means of reimbursement of the costs paid for those analyses and tests, but by providing solely for a system of direct billing to sickness insurance funds, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC.

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action.

               3.

               Orders the European Commission and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.


title: Case C-327/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 2 July 2015 — TDC A/S v Teleklagenævnet, Erhvervs- og Vækstministeriet

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/40

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 2 July 2015 — TDC A/S v Teleklagenævnet, Erhvervs- og Vækstministeriet
   (Case C-327/15)
   (2015/C 294/52)
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Østre Landsret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: TDC A/S

      Defendants: Teleklagenævnet, Erhvervs- og Vækstministeriet

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Directive 2002/22/EC of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (‘the Universal Service Directive’), (1) including Article 32, preclude a Member State from laying down rules which do not allow an undertaking to lodge a claim against the Member State for separate recovery of the net costs of providing additional mandatory services not covered by Chapter II of that Directive, where the undertaking’s profits from other services which are covered by the undertaking’s universal service obligations under Chapter II of that Directive exceed the losses associated with the provision of the additional mandatory services?

               2.

               Does the Universal Service Directive preclude a Member State from laying down rules allowing undertakings to lodge a claim against the Member State for recovery of the net costs of providing additional mandatory services which are not covered by Chapter II of that Directive, only if the net costs amount to an unreasonable burden for the undertakings?

               3.

               If Question 2 is answered in the negative, may the Member State decide that there is no unreasonable burden associated with the provision of additional mandatory services not covered by Chapter II of that directive, if the undertaking as a whole has achieved profits from the provision of all those services where that undertaking has a universal service obligation, including the provision of services which the undertaking would have provided even without having the universal service obligation?

               4.

               Does the Universal Service Directive preclude a Member State from laying down rules that a designated undertaking’s net costs associated with the provision of universal service pursuant to Chapter II of that directive are to be calculated on the basis of all income and costs associated with the provision of the service in question, including that income and those costs which the undertaking also would have had without having the universal service obligation?

               5.

               If the national rules in question (see Questions 1 to 4) are applied to an additional mandatory service that has to be provided not only in Denmark but in both Denmark and Greenland, which by virtue of Annex II to the TFEU is an overseas country or territory, do the answers to Questions 1 to 4 then also apply to that part of the requirement that relates to Greenland, where the service is entrusted by the Danish authorities to an undertaking established in Denmark and that undertaking has no other activities in Greenland?

               6.

               Of what relevance are Articles 107(1) TFEU and 108(3) TFEU and the Commission Decision of 20 December 2011 on the application of Article 106(2) TFEU to State aid in the form of public service compensation granted to certain undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest (2) for the answers to Questions 1 to 5?

               7.

               Of what relevance is the principle of minimum distortion of competition in inter alia Article 1(2) and Article 3(2) of and recitals 4, 18, 23 and 26 in the preamble and Part B of Annex IV to the Universal Service Directive for the answers to Questions 1 to 5?

               8.

               If the provisions of the Universal Service Directive preclude national schemes as referred to in Questions 1, 2 and 4, do those provisions or preclusions have direct effect?

               9.

               What more specific factors should be considered when assessing whether a national time limit for applications as described in point 3.17, and its application, are consistent with the principles of cooperation in good faith, equivalence and effectiveness in EU law?

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 108, p 51.

      (2)  OJ 2012 L 7, p. 3.


title: Case T-141/03: Action brought on 14 April 2003 by Sniace, S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 171/32               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        19.7.2003
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                approved under the name ‘Allex’. This Marketing Authorisation
                                                                           (‘MA’) covers three pharmaceutical forms: film-coated tablets,
—     annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of 13 February             syrup and an oral lyophilisate.
      2003 and/or the corrigendum of the decision of the First
      Board of Appeal of 13 March 2003;
                                                                           On 2 October 2002, the applicant submitted to the EMEA an
—     order the defendant to pay all the costs associated with             application for a type I variation of the MA to change the
      these proceedings.                                                   name of the oral lyophilisate form from ‘Allex 5 mg oral
                                                                           lyophilisate’ to ‘Allex Reditabs 5 mg oral lyophilisate’. In the
                                                                           light of further explanations given by the applicant, the EMEA
                                                                           refused with the contested decision to allow the name change.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           In support of its claim, the applicant invokes violations of the
The origin of the action is the same as in Case T-380/02                   applicable legislation and of the principle of non-discrimi-
(SUCCESS-MARKETING Unternehmensberatungsgesellschaft                       nation. Furthermore, the applicant submits that its rights of
v OHIM, (OJ C 101 of 26.4.2003, p. 35)), and the pleas in law              defence have been violated and that the EMEA has violated the
and arguments correspond to those submitted in that case.                  obligation to state reasons.
                                                                           According to the applicant, the contested decision wrongfully
                                                                           applied the Judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case
                                                                           T-123/00 Thomae ( 1) to refuse the proposed name change.
                                                                           The applicant argues that the present case does not concern
                                                                           the question of whether different names can be used for the
Action brought on 18 April 2003 by Shering-Plough Ltd.                     same medicinal product but the question of whether different
against the Commission of the European Communities                         names can be used for different medicinal products covered by
and the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal                    the same MA. As a consequence, the applicant submits that
                       Products (‘EMEA’)                                   the Judgment in Case T-123/00 does not apply nor can it be
                                                                           extended to apply in the present case.
                         (Case T-133/03)
                                                                           The applicant claims furthermore that the EMEA has violated
                                                                           the principle of non-discrimination. According to the appli-
                         (2003/C 171/55)
                                                                           cant, there is no objective justification to treat the Marketing
                                                                           Authorisation Holders whose two pharmaceutical forms are
                   (Language of the case: English)                         covered by the same MA and those whose two pharmaceutical
                                                                           forms are covered by two MA differently.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  (1 ) Judgement of 10.12.2002, Case T-123/00 Dr. Karl Thomae
ties and the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal                    GmbH v Commission (not published yet).
Products (‘EMEA’) was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 18 April 2003 by
Shering-Plough Ltd., Brussels, Belgium, represented by Dr.
G. Berrisch and Mr P. Bogaert, lawyers.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           Action brought on 14 April 2003 by Sniace, S.A. against
—     annul the Decision of 14 February 2003 of the EMEA                          the Commission of the European Communities
      rejecting a so-called type I variation for the name of the
      medicinal product ‘Allex 5 mg oral lyophilisate’ into
      ‘Allex Reditabs 5 mg oral lyophilisate’.                                                     (Case T-141/03)
—     order the Defendants to pay the Applicant’s costs                                            (2003/C 171/56)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant is active in the field of medicinal products and             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
is the Marketing Authorisation Holder for medicinal products               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
 ---pagebreak--- 19.7.2003              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 171/33
European Communities on 14 April 2003 by Sniace, S.A.,                         the conditions offered by Caja Cantabria against offers
whose registered office is in Madrid, represented by José Luis                 received from other private credit institutions and their
Baró Fuentes, lawyer.                                                          adherence to the guidelines laid down by the Commission
                                                                               in its Notice to the Member States of 13 November
                                                                               1993, lead to the conclusion that the loan with profit
                                                                               participation was granted under market conditions.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         3.    Infringement of the principles of legal expectations and
—     annul Article 1 of the Decision of 11 December 2002 in                   proportionality. The applicant claims in this regard, first,
      so far as it states Spain has granted aid to Sniace, S.A.                that the lawfulness of the general system in Spain
      amounting to EUR 7 388 258;                                              concerning the granting of loans with profit participation
                                                                               to undertakings undergoing rationalisation, conformity
                                                                               with the formal requirements laid down by the Director
—     in the alternative, maintain Article 1 of the Decision of                de Ayudas de Estado (Director for State aid) (namely:
      11 December 2002 in so far as it finds that the State aid                documentary evidence that the loan was granted under
      is compatible with the common market;                                    market conditions), and the assurances provided by him
                                                                               that no further action would be taken, gave rise to a
                                                                               legitimate expectation on the part of the applicant that
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                    the administrative procedure would be concluded either
                                                                               by a decision that no further investigations would ensue
                                                                               or by a finding that the loan could not be considered to
                                                                               be State aid. Secondly, the applicant is of the view that
                                                                               the duration of the investigation (58 months) and the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                means invested by the Commission in enquiring into a
                                                                               commercial transaction that was not at all technically
                                                                               complicated go beyond the limits of what is normally
                                                                               appropriate or necessary in this kind of operation.
The applicant company in these proceedings objects to the
description as ‘aid granted by a Member State or through State
                                                                         4.    Finally, the applicant undertaking alleges breach of its
resources’ of a contract for a subordinated convertible loan
                                                                               rights of defence and, in particular, of professional
with profit participation, amounting to EUR 12 020 242,                        secrecy as protected by Article 287 EC inasmuch as the
entered into with Caja Cantabria, together with a liquidity
                                                                               Commission forwarded, at the first request, the replies
agreement, which provided for the conversion into equity of
                                                                               of the Spanish authorities (including the applicant’s
credits under the loan.                                                        comments) to the lawyers for the undertaking whose
                                                                               complaint had given rise to the investigation.
In support of its claims, the applicant relies on the following
pleas in law and main arguments:
1.    Misinterpretation of the concept of ‘aid granted by a
      Member State or through State resources’ laid down in
      Article 87(1) EC. First, the applicant disputes that the
      Commission has established in its final decision that the          Action brought on 28 April 2003 by Nadine Schmit
      funds used by Caja Cantabria to finance the loan with                against the Commission of the European Communities
      profit participation made to Sniace were ‘State resources’.
      It points out, in that regard, that Caja Cantabria is a
      private credit institution and thus governed by private                                    (Case T-144/03)
      law. Its funds are not State resources but are private funds
      provided by private individuals and undertakings. In the
      present case, Caja Cantabria acted as a private investor                                   (2003/C 171/57)
      which invests its capital by reference to relatively short-
      term profitability. Secondly, the applicant states that the
      decision to finance Sniace was a strictly commercial                                  (Language of the case: French)
      decision adopted in accordance with criteria relating to
      operational profitability and that the public authorities
      played no part in the technical or commercial decision to
      grant the loan.
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
2.    Manifest error of assessment in the application of the rule        European Communities on 28 April 2003 by Nadine Schmit,
      of ‘private investor in a market economy’. According               residing in Ispra (Italy), represented by Pierre-Paul Van
      to the applicant, a detailed analysis of the conditions            Gehuchten and Pierre Jadoul, lawyers, with an address for
      governing the loan, together with a comparison of                  service in Luxembourg.


title: Case F-9/08: Action brought on 18 January 2008 — Rosenbaum v Commission

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/70

         Action brought on 18 January 2008 — Rosenbaum v Commission
   (Case F-9/08)
   (2008/C 64/115)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Eckehard Rosenbaum (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: H.-J. Rüber, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   The subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Annulment of the defendant's decision to classify the applicant in Grade AD 6/2 at the time of recruitment.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of the European Commission of 13 February 2007 concerning the applicant's classification in Grade AD 6/2;

               —

               Declare that the recruitment must be made in Grade AD 9;

               —

               In the alternative, declare that the recruitment must be made in Grade AD 8;

               —

               In the further alternative, declare that the recruitment must be made in Grade AD 8;

               —

               Order the defendant to place the applicant in financial position in which he would have been if he had been correctly classified;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case C-187/10: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Baris Unal v Staatssecretaris van Justitie (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council — Article 6(1), first indent — Turkish national — Residence permit — Family reunification — Separation of the partners — Withdrawal of the residence permit — Retroactive effect)

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/3

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Baris Unal v Staatssecretaris van Justitie
   (Case C-187/10) (1)

   (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council - Article 6(1), first indent - Turkish national - Residence permit - Family reunification - Separation of the partners - Withdrawal of the residence permit - Retroactive effect)
   2011/C 340/05
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Baris Unal

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Raad van State — Interpretation of the first indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey — Right of residence of Turkish nationals — Residence permit granted to a Turkish national to allow him to live with his partner — Separation of the partners not notified to the competent authorities — Withdrawal of the residence permit

      Operative part of the judgment

   The first indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, must be interpreted as precluding the competent national authorities from withdrawing the residence permit of a Turkish worker with retroactive effect from the point in time at which there was no longer compliance with the ground on the basis of which his residence permit had been issued under national law if there is no question of fraudulent conduct on the part of that worker and that withdrawal occurs after the expiry of the one-year period of legal employment provided for in the first indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80.

      (1)  OJ C 195, 17.7.2010.


title: Case T-328/99: Action brought on 22 November 1999 by Anthony Goldstein against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
4.3.2000                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 63/25
According to the applicant, that decision is vitiated on the              Action brought on 22 November 1999 by Anthony
grounds put forward in a separate application for annulment               Goldstein against the Commission of the European Com-
of a similar decision (Case T-179/99 Sud Pesca Srl) (1). With                                         munities
specific reference to the present case, the applicant alleges the
following:                                                                                (Case T-328/99)
                                                                                (2000/C 63/50)
— failure to comply with essential procedural requirements:
     the Genoa customs authority directly issued new claims                                 (Language of the case: English)
     for recovery of the duties without any inter partes procedure
     and without making any checks via the Turkish authorities.
     At the same time, the customs authority stated that the              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
     claims were intended solely to stop time running and                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
     suggested that traders apply for non-subsequent entry in             European Communities on 22 November 1999 by Anthony
     the accounts. It also told the various subordinate customs           Goldstein, represented by Raymond St John Murphy, Solicitor,
     offices not to release subsequent imports of a similar kind          of 61 Fleet Street, London EC4Y 1JU, United Kingdom.
     unless security was lodged, in accordance with the deferred
     taxation procedure, pending the outcome of such claims.              The applicant claims that the Court should:
     In so doing, the Italian customs authorities acted in breach
     of the right to appeal revised customs claims;                       — order the defendant to adopt all measures necessary to
                                                                               protect the professional reputation of the applicant;
                                                                          — order the defendant to pay damages in the amount of EUR
— the checks made by the Commission’s inspectors cannot                        400 000 to the applicant;
     be relied upon — as regards the finding of third-country
     origin on which the customs claims rely — in so far as               — order the defendant to bear the costs.
     they were carried out unilaterally and have been challenged
     by the exporter;
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          In 1995 the applicant submitted to the Commission under
— lack of direct, or even indirect or putative, evidence as to            Article 3(2) of Council Regulation No 17 an application for a
     the non-Turkish origin of the product imported by the                finding that the General Council of the Bar, an authority in the
     applicant;                                                           field of the provision of legal services in the United Kingdom,
                                                                          had infringed Articles 81 and 82 EC. At the same time it
                                                                          requested the Commission to adopt interim measures. The
                                                                          applicant now seeks compensation for the damage occasioned
                                                                          to him by the unlawful failure of the Commission to adopt the
— the conditions precluding subsequent entry in the accounts              interim measures requested.
     are satisfied, in so far as the importer has shown good faith
     and complied with the legislation in force, and the customs
     authorities have acted — albeit passively — in error.
The applicant also challenges the reference in the contested              Action brought on 22 November 1999 by Emma Bonino
decision to the concept of commercial risk.                                       and Others against the European Parliament
                                                                                (Case T-329/99)
                                                                                (2000/C 63/51)
( 1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999, p. 29.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                          An action against the European Parliament was brought before
                                                                          the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                          22 November 1999 by Emma Bonino and Others, with
                                                                          Antonio Tizzano and Gian Michele Roberti, of the Naples Bar,
                                                                          with an address for service in Brussels at 36 Place du Grand
                                                                          Sablon.


title: Case C-350/09 P: Order of the Court of 12 May 2010 — Centre de promotion de l'emploi par la micro-entreprise (CPEM) v European Commission (Appeal — European Social Fund — Financial assistance — Cancellation)

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/15

      Order of the Court of 12 May 2010 — Centre de promotion de l'emploi par la micro-entreprise (CPEM) v European Commission
      (Case C-350/09 P) (1)

      (Appeal - European Social Fund - Financial assistance - Cancellation)
      (2010/C 288/24)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Appellant: Centre de promotion de l'emploi par la micro-entreprise (CPEM) (represented by: C. Bonnefoi, avocate)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and A. Steiblytė, Agents)

         Re:

      Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2009 in Case T-444/07 CPEM v Commission dismissing the appellant’s application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 4645 of 4 October 2007 cancelling the assistance granted by the European Social Fund (ESF) by Decision C(1999) 2645 of 17 August 1999 — Microprojects promoting employment and social cohesion — Infringement of the rights of the defence and the principle of equal treatment — Failure to take into account the concept of ‘co-responsibility’ — Failure to observe the principle of legal certainty as a result of the existence of several different versions of the ‘Promoter’s Guide’ — Doubts as to the applicability of Council Regulation No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1) on which OLAF’s decision was based

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The appeal is dismissed;

                  2.

                  The Centre de promotion de l'emploi par la micro-entreprise (CPEM) shall pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 312, of 19.12.2009.


title: Case T-54/06: Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — Kendrion v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Plastic industrial bags sector — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Economic entity — Joint and several liability — Proportionality — Equal treatment — Fines — Maximum limit of 10 % of turnover — Real ability to pay)

text:
               7.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/9

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — Kendrion v Commission
   (Case T-54/06) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Plastic industrial bags sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Economic entity - Joint and several liability - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Fines - Maximum limit of 10 % of turnover - Real ability to pay)
   2012/C 6/11
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Kendrion NV (Zeist, Netherlands) (represented initially by: P. Glazener and C. Meijer, then by P. Glazener and L. Haasbeek, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, A. Nijenhuis and S. Noë)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags), in so far as it is addressed to the applicant, concerning a cartel on the market for plastic industrial bags, and application for annulment or, in the alternative, reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Kendrion NV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 28 June 2005 in Case T-147/04: Brian Ross v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Action for annulment and for damages — Career development report — Total and permanent invalidity — Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/22

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 28 June 2005
   in Case T-147/04: Brian Ross v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Officials - Action for annulment and for damages - Career development report - Total and permanent invalidity - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)
   (2005/C 229/49)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-147/04: Brian Ross, resident in Morpeth (United Kingdom), represented by É. Boigelot, against the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Curall and G. Berscheid, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — action for, first, the annulment of the applicant's career development report for the assessment year 2001/2002 and second, damages — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of M. Jaeger, President, V. Tiili and O. Czúcz, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 28 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The parties shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 168 of 26.6.2004.


title: Case F-54/07: Action brought on 11 June 2007 — Joseph v Commission

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/50

         Action brought on 11 June 2007 — Joseph v Commission
   (Case F-54/07)
   (2007/C 199/97)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Anne Joseph (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the contract engaging the applicant, signed on 20 July 2006, inasmuch as its length is fixed at 15 months commencing on 16 October 2006 and expiring on 15 January 2008;

               —

               to the extent that it is necessary, annul the Commission's express decision of 13 February 2007, rejecting the applicant's complaint lodged, pursuant to Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations, on 20 October 2006;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant claims annulment of her contract engaging her as a member of the contract staff under Article 3a of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants (CEOS), inasmuch as its length is fixed not at three years but at 15 months, on the basis, first, of the Commission decision related to the maximum duration for the recourse to non-permanent staff in the Commission services and, second, Article 12 of the General Implementing Provisions related to the procedures governing the engagement and employment of members of the temporary staff of the Commission (GIP).
   According to the applicant, the decision of 28 April 2004, particularly Article 3 thereof, is unlawful, inasmuch as it is contrary to the first paragraph of Article 85(1) of the CEOS. In any event, under Article 1(2) thereof, that decision is not applicable to the present case, in view of the fact that the applicant is engaged in essential tasks.
   The applicant alleges, in addition, the unlawfulness of the GIP, in particular Article 12 thereof, which she alleges is contrary to Article 85(1) of the CEOS. In any event, the Commission infringed Article 12(1a) and (1b) of the GIP, which do not allow; for the purposes of calculating the maximum period of employment of a member of the contract staff, the cumulation of the period of a contract under Article 3b of the CEOS with that of a contract under Article 3a of the CEOS.
   The applicant relies, in addition, on the infringement of the principles of non-discrimination, sound administration and the interest of the service.