title: Case C-277/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Servoprax GmbH v Roche Diagnostics Deutschland GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — In vitro diagnostic medical devices — Directive 98/79/EC — Parallel imports — Translation by the importer of the information and instructions for use provided by the manufacturer — Supplementary conformity assessment procedure)

text:
               12.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/6

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Servoprax GmbH v Roche Diagnostics Deutschland GmbH
   (Case C-277/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - In vitro diagnostic medical devices - Directive 98/79/EC - Parallel imports - Translation by the importer of the information and instructions for use provided by the manufacturer - Supplementary conformity assessment procedure))
   (2016/C 462/08)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Servoprax GmbH

      Defendant: Roche Diagnostics Deutschland GmbH

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 9 of Directive 98/79/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 1998 on in vitro diagnostic medical devices must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require a parallel importer of a device for self-diagnosis for measuring blood sugar that bears a CE marking and that was the subject of a conformity assessment by a notified body to undertake a further assessment in order to certify the conformity of the labelling of that device and the instructions for its use as a result of their translation into the official language of the Member State of importation.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.


title: Case T-651/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Tchobanov v Parliament

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/65

         Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Tchobanov v Parliament
   (Case T-651/15)
   (2016/C 048/73)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Atanas Tchobanov (Le Plessis Robinson, France) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul decision A(2015)8659 C of the European Parliament of 16 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

               —

               order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all of the applicant’s arguments

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

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).


title: Case T-400/04: Action brought on 1 October 2004 by Arch Chemicals, Inc., and Arch Timber Protection Limited against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               22.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/27

         Action brought on 1 October 2004 by Arch Chemicals, Inc., and Arch Timber Protection Limited against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-400/04)
   (2005/C 19/58)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 1 October 2004 by Arch Chemicals Inc., Norwalk, Connecticut, USA and Arch Timber Protection Limited, Castleford, United Kingdom represented by K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers.
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Order the defendant to respond to the applicants' request;

               —

               Or, in the alternative, order the annulment of the European Commission's act D 341571(04);

               —

               Order the defendant to compensate the applicants in the provisional amount of 1 euro for damages suffered as a result of the defendant's failure to comply with its obligations under Community law by failing to respond to the applicants, or, in the alternative, as a result of the European Commission's act D 341571(04), as well as any applicable interests, pending the exact calculation and determination of the exact amount;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses in these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants produce and sell biocide active substances and biocidal products. They notified several substances and are a participant in the review of these substances organised by Directive 98/8/EC (1) concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market, Regulation 1896/2000 (2) on the first phase of the programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC and Regulation 2032/2003 (3) establishing the second phase of the programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC.
   Because, according to the applicants, their rights and expectations as a participant in the review were breached, they requested the defendant to adopt specific measures to remedy the alleged illegalities. The applicants claim that Regulation 1896/2000 and Regulation 2032/2003 adversely affect their data protection rights granted by Directive 98/8/EC. The applicants also submit that the regulations allow evaluators to conduct a comparative assessment between active substances, give predominance to hazard based assessments instead of risk assessment and allows taking into account data submitted by third parties.
   The applicants claim in the first place that the defendant failed to define its position and did not adopt the necessary measures. In the alternative, they claim that the letter of the defendant rejecting the applicants' request should be annulled.
   In support of their application, the applicants submit that the Commission has breached its legal responsibility to implement Directive 98/8/EC in accordance with the EC Treaty and the text of the directive itself, its obligations to respect the legal rights and expectations of participants, like the applicants and its duty to ensure, in accordance with the principles of sound administration, that the implementation by the Member States complies with the EC Treaty and the directive.

      (1)  Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning theplacing of biocidal products on the market (OJ L 123, p. 1)

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1896/2000 of 7 September 2000 on the first phase of the programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on biocidal products (OJ L 228, p. 6)

      (3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2032/2003 of 4 November 2003 on the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1896/2000 (OJ L 307, p. 1)


title: Case T-76/14: Action brought on 4 February 2014 — Morningstar v Commission

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/45

         Action brought on 4 February 2014 — Morningstar v Commission
   (Case T-76/14)
   2014/C 135/57
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Morningstar, Inc. (Chicago, United States) (represented by: S. Kinsella, K. Daly and P. Harrison, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the Commission Decision in Case COMP/39.654 — Reuters Instrument Codes, dated 20 December 2012, and published in the Official Journal on 12 November 2013 (OJ C 326, p. 4);

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs; and

               —

               Grant such other relief as the Court considers appropriate.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the present case, the applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission Decision adopted in the framework of Case COMP/39.654 — Reuters Instrument Codes relating to a proceeding under Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 EEA, concerning practices by Thomson Reuters giving rise to barriers to switching between consolidated real-time datafeeds. By the contested decision the Commission made binding upon Thomson Reuters certain commitments in accordance with Article 9 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1) and decided that there were no longer grounds for action. The applicant is a competitor of Thomson Reuters.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in adopting the Decision since the commitments manifestly fail to address the competition concerns identified in the Decision.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission acted ultra vires because it exceeded powers granted to it by the European Council and the Decision therefore lacks a proper legal basis.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Decision has failed to respect the principle of proportionality.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Decision breaches the Commission’s duty to state reasons.

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


title: Case F-58/12: Action brought on 28 May 2012 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               29.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 295/33

         Action brought on 28 May 2012 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-58/12)
   2012/C 295/57
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for (i) annulment of the implied decision rejecting the applicant’s request relating to the defendant’s compliance with the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 November 2008 in Case F-41/06 Marcuccio v Commission and (ii) compensation for the harm which the applicant claims to have suffered.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision issued by — or in any event attributable to — the Commission rejecting — howsoever and whether in full or in part — the claims set out in the application of 25 March 2011;

               —

               annul the decision issued by — or in any event attributable to — the Commission rejecting — howsoever and whether in full or in part — the claims set out in the application of 17 October 2011;

               —

               in so far as necessary, declare that, by failing to adopt, even in part, the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 November 2008 in Case F-41/06 Marcuccio v Commission, within a reasonable time of that judgment’s delivery, the Commission has acted unlawfully;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 70 000 by way of compensation for the wrongful damage sustained by the applicant as a result of the Commission’s unlawful failure to adopt all the measures necessary for compliance with the judgment of 4 November 2008;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-274/04: Action brought on 8 July 2004 by Georgios Rounis against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/32

         Action brought on 8 July 2004 by Georgios Rounis against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-274/04)
   (2004/C 262/61)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 July 2004 by Georgios Rounis, residing in Brussels, represented by E. Boigelot, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision taken by the Director-General of DG COMP/A on 4 August 2003 in his capacity as appeals assessor and adversely affecting the applicant in that it confirms and definitively approves his staff reports for 1997-1999 and 1999-2001 as established;

               —

               Annul those staff reports;

               —

               Award the applicant compensation for non-material harm, evaluated on an equitable basis at EUR 8,000, owing to the various substantial faults committed at various levels in the establishment of his staff reports for 1997-1999 and 1999-2001 and owing to the significant delay in definitively establishing those reports;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   In support of his action, the applicant claims that there has been a breach of the second paragraph of Article 25 and Articles 26 and 43 of the Staff Regulations and also of the general implementing provisions on the application of Article 43 adopted by the Commission on 26 April 2002. The applicant also claims that there has been misuse of powers and a breach of the rights of the defence, of the principle of good administration, of the principle of equal treatment and also of the principle that the appointing authority must adopt a decision solely on the basis of legally admissible grounds, i.e. grounds which are relevant and are not vitiated by a manifest error of assessment of fact or of law.


title: Case C-421/04: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  9 March 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona) — Matratzen Concord AG v Hukla Germany SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 3(1)(b) and (c) of Directive 89/104/EEC — Grounds for refusal to register — Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — Free movement of goods — Measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction — Justification — Protection of industrial and commercial property — National word mark registered in a Member State — Trade mark consisting of a term borrowed from the language of another Member State in which it is devoid of distinctive character and/or descriptive of the goods in respect of which the trade mark was registered)

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/17

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 March 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona) — Matratzen Concord AG v Hukla Germany SA
   (Case C-421/04) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 3(1)(b) and (c) of Directive 89/104/EEC - Grounds for refusal to register - Articles 28 EC and 30 EC - Free movement of goods - Measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction - Justification - Protection of industrial and commercial property - National word mark registered in a Member State - Trade mark consisting of a term borrowed from the language of another Member State in which it is devoid of distinctive character and/or descriptive of the goods in respect of which the trade mark was registered)
   (2006/C 131/30)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Referring court
   Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Matratzen Concord AG

      Defendant: Hukla Germany SA
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona — Interpretation of Article 30 EC — Protection of industrial and commercial property — Disguised restriction in trade between Member States resulting from a national word mark composed of a word which, in the language of another Member State, is descriptive of the products concerned (‘matratzen’)
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 3(1)(b) and (c) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks does not preclude the registration in a Member State, as a national trade mark, of a term borrowed from the language of another Member State in which it is devoid of distinctive character or descriptive of the goods or services in respect of which registration is sought, unless the relevant parties in the Member State in which registration is sought are capable of identifying the meaning of the term.

      (1)  OJ C 300, 04.12.2004.


title: Case C-228/15: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Catania (Italy) lodged on 19 May 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Snezhana Velikova

text:
               27.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Catania (Italy) lodged on 19 May 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Snezhana Velikova
   (Case C-228/15)
   (2015/C 245/13)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Catania

      Party to the main proceedings

   Snezhana Velikova

      Question referred

   Are Articles 20 and 21 of [Legislative Decree No 30 of 6 February 2007] and [subsequent amendments] implementing Directive 2004/38/EC (1) contrary to [European Union] law?

      (1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77).


title: Case T-376/06: Action brought on 14 December 2006 — Legris Industries v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/27

         Action brought on 14 December 2006 — Legris Industries v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-376/06)
   (2007/C 42/48)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Legris Industries (Rennes, France) (represented by: A. Wachsmann and C. Pommiès, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 final of 20 September 2006 in Case COMP/F-1/38.121 — Joints, together with the grounds on which the operative part was reached, in so far as that decision imposes a fine on the holding company Legris Industries by reason of the practices at issue of Comap being imputed to Legris Industries in its capacity as a holding company;

               —

               allow the holding company Legris Industries to adopt the written pleadings, forms of order sought and claims submitted by Comap against the decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By this action, the applicant seeks the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 final of 20 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (COMP/F-1/38.121 — Joints), concerning a series of agreements and concerted practices on the market for copper joints and copper alloys having as their object price fixing, the drawing up of price lists and lists of rebates and discounts, the putting in place of coordination arrangements for price increases, the sharing of national markets and customers, together with the exchange of other business information, in so far as that decision imposes a fine of the holding company Legris Industries by reason of the practices at issue of its former subsidiary Comap being imputed to it.
   In support of its application, the applicant invokes the following pleas in law.
   First, it argues that the Commission infringed Article 81 EC in imputing to it disputed infringements committed by its subsidiary Comap and, accordingly, in holding it jointly and severally liable for those infringements. It submits that the Commission infringed the principle of the legal and commercial autonomy of the subsidiary and the principle of personal responsibility in the field of competition law in considering that the holding by the applicant of the entire issued share capital of the subsidiary was sufficient to establish the exercise of a determinative influence over the latter. The applicant also claims that the Commission committed errors of law, errors of fact and manifest errors of assessment in that it failed to adduce evidence to show that the holding company Legris Industries had effective control over the actings of Comap.
   The applicant also claims that the Commission committed errors of law in that it failed to rebut the evidence put forward by the applicant to show Comap's autonomy, in particular as regards the determination and direction of its trading policy. The applicant claims to have demonstrated that it did not give instructions to Comap in relation to its conduct on the market, that its role was merely that of financial supervision which did not include the giving of directions to its subsidiaries in budgetary matters and that Comap had access to its own sources of finance. Consequently, it argues that mere evidence of the connection established by its holding in the capital of the subsidiary and the direct consequences resulting from such a connection, on which, according to the applicant, the Commission based its decision to impute the infringements committed by its subsidiary to the applicant, cannot be evidence of the exercise of effective control over the actings of that subsidiary.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of  27 October 2005  in Case C-23/05: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2000/34/EC — Working conditions — Organisation of working time — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               24.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/6

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 27 October 2005
   in Case C-23/05: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2000/34/EC - Working conditions - Organisation of working time - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2005/C 330/12)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-23/05: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Rozet and N. Yerrell) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent: S. Schreiner) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 25 January 2005 — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of J.-P. Puissochet, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, S. von Bahr and A. Borg Barthet (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 27 October 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions, except as regards those to be adopted in respect of doctors in training, necessary to comply with Directive 2000/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 2000 amending Council Directive 93/104/EC concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time to cover sectors and activities excluded from that directive, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of that directive;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82 of 02.04.2005.


title: Case C-306/10: Action brought on 25 June 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/32

         Action brought on 25 June 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia
   (Case C-306/10)
   ()
   2010/C 221/50
   Language of the case: Estonian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by E. Randvere and M. van Beek, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Estonia

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2005/47/EC of 18 July 2005 (1) on the Agreement between the Community of European Railways (CER) and the European Transport Workers’ Federation (ETF) on certain aspects of the working conditions of mobile workers engaged in interoperable cross-border services in the railway sector, and by failing to ensure that the social partners enter into a corresponding agreement, or by failing to notify the Commission thereof, the Republic of Estonia has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Estonia to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period for transposing the directive into national law expired on 27 July 2008.

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 195, p. 15.


title: Action brought on 25 January 1999 by VASA Energy GmbH & Co. KG against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-29/99)

text:
C 86/32               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 27.3.1999
    from outside the institution who, in the applicant's            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    opinion, had already been pre-selected, regardless of
    the suitability or otherwise of candidates inside the
    institution;
                                                                    The applicants in the present case are Greene King PLC's
                                                                    (GK) tenants at the Fox and Hounds Public House at
                                                                    Kempston in Bedfordshire. GK is a UK brewer and
Ð infringement of Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations
                                                                    wholesaler. The applicants entered into their lease with
    in that the appointing authority did not undertake a
                                                                    GK for a tenancy, which contained an exclusive beer
    detailed comparative examination of candidatures and
                                                                    purchasing agreement in terms which are standard in the
    attributed unlawful decisive importance to the
                                                                    UK, namely a obligation to buy beer exclusively from GK
    recommendations' of the Advisory Committee for
                                                                    or its nominees.
    Selection Procedures;
Ð arbitrariness and manifest error of assessment;                   On 23 May 1997 the applicants requested that the
                                                                    Commission hold that GK, by its network of beer supply
                                                                    agreements in the UK, infringed Article 85 of the EC
Ð misuse of powers and breach of Article 7(1) and                   Treaty. The current application challenges the formal
    Article 27 of the Staff Regulations;                            Commission's rejection of this complaint.
Ð infringement of Article 5(3) of the Staff Regulations
                                                                    The applicants seek the annulment of the contested
    and of the principle of non-discrimination;
                                                                    decision on the grounds that the defendant failed
Ð infringement of the principle of transparency of
    administrative measures.                                        Ð properly to evaluate the facts and law which establish
                                                                        the existence of an infringement of Article 85 by GK;
                                                                    Ð to give adequate reasons for its decision rejecting the
                                                                        complaint; and
Action brought on 22 January 1999 by Colin Arthur
Roberts and Valerie Ann Roberts against the Commission
                of the European Communities                         Ð properly to evaluate the existence of an infringement
                                                                        of Article 85 by reason of a price fixing cartel in the
                        (Case T-25/99)
                                                                        UK brewing industry operating at wholesale level.
                        (1999/C 86/55)
               (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   Action brought on 25 January 1999 by VASA Energy
Instance of the European Communities on 22 January                  GmbH & Co. KG against the Commission of the
1999 by Colin Arthur Roberts and Valerie Ann Roberts,                                 European Communities
Kempston in Bedfordshire (United Kingdom), represented                                     (Case T-29/99)
by Becket Bedford of the Middle Temple, S. C. I.
Ferdinand and J. Tracy Kelly of Ferdinand Kelly,                                          (1999/C 86/56)
Solicitors, 21 Bennetts Hill, Birmingham B2 5QP (United
Kingdom).
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
Ð annul the decision of the Commission in Case IV/                  Communities was brought before the Court of First
    36.511/F3 Ð Roberts/Greene King dated 12 November               Instance of the European Communities on 25 January
    1998;                                                           1999 by VASA Energy GmbH & Co. KG, Hamburg,
                                                                    represented by Dörte Annemarie Fouquet, Rechtsanwältin,
                                                                    of Messrs Kuhbier & Fouquet, Hamburg, with an address
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs of this                     for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Messrs
    application.                                                    Arendt and Medernach, 8Ð10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
 ---pagebreak--- 27.3.1999           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 86/33
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        Action brought on 28 January 1999 by Bocchi Food
                                                                   Trade International GmbH against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
Ð declare that, by failing to examine the complaint made
    pursuant to Articles 92 and 93 of the EC Treaty and                                   (Case T-30/99)
    to adopt a decision on the basis of that examination
    within two months after receiving from the applicant,                                 (1999/C 86/57)
    by letter of 15 September 1998, a formal request to
    that effect made in accordance with Article 175 of the
    EC Treaty, the Commission has infringed Article 175                          (Language of the case: German)
    of the EC Treaty;
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs, including those           An action against the Commission of the European
    incurred by the applicant, even if the Court takes the         Communities was brought before the Court of First
    view that, following the institution of the proceedings,       Instance of the European Communities on 28 January
    the Commission has taken steps in the matter which             1999 by Bocchi Food Trade International GmbH, Bergisch
    render the action devoid of purpose.                           Gladbach (Germany), represented by Gert Meier,
                                                                   Rechtsanwalt, Jakordenstraûe 10, Köln.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant is a private company incorporated under              The applicant claims that the Court should:
German law. Its object is the production and marketing of
heat and energy and the provision of all services
connected therewith. It operates within and outside                1. order the Commission to compensate the applicant for
Germany. A significant majority interest in the applicant              its loss suffered through the competent authorities'
company is held by the Swedish power supplier,                         reducing its provisional reference quantity by applying
Vattenfall.
By letter of 15 September 1998 the applicant requested                 (a) the adjustment coefficient, and
the Commission, with reference to previous written
communications, to examine, pursuant to Articles 92 and
93 of the EC Treaty, the acquisition of Saarbergwerke AG               (b) the reduction coefficient;
and Preussag Anthrazit GmbH by Ruhrkohle AG, with a
view to ascertaining whether, as a result of and in
connection with that amalgamation, circumstances                   2. order the Commission, in so far as the applicant's
relating to aid had arisen which were compulsorily                     provisional reference quantity has been wrongly
notifiable. Although the applicant had expressly warned                reduced by applying the adjustment coefficient, to
the Commission of its intention to bring an action, the                compensate for that reduction by granting the
two-month period within which the Commission was                       applicant    additional    licences   in    the   future
required to act elapsed without any decision being issued              (compensation in kind);
which would have averted the claim of failure by the
Commission to act.
                                                                   3. order the Commission to pay the costs.
The applicant maintains that, once the Commission
became aware of the planned amalgamation in February
1998, it was under a duty not only to approve the
acquisition of Saarbergwerke in the light of Article 66 of         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
the ECSC Treaty but also, and in parallel, to carry out an
examination to determine whether aid existed within the
meaning of Articles 92 and 93 of the EC Treaty. However,
                                                                   The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
the Commission failed to carry out that examination.
                                                                   Case T-18/99 Cordis Obst- und Gemüsegrosshandel
                                                                   GmbH v. Commission.


title: Action brought on 26 June 1996 by the Kingdom of Belgium against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-217/96)

text:
No C 269/4                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                           14 . 9 . 96
The period prescribed for the transposition of the Directive              for service in Luxembourg at the Belgian Embassy, 4 rue des
in question into national law expired on 31 March 1994 ,                  Girondins .
but the Hellenic Republic has not yet adopted the measures
necessary to incorporate it fully into the Greek legal system,            The applicant claims that the Court should :
nor notified the Commission of any such measures .
                                                                          — annul Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 822/96 of
(') OJ No L 179 , 22 . 7 . 1993 , p . 5 .                                        3 May 1996 on the exceptional allocation of a quantity
( 2 ) Official Journal , English Special Edition 1970 ( III ), p. 840 .          additional to the tariff quota for imports of bananas
                                                                                during the second quarter of 1996 as a result of tropical
                                                                                storms Iris , Luis and Marilyn ('),
                                                                          — order the Commission to pay the costs .
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal
Administratif, Saint-Denis de la Reunion, by judgment of                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
that court of 5 June 1996 in the case of Paul
                                                                          The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
     Chevassus-Marche v. Conseil Regional de la Reunion                   in Case C-407/95 ( 2 ).
                           ( Case C-212/96 )
                              ( 96/C 269/08 )                             (') OJ No L 111 , 4 . 5 . 1996 , p . 7 .
                                                                          ( 2 ) OJ No C 46 , 17 . 2 . 1996 , p . 11 .
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal
Administratif ( Administrative Court ), Saint-Denis de la
Reunion , of 5 June 1996 , which was received at the Court
Registry on 25 June 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Paul Chevassus-Marche against Conseil Regional de
                                                                          Action brought on 26 June 1996 by the Commission of the
la Reunion on the following questions :
                                                                           European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
                                                                                Case C-218/96 )
 1 . Is Council Decision 8 9/6 8 8/EEC ( 1 ) authorizing the                                           ( 96/C 269/ 10 )
       maintenance of dock dues payable on imported
       products and on goods produced by undertakings                     An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
       located in an overseas departement consistent with the
                                                                          before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
       Treaty and , specifically, with Articles 9 , 12 and 13             26 June 1996 by the Commission of the European
       thereof, in that it allows the possibility of exemptions for
                                                                          Communities , represented by Gotz zur Hausen, acting as
       local undertakings on the sole condition that they
                                                                          Agent, assisted by J. -J. Evrard, Avocat, with an address for
       contribute to the promotion or maintenance of an                   service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
       economic activity ?
                                                                          Cruz, of the Commission 's Legal Service , Wagner Centre ,
2 . If so , may Decision 89/688/EEC be regarded , in the light            Kirchberg.
       of the second paragraph of Article 95 of the Treaty of
       Rome , as permitting fiscal differentiation with a view to         The applicant claims that the Court should :
       achieving economic objectives which are consistent with
       the requirements of the Treaty and of secondary                    — declare that, by not adopting the laws , regulations and
       legislation, where such differentiation is justified by the               administrative provisions necessary to comply with
       particular economic conditions in the overseas                            Commission Directive 93/ 105/EC (') of 25 November
       departements ?                                                            1 993 laying down Annex VII D , containing information
                                                                                required for the technical dossier referred to in Article 12
                                                                                of the     seventh    amendment       of Council     Directive
 (') OJ No L 399 , 30 . 12 . 1989 , p . 46 .
                                                                                67/548/EEC (2 ), or by not communicating those
                                                                                measures, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
                                                                                obligations under that Directive ,
                                                                          — order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .
 Action brought on 26 June 1 996 by the Kingdom of Belgium
     against the Commission of the European Communities                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                            ( Case C-2 17/96 )
                                                                           The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
                               ( 96/C 269/09 )                             in Case C-205/96 ( 3 ); the period prescribed by the Directive
                                                                           expired on 31 December 1993 .
 An action against the Commission of the European
 Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the                (') OJ No L 294 , 30 . 11 . 1993 , p . 21 .
 European Communities on 26 June 1996 by the Kingdom of                    ( 2 ) Official Journal , English Special Edition 1967, p. 234 .
 Belgium, represented by J. Devadder, Adviseur-Generaal in                 (') OJ No C 247, 24 . 8 . 1996 , p . 7 .
 the Ministry of Foreign Affairs , External Trade and
 Development Cooperation , acting as Agent, with an address


title: Case C-612/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 March 2014  — Ballast Nedam NV v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Netherlands market in road pavement bitumen — Setting of the gross price for road pavement bitumen — Setting of a rebate for road builders — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 27 — Rights of the defence — Reduction of the fine)

text:
               19.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 March 2014 — Ballast Nedam NV v European Commission
   (Case C-612/12 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Netherlands market in road pavement bitumen - Setting of the gross price for road pavement bitumen - Setting of a rebate for road builders - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 27 - Rights of the defence - Reduction of the fine))
   2014/C 151/05
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Appellant: Ballast Nedam NV (represented by: A. Bosman and E. Oude Elferink, advocaten)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Ronkes Agerbeek and P. Van Nuffel, Agents, and by F. Tuytschaever, avocat)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of 27 September 2012 in Case T-361/06 Ballast Nedam v Commission, by which the General Court (Sixth Chamber) dismissed an action brought by Ballast Nedam for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4090 final of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.456 — Bitumen (Netherlands)), in so far as it concerned Ballast Nedam; and, in the alternative, for partial annulment of that decision, to the extent that it sets the duration of the infringement with respect to Ballast Nedam, and reduction of the fine imposed on Ballast Nedam.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment in Case T-361/06 Ballast Nedam v Commission to the extent that it rejects the plea in law raised by Ballast Nedam NV relating to the infringement of Article 27(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles [81 EC] and [82 EC] and of the rights of the defence during the administrative procedure which led to Commission Decision C(2006) 4090 final of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article [81 EC] (Case COMP/F/38.456 — Bitumen (Netherlands));

               2.

               Annuls Article 1(a) of Decision C(2006) 4090 final to the extent that it concerns Ballast Nedam NV’s infringement of Article 81 EC during the period from 21 June 1996 to 30 September 2000;

               3.

               Annuls Article 2(a) of Decision C(2006) 4090 final to the extent that it sets the amount of the fine payable by Ballast Nedam NV at EUR 4,65 million;

               4.

               Sets the amount of the fine imposed jointly and severally on Ballast Nedam NV under Article 2(a) of Decision C(2006) 4090 final at EUR 3,45 million;

               5.

               Orders the European Commission to pay all costs relating to the present appeal;

               6.

               Orders each of the parties to bear its own costs in relation to the proceedings at first instance.

      (1)  OJ C 71, 9.3.2013.


title: Case T-297/12: Action brought on 2 July 2012 — Evropaiki Dinamiki v Commission

text:
               8.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/16

         Action brought on 2 July 2012 — Evropaiki Dinamiki v Commission
   (Case T-297/12)
   2012/C 273/27
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Evropaiki Dinamiki — Proigmena Sistimata Tilepikinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Khristianos, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               order the Commission to pay it the sum of EUR 50 000 as compensation for the harm to its professional reputation which it has suffered on account of infringement of its professional confidentiality by the Commission, with compensatory interest from 3 July 2007 to delivery of the judgment in the present dispute and until full payment;

               —

               order the Commission to pay its costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, the applicant seeks compensation from the General Court of the European Union for the harm which it has suffered on account of the unlawful conduct on the part of the European Commission (‘the Commission’), under the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU (non-contractual liability of the European Union). Specifically, the Commission caused damage to the applicant’s professional reputation by sending a document which concerned an investigation being conducted in respect of the applicant to third-party companies on 3 July 2007.
   The applicant submits that the conditions for establishing the Commission’s non-contractual liability, as set out in settled case-law, that enable it to be compensated for the damage to its professional reputation are met, since the Commission unlawfully disclosed to third parties the existence and the content of an investigation conducted in its regard and confidential professional data concerning it.


title: Case T-55/02: Action brought on 25 February 2002 by Peter Finch against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 97/18                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    20.4.2002
The defendant misused its powers within the meaning of the                In support of his claims, the applicant pleads:
second paragraph of Article 230 of the EC Treaty. In carrying
out its procedure, it was not seeking to put an end to                    —     infringement of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff
infringements of the competition rules but to lower the charges                 Regulations;
for the conversion of foreign currencies.
                                                                          —     infringement of the general provisions for the implemen-
                                                                                tation of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regula-
The amount of the fine was also such as to render it unlawful.                  tions;
The defendant did not correctly apply the relevant principles
for the calculation of fines.                                             —     infringement of the principles of equal treatment and
                                                                                non-discrimination.
Action brought on 25 February 2002 by Peter Finch                         Action brought on 1 March 2002 by Léopold Radauer
  against the Commission of the European Communities                                against the Council of the European Union
                           (Case T-55/02)                                                          (Case T-67/02)
                           (2002/C 97/32)                                                          (2002/C 97/33)
                    (Language of the case: French)                                           (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          An action against the Council of the European Union was
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                Communities on 1 March 2002 by Léopold Radauer, residing
European Communities on 25 February 2002 by Peter Finch,                  in Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure
residing in Luxembourg, represented by Jean-Noël Louis,                   Levi, avocats.
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —     annul the defendant’s decision of 17 April 2001 fixing at
—     annul the Commission’s decision concerning the crediting                  3 years, 10 months and 10 days the number of years of
      of years of pensionable service under the Staff Regulations               pensionable service to be taken into account for the
      to be taken into account pursuant to Article 11(2) of                     applicant’s Community pension following the transfer of
      Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations in consequence of the                 his pension rights acquired in Austria prior to his entry
      transfer to the Community pension scheme of the                           into the service of the European Communities and, in so
      pension rights acquired by the applicant prior to his entry               far as necessary, annul the Council decision, dated
      into service;                                                             15 November 2001, to reject the applicant’s complaint
                                                                                of 17 July 2001;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                          —     order the defendant to fix again, on an amended legal
                                                                                basis and in a manner devoid of any illegality, the years
                                                                                of pensionable service to be taken into account for the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 applicant’s Community pension following the transfer of
                                                                                his pension rights acquired in Austria;
The applicant, an official of the defendant institution who,
prior to his entry into service, had worked in France, Belgium            —     order the defendant to pay all of the costs.
and the Netherlands and acquired pension rights under
various pension schemes in those countries, is contesting the
calculation contained in the contested decision, which relates            Pleas in law and main arguments
to the crediting of all of the transferred rights. More specifically,
the applicant is contesting the fact that the appointing                  The single plea in law raised is the same as that in Case
authority took the date of his establishment as the reference             T-204/01 Maria-Luise Lindorfer v Council of the European
date and not the date of his entry into service.                          Union (OJ C 317, 10.11.2001, p. 32).


title: Case F-67/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 21 June 2011 — Marcuccio v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Action for damages relating to the taxation of costs — Inadmissibility)

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/30

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 21 June 2011 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-67/10) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Action for damages relating to the taxation of costs - Inadmissibility)
   2012/C 138/64
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision not to reimburse two thirds of the costs incurred by the applicant in Case F-41/06.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Mr Marcuccio is ordered to pay all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 288, 23.1.2010, p. 74.


title: Case C-544/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu (Republic of Poland) lodged on 4 December 2007 — Uwe Rüffler v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej we Wrocławiu — Ośrodek Zamiejscowy w Wałbrzychu

text:
               9.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu (Republic of Poland) lodged on 4 December 2007 — Uwe Rüffler v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej we Wrocławiu — Ośrodek Zamiejscowy w Wałbrzychu
   (Case C-544/07)
   (2008/C 37/27)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Referring court
   Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu (Regional Administrative Court, Wrocław) (Poland)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Uwe Rüffler

      Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej we Wrocławiu — Ośrodek Zamiejscowy w Wałbrzychu (Director of the Wrocław Tax Division, Wałbrzych office)
   Question referred
   Must the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 12 EC and Article 39(1) and (2) EC be construed as precluding the national provision contained in Article 27b of the Law of 26 July 1991 on income tax payable by natural persons, which restricts the right to a reduction of income tax by the amount of compulsory health insurance contributions paid to contributions paid exclusively on the basis of provisions of national law, in the case where a resident pays in another Member State compulsory health insurance contributions deducted from income taxed in Poland?


title: Case T-463/12: Action brought on 22 October 2012 — Popp and Zech v OHIM — Müller-Boré & Partner (MB)

text:
               8.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 379/31

         Action brought on 22 October 2012 — Popp and Zech v OHIM — Müller-Boré & Partner (MB)
   (Case T-463/12)
   2012/C 379/52
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Eugen Popp (Munich, Germany) and Stefan M. Zech (Munich) (represented by: C. Rohnke and M. Jacob, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Müller-Boré & Partner (Munich, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 July 2012 in Case R 506/2011-1;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘MB’ for services in Class 42 — Community trade mark application No 7 369 771

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Müller-Boré & Partner

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark MBP and the national and Community trade mark, including the word element ‘MB&P’, for services in Classes 35 and 42

      Decision of the Opposition Division: rejection of the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was upheld and the application was rejected

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 42(2) and Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009

               —

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


title: Case T-171/05: Action brought on 2 May 2005 by Bart Nijs against the Court of Auditors of the European Communities

text:
               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/38

         Action brought on 2 May 2005 by Bart Nijs against the Court of Auditors of the European Communities
   (Case T-171/05)
   (2005/C 182/71)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 2 May 2005 by Bart Nijs, Bereldange (Luxembourg), represented by Fränk Rollinger, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul the decision of the College of Merits of the Court of Auditors awarding the applicant his promotion points for 2003;

               2.

               annul the decision of the appointing authority not to promote the applicant to the grade of reviser in 2004;

               3.

               annul the applicant's staff report for 2003;

               4.

               annul decision No 6/2004 of 26 October 2004 of the Appeal Committee of the Court of Auditors upholding the applicant's staff report for 2003;

               5.

               annul any related and/or later decision;

               6.

               make good the damage suffered by the applicant and order the Court of Auditors to pay the costs of these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant in the present case, having also brought the action lodged in Case T-377/04, (1) contests the decisions of the defendant awarding him promotion points for 2003 and establishing his staff report for that year, and its decision not to promote him in 2004 to the post of reviser in the Dutch translation unit.
   In support of his claims he relies on pleas of:

               —

               breach of Article 11a of the Staff Regulations and of the principles of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials, sound administration and equal treatment,

               —

               irregularities in the appraisal procedure in that it was entrusted to officials whose integrity had been called into question by the pre-litigation procedure,

               —

               failure to respect time limits in the appraisal procedure,

               —

               failure in this case to consider comparative merits in the terms of the Dutch translation unit,

               —

               breach of the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations by the failure to communicate the rules applicable to the 2004 promotion procedure,

               —

               misuse of powers in the case.

      (1)  Case T-377/04 Nijs v Court of Auditors (OJ 2004 C 284, 20.11.2004, p. 26).


title: NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION

text:
22 . 10 . 96                          Official Journal of the European Communities                          No C 311 / 19
                                                            III
                                                          (Notices)
                                  EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
                                         COURT OF JUSTICE
                                            NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION
                                                      (96/C 311 /06 )
             The Court of Justice of the European Communities and the General Secretariat of the
             European Parliament are publishing in the Official Journal of the European Communities No C
             311 A of 22 October 1996 the following open competition :
             Finnish edition
             EUR/LA/ 106 — Conference interpreters
             To obtain this Official Journal please contact the Personnel Division of the Court of Justice of
             the European Communities , L-2925 Luxembourg.
             The final date for receipt of applications is 25 November 1996.


title: Case T-181/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 April 2008 — Citigroup and Citibank v OHIM — Citi (CITI) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative trade mark CITI — Earlier Community word mark CITIBANK — Relative ground for refusal — Reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/32

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 April 2008 — Citigroup and Citibank v OHIM — Citi (CITI)
   (Case T-181/05) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative trade mark CITI - Earlier Community word mark CITIBANK - Relative ground for refusal - Reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2008/C 128/69)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: Citigroup, Inc., formerly Citicorp, (New York, New York, United States), and Citibank, NA, (New York) (represented by: initially V. von Bomhard, A.W. Renck and A. Pohlmann, lawyers, and subsequently by V. von Bomhard, A.W. Renck, and H. O'Neill, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. García Murillo and D. Botis, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Citi, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. Peris Riera, lawyer)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 March 2005 (Case R 173/2004-1) in respect of opposition proceedings between Citicorp and Citi SL and opposition proceedings between Citibank NA and Citi SL
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 1 March 2005 (Case R 173/2004-1);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of Citigroup, Inc., and Citibank, NA, including those costs incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

               3.

               Orders Citi, SL, to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 9.7.2005.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2002 in Case T-223/01: Japan Tobacco Inc. and JT International SA v European Parliament and Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Article 7 of Directive 2001/37/EC — Admissibility — Locus standi — Direct concern)

text:
C 289/24                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        23.11.2002
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                           of 12 July 2002                                                       of 10 September 2002
                                                                           in Case T-223/01: Japan Tobacco Inc. and JT International
in Case T-302/00: Anthony Goldstein v Commission of                        SA v European Parliament and Council of the European
                  the European Communities (1)                                                           Union ( 1)
(Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements                  (Action for annulment — Article 7 of Directive 2001/37/EC
— Competition — Rejection of complaint — Action mani-                            — Admissibility — Locus standi — Direct concern)
          festly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded)
                                                                                (2002/C 289/47)
                          (2002/C 289/46)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           In Case T-223/01, Japan Tobacco Inc., established in Tokyo
                                                                           (Japan), and JT International SA, established in Geneva (Switz-
In Case T-302/00, Anthony Goldstein, residing at Harrow,                   erland), represented by O. Brouwer, lawyer, and P. Lomas,
Middlesex (United Kingdom), represented by R. St. John                     Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
Murphy, Solicitor, against Commission of the European Com-                 v European Parliament (Agents: C. Pennera and M. Moore),
munities (Agent: P. Oliver) — application for annulment of                 and Council of the European Union (Agent: E. Karlsson):
the Commission’s decision of 7 July 2000 rejecting the                     Application for annulment of Article 7 of Directive No 2001/
applicant’s complaint concerning alleged infringement of                   37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June
Articles 81 EC and 82 EC by the General Medical Council,                   2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and
training bodies and insurance companies — the Court of First               administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the
Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: M. Vilaras, President,             manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products (OJ
V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; Registrar: H. Jung, has made             2001 L 194 p. 26), the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),
an order on 12 July 2002 in which it:                                      composed of: J.D. Cooke, President, R. García-Valdecasas and
                                                                           P. Lindh, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on
                                                                           10 September 2002, the operative part of which is as follows:
1.    Dismisses the application;
                                                                           1.    The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
2.    Orders the applicant to bear his own costs incurred both in
      these proceedings and in the proceedings for interim relief in
                                                                           2.    The applicants are ordered to pay the costs.
      Cases T-302/00 R and T-302/00 R II, and pay the costs
      incurred by the Commission in these proceedings and in the
      proceedings for interim relief in Case T-302/00 R.
                                                                           3.    There is no need to rule upon the applications to intervene.
( 1) OJ C 355 of 9 December 2000.
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 3 of 5.1.2002.


               12.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/1

         Lists for the determination of the composition of the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Chambers as from 11 October 2005
   (2005/C 281/02)
   At its meeting on 11 October 2005, the Court drew up the lists referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 11c(2) of the Rules of Procedure for the determination of the composition of the Chambers of three Judges as follows:
   Fourth Chamber
   Ms Colneric
   Mr Cunha Rodrigues
   Mr Lenaerts
   Mr Juhász
   Mr Ilešič
   Mr Levits
   Fifth Chamber
   Mr Gulmann
   Mr Schintgen
   Ms Silva de Lapuerta
   Mr Kūris
   Mr Arestis
   Mr Klučka
   Sixth Chamber
   Mr La Pergola
   Mr Puissochet
   Mr von Bahr
   Mr Borg Barthet
   Mr Lõhmus
   Mr Ó Caoimh


title: Case T-138/11: Order of the General Court of 7 December 2011 — Ahouma v Council (Death of the applicant — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               11.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/13

         Order of the General Court of 7 December 2011 — Ahouma v Council
   (Case T-138/11) (1)

   (Death of the applicant - No need to adjudicate)
   2012/C 39/26
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Brouha Nathanaël Ahouma (Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire) (represented by: G. Collard, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and C. Fekete, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 36), and of Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 1).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no further need to adjudicate.

               2.

               The Council of the European Union shall pay the costs.

               3.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene made by the European Commission and the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire.

      (1)  OJ C 130, 30.4.2011.


title: Case C-581/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich (Austria) lodged on 17 December 2014 — Manfred Naderhirn

text:
               29.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 111/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich (Austria) lodged on 17 December 2014 — Manfred Naderhirn
   (Case C-581/14)
   (2016/C 111/03)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Manfred Naderhirn

      Interveners: Jungwirth und Fabian OHG, Krenn KG, Michael Weber, Übermaßer KG, Gunhild Mayr
   By order of 15 October 2015, the Court ruled:
   EU law must be interpreted as precluding a situation in national law which is characterised by, first, the lack of domestic legal provisions governing the manner in which a national court must take account of the fact that it follows from a judgment of the Court of Justice that a national provision must be held to be contrary to EU law when it is dealing with cases pending before it and, second, the existence of rules of domestic law which provide that the court in question is unconditionally bound by another national court’s interpretation of EU law, in so far as, on account of such a rule of domestic law, the national court is precluded from ensuring that the primacy of EU law is duly guaranteed by taking, in the context of its jurisdiction, all the necessary measures to that effect.


title: Case T-150/04: Action brought on 23 April 2004 by Mühlens GmbH & Co. KG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               25.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/25

         Action brought on 23 April 2004 by Mühlens GmbH & Co. KG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case T-150/04)
   (2004/C 239/55)
   Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was submitted: German
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 23 April 2004 by Mühlens GmbH & Co. KG, Cologne (Germany) represented by T. Schulte-Beckhausen, lawyer.
   Minoronzoni S.r.l., Ponte San Pietro (Bergamo), (Italy), was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the defendant of 18 February 2004 (Case R 949/2001-1);

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               Minoronzoni S.r.l.

               Community trade mark sought:

               Figurative mark ‘TOSCA BLU’ for goods in Classes 18 and 25 (including bags; handbags; travelling bags; clothing for men, women and children in general) – Application No 1 008 291

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               The applicant

               Mark or sign cited in opposition.

               German word mark ‘TOSCA’ for perfumery products (including ‘Parfum’, ‘Eau de Toilette’ and ‘Eau de Parfum pour femmes’)

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Opposition rejected

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Applicant's appeal dismissed

               Pleas in law:

                           —

                           The opposition based on the well-known mark ‘TOSCA’ is well founded under Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94.

                           —

                           There is a likelihood of confusion between the opposing names.

                           —

                           The opposing goods are similar.

                           —

                           There is a likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.

                           —

                           The opposition is entitled to


title: Case C-65/06: Order of the President of the Court of 29 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/24

         Order of the President of the Court of 29 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-65/06) (1)

   (2006/C 331/46)

      Language of the case: Dutch

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

      (1)  OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.


title: Case T-375/04: Action brought on 17 September 2004 by Grandits GmbH and five others against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/45

         Action brought on 17 September 2004 by Grandits GmbH and five others against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-375/04)
   (2004/C 300/89)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 17 September 2004 by Grandits GmbH, Kirchschlag (Austria), Scheuer-Fleisch GmbH, Ungerdorf (Austria), Tauernfleisch Vertriebs-GmbH, Flattach (Austria), Wech-Kärntner Truthahnverarbeitung GmbH, Glanegg (Austria), Wech-Geflügel GmbH, St. Andrä (Austria) and Johann Zsifkovics, Vienna (Austria), represented by J. Hofer and T. Humer, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission's decision of 30 June 2004 (C(2004) 2037 final), concerning State Aid NN 34A 2000/Österreich ‘Qualitätsprogramme und das AMA-Biozeichen und das AMA-Gütesiegel’;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants first claim infringement of procedural rules. The Commission treated the measures which formed the subject-matter of the contested decision as notified aid, although Austria had given no such notification. The Commission infringed Article 4(4) of Regulation 659/1999, as it had no discretion and should have instituted the formal investigation procedure. The Commission infringed the duty to state reasons because it did not carefully and impartially examine all the legal and factual considerations brought to its notice by the applicants. A period of 52 months was disproportionate in the context of the preliminary investigation procedure and constituted an infringement of the general principle that proceedings should be of a reasonable duration.
   The applicants further claim infringement of Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty. The Commission assumed, on the basis of insufficient enquiries and factual findings, that the requirements for the exception under Article 87(3)(c) EC were fulfilled.
   Finally, the applicants claim that there has been infringement of the prohibition on implementation in accordance with the third sentence of Article 88(3) EC and Article 3 of Regulation No 659/99. There is, they maintain, a prohibition on implementing aids that have not been notified, and retrospective curing of the defect by the final decision is not permissible.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 September 2003 in Case C-346/00: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Commission of the European Communities (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Financial years 1996 and 1997 — Arable crops)

text:
C 264/4                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                             1.11.2003
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                                           (Fifth Chamber)
                      of 18 September 2003                                                       of 18 September 2003
in Case C-346/00: United Kingdom of Great Britain                          in Case C-416/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
and Northern Ireland v Commission of the European                          the Tribunale Civile di Padova): Tommaso Morellato v
                          Communities (1)                                                        Comune di Padova (1)
(EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Financial years                           (Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
                1996 and 1997 — Arable crops)                              Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — Selling arrangements —
                                                                           National legislation requiring prior packaging and specific
                                                                           labelling for the marketing of deep-frozen bread lawfully
                                                                           produced in a Member State and placed on the market in
                          (2003/C 264/05)                                           another Member State after further baking)
                   (Language of the case: English)                                                  (2003/C 264/06)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case C-346/00, United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland (Agent: R. Magrill, assisted by P. Roth, QC) v            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. Niejahr                                    in the European Court Reports)
and K. Fitch): Application for partial annulment of Commission
Decision 2000/449/EC of 5 July 2000 excluding from Com-
munity financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member
States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricul-
tural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2000 L 180,
p. 49), in so far as it excluded from Community financing, for             In Case C-416/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
the financial years 1996 and 1997, expenditure of EUR                      EC by the Tribunale Civile di Padova (Italy) for a preliminary
5 039 175.46 incurred by the United Kingdom in the                         ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
arable crops sector, the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:               Tommaso Morellato and Comune di Padova, on the interpret-
D.A.O. Edward, acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber,              ation of Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after
A. La Pergola, P. Jann, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur) and A. Rosas,             amendment, Articles 28 and 30 EC), the Court (Fifth Chamber),
Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal                composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Fourth
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                  Chamber, acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber,
18 September 2003, in which it:                                            D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, P. Jann and S. von
                                                                           Bahr, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General;
                                                                           R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 September
1.    Dismisses the application;                                           2003, in which it has ruled:
2.    Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern              1.   The requirement for prior packaging imposed by the law of a
      Ireland to pay the costs.                                                 Member State on the sale of bread obtained by completing, in
                                                                                that Member State, the baking of partly baked bread, whether
                                                                                deep-frozen or not, that has been imported from another
                                                                                Member State does not constitute a quantitative restriction or a
(1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.                                                     measure having equivalent effect within the meaning of
                                                                                Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28
                                                                                EC), provided that it applies without distinction to both national
                                                                                and imported products and that it does not in reality constitute
                                                                                discrimination against imported products.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura Circondariale di Genova by order of that court of 26 September 1998 in the case of Marcella Moretti v. Banco Ambrosiano Veneto SpA (Case C-419/98)

text:
C 20/20               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  23.1.1999
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura                      on 24 November 1998 by the Commission of the
Circondariale di Genova by order of that court of                      European Communities, represented by I. Martínez del
26 September 1998 in the case of Marcella Moretti v.                   Peral and B. Mongin, of its Legal Service, with an address
                Banco Ambrosiano Veneto SpA                            for service in Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez
                                                                       de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                        (Case C-419/98)
                         (1999/C 20/32)
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Pretura
Circondariale di Genova (District Magistrate's Court,                  (1) declare that, by providing, in the second paragraph of
Genoa) of 26 September 1998, which was received at the                       Article 10 of Royal Decree No 1081/1989 (1) of
Court Registry on 23 November 1998, for a preliminary                        28 August 1989, that architects qualified in other
ruling in the case of Marcella Moretti v. Banco                              Member States whose qualifications are recognised
Ambrosiano Veneto SpA, on the following questions:                           under Council Directive 85/384/EEC (2) of 10 June
                                                                             1985 on the mutual recognition of diplomas,
                                                                             certificates   and   other     evidence    of   formal
1. Whether the Norme Bancarie Uniforme (Uniform                              qualifications in architecture, including measures to
     Bank Rules) laid down by the ABI (1) for its members                    facilitate the effective exercise of the right of
     in relation to contracts for the opening of current                     establishment and freedom to provide services may
     account credit facilities Ð since they are laid down                    not pursue in Spain any professional activities other
     and applied in a uniform and binding manner by the                      than those which they are authorised to carry on in
     banks belonging to the ABI Ð are compatible with                        their country of origin pursuant to the qualifications
     Article 85 of the Treaty, where they make the credit                    obtained by them there, save in collaboration with
     facility subject to conditions for determination of an                  another professional person authorised to carry on
     interest rate which is not previously determined and is                 those activities and holding a professional
     not determinable by the customer, and they are liable                   qualification which is also recognised under Spanish
     adversely to affect trade between the Member States                     law', the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
     and have as their object and effect the prevention,                     obligations under Articles 2 and 10 of Directive
     restriction or distortion of competition within the                     85/384/EEC;
     Common Market;
2. What effects any finding of incompatibility in                      (2) order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
     accordance with 1 above may have on the
     corresponding clauses of the contracts for the opening
     of a current account credit facility, concluded
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     downstream' by member banks with individual
     customers, since, as a group, the banks belonging to
     the ABI may be regarded, within the meaning and for
     the purposes of Article 86 of the Treaty, as holding a            Articles 2 and 10 of Directive 85/384/EEC lay down the
     joint dominant position in the national credit market,            fundamental principle that persons holding diplomas,
     whose specific application of the rules in question (in           certificates or other formal qualifications in architecture
     connection with determination of the interest payable             awarded by a Member State other than the host Member
     on the loan) is regarded as an abuse.                             State are to have the same rights and be subject to the
                                                                       same obligations as persons possessing such qualifications
(1) Associazione Bancaria Italiana Ð Italian Banking Association.      in the host Member State. Where an architectural
                                                                       qualification constitutes evidence that its holder has
                                                                       received training which meets the requirements of
                                                                       Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 85/384/EEC, the principle of
                                                                       mutual recognition must apply, without the host Member
                                                                       State being entitled to call in question the quality of the
                                                                       training undergone in the Member State of origin.
                                                                       Moreover, the Community legislature, conscious of the
Action brought on 24 November 1998 by the Commission
                                                                       fact that architectural training may be more
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                       comprehensive in the host Member State, has expressly
                               Spain
                                                                       provided, in Article 16(2) of the Directive, for a
                        (Case C-421/98)                                mechanism guaranteeing adequate protection to recipients
                                                                       of architectural services, whereby the host Member State
                         (1999/C 20/33)                                may regulate the use of professional titles in such a way as
                                                                       to require a migrant architect to provide evidence of the
                                                                       title employed by him in his Member State of origin or the
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought                     Member State from which he comes. Where a migrant
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                architect is unable to show that he has undergone the