title: Case C-331/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče (Slovenia)) — Petar Kezić s.p. Trgovina Prizma v Republika Slovenija (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value-added tax — Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC — Articles 2(1) and 4(1) — Tax liability — Immovable property transactions — Sale of lands assigned to the private assets of a natural person exercising the profession of sole trader — Taxable person acting as such)

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/13

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče (Slovenia)) — Petar Kezić s.p. Trgovina Prizma v Republika Slovenija
   (Case C-331/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value-added tax - Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC - Articles 2(1) and 4(1) - Tax liability - Immovable property transactions - Sale of lands assigned to the private assets of a natural person exercising the profession of sole trader - Taxable person acting as such))
   (2015/C 294/17)
   Language of the case: Slovene

      Referring court

   Vrhovno sodišče

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Petar Kezić s.p. Trgovina Prizma

      Respondent: Republika Slovenija

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 2(1) and 4(1) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings — where a taxable person has acquired plots of land, some of which have been assigned to his private assets and others to his business and, where he has built, in his capacity as a taxable person, upon all of those plots of land, a shopping centre which was then sold together with the plots of land on which the building was erected — the sale of the plots of land which were assigned to that taxable person’s private assets must be subject to value added tax since that person, at the time of that transaction, acted as such.

      (1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 September 2004 in Case C-297/02: Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Public storage of alcohol — Aid for olive oil production — Financial years 1997, 1998 and 1999 — Decision 2002/523/EC)

text:
               20.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 284/2

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 23 September 2004
   in Case C-297/02: Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (EAGGF - Clearance of accounts - Public storage of alcohol - Aid for olive oil production - Financial years 1997, 1998 and 1999 - Decision 2002/523/EC)
   (2004/C 284/03)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-297/02: application for annulment under Article 230 EC, brought on 21 August 2002, in the proceedings between Italian Republic (Agent: I.M. Braguglia, assisted by M. Fiorilli) and Commission of the Euorpean Communities (Agent: A. Aresu) — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: A Rosas, acting as President of the Third Chamber, R. Schintgen and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 September 2004, in which it has ruled:

               1.

               The action is dismissed;

               2.

               The Italian Republic is ordered to bear the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 247, 12.10.2002.


title: Case T-167/12 P: Appeal brought on 4 April 2012 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 8 February 2012 in Case F-23/11, AY v Council

text:
               23.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/17

         Appeal brought on 4 April 2012 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 8 February 2012 in Case F-23/11, AY v Council
   (Case T-167/12 P)
   2012/C 184/31
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by M. Bauer and A.-F. Jensen, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: AY (Bousval, Belgium)

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 8 February 2012 in Case F-23/11 AY v Council;

               —

               Refer the action back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay all the costs at first instance and at appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an error of law in the reasoning given by the CST when examining the plea in law raised at first instance alleging a disregard of Articles 24a and 45(1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union in that the Council failed, in the comparative examination of the merits and, more particularly, vocational training, to take account of the success of the person concerned in the examination of the training programme provided for in the certification procedure of officials in function group AST to move to function group AD (paragraphs 23 to 32 of the judgment under appeal). The Council argues that the finding in paragraph 28 of the judgment that the certification of officials in function group AST constitutes, by definition, vocational training is incorrect in law or, at the very least, inexact.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a distortion of the facts and evidence (paragraphs 33 to 37 of the judgment under appeal), since, on the basis of the case-file, the CST had no ground to find, in paragraph 35 of the judgment under appeal that ‘the Appointing Authority took no account of the certification of officials in the comparative examination of their merits before drawing up the list of officials in grade AST 8 promoted to grade AST 9 in the 2010 promotion procedure’.


title: Case C-150/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen (Sweden) lodged on 29 March 2012 — Eva-Marie Brännström and Rune Brännström v Ryanair Holdings plc

text:
               2.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 157/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen (Sweden) lodged on 29 March 2012 — Eva-Marie Brännström and Rune Brännström v Ryanair Holdings plc
   (Case C-150/12)
   2012/C 157/06
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Högsta domstolen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Eva-Marie Brännström and Rune Brännström

      Defendant: Ryanair Holdings plc

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the carrier’s liability for damage caused by delay under Article 19 of the Montreal Convention also include cases where the passengers’ arrival at the destination is delayed as a result of non-operation of a flight? Does any importance attach to the stage at which the flight was cancelled, for example, after check-in?

               2.

               Can a technical problem with the airport, which alone or together with weather conditions makes landing impossible, constitute an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1) Can the assessment of what constitutes such a circumstance be affected by the fact that the airline was already aware of the technical problem?

               3.

               If the answer to the first question in point 2 is in the affirmative, what measures must the airline take in order to avoid the obligation to pay compensation under Article 5(3) of the regulation?

                           —

                           Can the airline be required, and if so on what conditions and to what extent, to have extra resources in the form of, for example, aircraft or crew available to operate a flight which would otherwise have had to be cancelled, or in order to be able to operate a flight in the place of a flight which has been cancelled?

                           —

                           Can an airline be required to offer passengers re-routing under Article 8(1)(b) [of the regulation]? In that case what is the obligation as regards carriage, for example, in respect of time of departure and the use of other carriers?

               4.

               If the answer to the question in point 1 is in the affirmative, is there any difference between the measures which an airline must take to avoid the obligation to pay compensation under Article 5(3) of the regulation and the measures which it must take to avoid liability for damage under Article 19 of the Montreal Convention?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).


title: Case C-229/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 14 May 2012 — Fastweb SpA v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni and Others

text:
               21.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 14 May 2012 — Fastweb SpA v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni and Others
   (Case C-229/12)
   2012/C 217/18
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Fastweb SpA

      Defendant: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni and Others

      Question referred

   Are the Community provisions in the sector, and in particular the provisions of Directive No 2002/20/EC, (1) to be interpreted as precluding the national rules referred to, in particular Law No 266 of 2005, as those provisions are actually applied by regulation included.

      (1)  Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive); OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21.


title: Case C-101/06: Action brought on  21 February 2006  by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/21

         Action brought on 21 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic
   (Case C-101/06)
   (2006/C 86/40)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the French Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by B. Stromsky, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for human use, (1) the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               declare that, in any event, by failing to inform the Commission of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for human use, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               3.

               order the French Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposing Directive 2001/20/EC expired on 30 April 2003.

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 121, p. 34.


20150731048617042015/C 270/52512013TC27020150817EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20150629424211Case T-51/13: Order of the General Court of 29 June 2015 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v EIB
 ---documentbreak--- C2702015EN4210120150629EN0052421421Order of the General Court of 29 June 2015 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v EIB
   (Case T-51/13) (
         1
      )2015/C 270/52Language of the case: GreekThe President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.
   (
         1
      )	OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.


title: Case C-542/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 27 November 2014  — SIA ‘VM Remonts’ (formerly SIA ‘DIV un Ko’ ), SIA ‘Ausma grupa’ , SIA ‘Pārtikas kompānija’ v Konkurences padome

text:
               16.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 27 November 2014 — SIA ‘VM Remonts’ (formerly SIA ‘DIV un Ko’), SIA ‘Ausma grupa’, SIA ‘Pārtikas kompānija’ v Konkurences padome
   (Case C-542/14)
   (2015/C 056/08)
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākā tiesa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: SIA ‘VM Remonts’ (formerly SIA ‘DIV un Ko’), SIA ‘Ausma grupa’, SIA ‘Pārtikas kompānija’

      Defendant: Konkurences padome

      Question referred

   Must Article 101(1) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that, in order for it to be established that an undertaking has participated in an agreement restricting competition, it must be shown that an officer of the undertaking has personally engaged in conduct or been aware of, or consented to, conduct by persons providing an external service to the undertaking and at the same time acting on behalf of other parties to a possible prohibited practice?


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 July 1999 in Case C-227/92 P: Hoechst AG v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal - Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance - Reopening of the oral procedure - Commission's Rules of Procedure - Procedure for the adoption of a decision by the College of Members of the Commission)

text:
20.11.1999            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 333/5
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       (Sixth Chamber)                                                           (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 8 July 1999
                         of 8 July 1999
                                                                        in Case C-227/92 P: Hoechst AG v Commission of the
in Case C-200/92 P: Imperial Chemical Industries plc (ICI)                                 European Communities (1)
      v Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                        (Appeal — Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance
(Appeal — Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance             — Reopening of the oral procedure — Commission’s Rules
— Reopening of the oral procedure — Commission’s Rules                  of Procedure — Procedure for the adoption of a decision by
of Procedure — Procedure for the adoption of a decision by                        the College of Members of the Commission)
         the College of Members of the Commission)
                                                                                (1999/C 333/09)
                       (1999/C 333/08)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
In Case C-200/92 P: Imperial Chemical Industries plc (ICI),                                in the European Court Reports)
whose registered office is at Millbank, London, United
Kingdom, represented by D. Vaughan QC, and D. Anderson,
Barrister, instructed by V.O. White and R.J. Coles, Solicitors,         In Case C-227/92 P: Hoechst AG, whose registered office is in
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of            Frankfurt am Main, Germany, represented by H. Hellmann,
L. Dupong, 14a Rue des Bains, supported by DSM NV, whose                Rechtsanwalt, Cologne, with an address for service in Luxem-
registered office is in Heerlen, Netherlands, represented by            bourg at the Chambers of Messrs Loesch and Wolter, 8 Rue
I.G.F. Cath, of The Hague Bar, with an address for service in           Zithe, supported by DSM NV, whose registered office is in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Dupong, 14a Rue des                    Heerlen, Netherlands, represented by I.G.F. Cath, of The Hague
Bains, appeal against the judgment of the Court of First                Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) of                 Chambers of L. Dupong, 14a Rue des Bains, appeal against the
10 March 1992 in Case T-13/89 ICI v Commission [1992]                   judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
ECR II-1021, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other         Communities (First Chamber) of 10 March 1992 in Case T-
party to the proceedings being the Commission of the                    10/89 Hoechst v Commission [1992] ECR II-629, seeking to
European Communities (Agent: J. Currall) — the Court (Sixth             have that judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings
Chamber), composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the                 being the Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
Chamber, G. Hirsch, G.F. Mancini (Rapporteur), J.L. Murray              G. zur Hausen) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General;                  P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch, G.F. Man-
H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, and D. Louterman-Hubeau,             cini (Rapporteur), J.L. Murray and H. Ragnemalm, Judges;
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment        G. Cosmas, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Regis-
on 8 July 1999, in which it:                                            trar and D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for
                                                                        the Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 July 1999, in which
                                                                        it:
1. Dismisses the appeal;
                                                                        1. Dismisses the appeal;
2. Orders Imperial Chemical Industries plc (ICI) to pay the costs;
                                                                        2. Orders Hoechst AG to pay the costs;
3. Orders DSM NV to bear its own costs.
                                                                        3. Orders DSM NV to pay its own costs.
(1) OJ C 167 of 4.7.1992.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 167 of 4.7.1992.


title: Case C-130/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 6 April 2009 — Paul Fastrez, Henriette Fastrez v Région wallonne

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 6 April 2009 — Paul Fastrez, Henriette Fastrez v Région wallonne
   (Case C-130/09)
   2009/C 153/37
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Paul Fastrez, Henriette Fastrez

      Defendant: Région wallonne

      Questions referred

               1.

               Can Article 1(5) of Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (1) be interpreted as excluding from its application legislation — such as the Decree of the Walloon Region on certain consents for which there are overriding reasons in the general interest of 17 July 2008 — which merely states that ‘overriding reasons in the general interest have been established’ for the grant of town planning consents, environmental consents and combined town planning and environmental consents relating to the acts and works listed therein and which ‘ratifies’ consents in respect of which it is stated that ‘overriding reasons in the general interest have been established’?

               2.

                           (a)

                           Do Articles 1, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10a of Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended by Council Directive No 97/11/EC (2) and Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council No 2003/35/EC, (3) preclude a legal regime in which the right to implement a project subject to an environmental impact assessment is conferred by a legislative act against which no review procedure is available before a court of law or another independent and impartial body established by law which makes it possible to challenge, both in terms of the substance and the procedure followed, the decision granting the right to implement the project?

                           (b)

                           Must Article 9 of the Aarhus Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, concluded on 25 June 1998 and approved by the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005, (4) be interpreted as requiring the Member States to provide for the possibility of seeking a review before a court of law or another independent and impartial body established by law in order to be able to challenge the legality, in relation to any issue of substance or procedure relating to the substantive or procedural rules governing the authorisation of projects subject to an impact assessment, of decisions, acts or omissions subject to the provisions of Article 6?

                           (c)

                           In the light of the Aarhus Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, concluded on 25 June 1998 and approved by the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005, must Article 10a of Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended by Directive 2003/35/EC, be interpreted as requiring the Member States to provide for the possibility of seeking a review before a court of law or another independent and impartial body established by law in order to be able to challenge the legality of decisions, acts or omissions in relation to any issue of substance or procedure relating to the substantive or procedural rules governing the authorisation of projects subject to an impact assessment?

      (1)  Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40).

      (2)  Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5).

      (3)  Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC — Statement by the Commission (OJ 2003 L 156, p. 17).

      (4)  Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005 on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters (OJ 2005 L 124, p. 1).


title: Case F-96/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 5 February 2016 –Bulté and Krempa v Commission (Civil service — Surviving dependants of a deceased former official — Pensions — Survivors’ pensions — Article 85 of the Staff Regulations — Recovery of overpayment — No due reason for the payment — Patent irregularity — None)

text:
               21.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/47

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 5 February 2016 –Bulté and Krempa v Commission
   (Case F-96/14) (1)

   ((Civil service - Surviving dependants of a deceased former official - Pensions - Survivors’ pensions - Article 85 of the Staff Regulations - Recovery of overpayment - No due reason for the payment - Patent irregularity - None))
   (2016/C 106/56)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Hilde Bulté and Tom Krempa (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J. Lombaert and A. Surny, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents, and subsequently by G. Gattinara, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision taken by the Commission retroactively revising the survivors’ pensions paid to the applicants and ordering the recovery of the excess amounts received.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 22 November 2013, as set out in the opinion of the Paymaster Office of the same day, to modify, with retroactive effect from 1 August 2010, the pensions paid to Ms Bulté and Mr Krempa in their capacity as the surviving dependants of a deceased former official and to recover the sums overpaid to them from 1 August 2010 until November 2013;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to reimburse Ms Bulté and Mr Krempa for the sums levied on their respective pensions pursuant to the decision referred to in paragraph 1 of this operative part;

               3.

               Orders each of the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 7, 12.1.2015, p. 49.


title: Case T-296/15: Action brought on 5 June 2015 — Industrias Químicas del Vallés v Commission

text:
               3.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 254/19

         Action brought on 5 June 2015 — Industrias Químicas del Vallés v Commission
   (Case T-296/15)
   (2015/C 254/22)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Industrias Químicas del Vallés, SA (Mollet del Vallès, Spain) (represented by: C. Fernández Vicién, I. Moreno-Tapia Rivas and C. Vila Gisbert, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Forms of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               disapply Regulation 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, in particular Article 24 thereof and point 4 of Annex II;

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408 of 11 March 2015, with respect to the inclusion of Metalaxyl in the list of candidates for substitution contained in the Annex, and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Implementing Regulation has been adopted on an unlawful basis, as Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market infringes EU law because:

                           —

                           it breaches the precautionary principle by providing for a mechanism for the substitution of active substances on the basis of hypothetical risks that are not objectively substantiated;

                           —

                           by adversely affecting authorised substances, it breaches the principle of proportionality in that it goes beyond what is strictly necessary to achieve the objective of a high level of protection;

                           —

                           it distorts competition in the internal market by promoting the substitution of substances in the manner in which it does; and

                           —

                           it infringes the principle that reasons must be stated, so far as concerns the criterion of ‘a significant proportion of non-active isomers’ included in Annex II, point 4, of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that Regulation (EU) No 2015/408 breaches the duty to state reasons by failing to justify the inclusion of Metalaxyl in the list of candidates for substitution on the basis of scientific and technical criteria, and it infringes the principle of non-discrimination in relation to Metalaxyl-M.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that Regulation (EU) No 2015/408 breaches the principle of proportionality in relation to the objective of reducing risks to health and the environment promoted by the European Union.


title: Case C-243/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Divisional Court), by order of that court of 23 May 2000, in the case of The Queen against Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Ex parte: Trades Union Congress

text:
12.8.2000              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 233/23
—     The Court of First Instance further failed to consider the       The applicant claims that the Court should:
      question as to where the appellant maintained his family
      residence during the relevant period.
                                                                       —      Declare that, by maintaining in force the provisions
                                                                              contained in Articles 78(2) and 120(1) of the Regulations
                                                                              on Port Authorities Registration, relating to the registra-
                                                                              tion of vessels and the right to fly the Portuguese
                                                                              flag, reserving that right to Portuguese nationals, the
                                                                              Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                              under Article 6 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court
                                                                              Article 12 EC) and Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after
of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division
                                                                              amendment, Article 43 EC);
(Divisional Court), by order of that court of 23 May 2000,
in the case of The Queen against Secretary of State for
   Trade and Industry, Ex parte: Trades Union Congress                 —      Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
                         (Case C-243/00)
                         (2000/C 233/43)                               Pleas in law and main arguments
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
                                                                       It is apparent from the wording of the abovementioned articles
Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Divisional
                                                                       of the Regulamento Geral das Capitanias (General Regulation
Court) of 23 May 2000, which was received at the Court
                                                                       of the Port Authorities — RGC) that the right to fly the
Registry on 19 June 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case
                                                                       Portuguese flag is granted only to vessels of Portuguese
of The Queen against Secretary of State for Trade and Industry,
                                                                       nationality, a conditio sine qua non for registration of those
Ex parte: Trades Union Congress, on the following question:
                                                                       same vessels. Although Article 4(1) of Decreto-Lei (decree-law)
                                                                       No 214/86 repeals ‘all statutory provisions which, directly or
‘Whether Directive 96/34/EC (1) (as extended to the United             indirectly, limit or condition the right of establishment on
Kingdom by Directive 97/75/EC) (2), and the Framework                  grounds of the nationality of the investor or undertaking
Agreement of 14 December 1995 to which it gave effect,                 concerned’, since that decree-law concerns the right of
required Member States to confer the right to parental leave in        establishment in general, it does not contain any provisions
relation to children under the specified age born or adopted           relating to the granting of the right to fly the national flag.
before the date on which the Directive was given effect in the         Furthermore, the Portuguese Republic itself acknowledges that
national law of Member States or only to children born or              the provisions of the RGC at issue is inadequate, so that it is to
adopted on or after that date.’                                        be suspended pending adoption of new legislation.
(1) Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on the framework
    agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the
    ETUC (OJ L 145, 19.06.96, p. 4).
(2) OJ L 10, 16.01.98, p. 24.
Action brought on 21 June 2000 by the Commission                       Action brought on 22 June 2000 by the Commission of
of the European Communities against the Portuguese                      the European Communities against the French Republic
                              Republic
                         (Case C-247/00)                                                        (Case C-248/00)
                         (2000/C 233/44)
                                                                                (2000/C 233/45)
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 June
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities                     An action against the French Republic was brought before the
represented by Thomas Van Rijn, Legal Adviser, and Ana                 Court of Justice on 22 June 2000 by the Commission of the
Maria Alves, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an           European Communities, represented by Gerard Berscheid, of
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos              its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service
Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,                in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
Kirchberg.                                                             Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.


title: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 October 2001 in Case C-313/00 P: Zino Davidoff SA v European Parliament and Others (Directive 98/43/EC concerning the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products — Appeal — No need to adjudicate — Costs)

text:
6.4.2002                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 84/33
3.    The Commission of the European Communities shall bear its            1.    There is no need to adjudicate on the appeal brought by Zino
      own costs.                                                                 Davidoff SA and Davidoff & Cie SA.
                                                                           2.    Zino Davidoff SA, Davidoff et Cie SA, the European Parlia-
(1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.
                                                                                ment and the Council of the European Union shall bear their
                                                                                own costs.
                                                                           3.    Lancaster BV and the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties shall bear their own costs.
                    ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                           (1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.
                         (Third Chamber)
                       of 23 October 2001
in Case C-313/00 P: Zino Davidoff SA v European
                    Parliament and Others (1)
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
(Directive 98/43/EC concerning the advertising and sponsor-
ship of tobacco products — Appeal — No need to adjudicate
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
                              — Costs)
                          (2002/C 84/54)                                                           of 13 November 2001
                   (Language of the case: German)                          in Case C-430/00 P: Anton Dürbeck GmbH v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities (1)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           (Appeals — Common organisation of the markets —
                                                                           Bananas — Importation from ACP States and third countries
                                                                           — Request for additional licences — Case of hardship —
In Case C-313/00 P: appeal by Zino Davidoff SA, established                Transitional measures — Article 30 of Regulation (EEC)
in Fribourg (Switzerland), and Davidoff & Cie SA, established              No 404/93 — Limitation of damages — Action for annul-
in Geneva (Switzerland), represented by R. Wägenbaur, Avocat,                                               ment)
against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities (Third Chamber) of 27 June 2000 in                                                (2002/C 84/55)
Joined Cases T-172/98 and T-175/98 to T-177/98 Salamander
and Others v Parliament and Council [2000] ECR II-2487,
seeking to have that judgment set aside and the claims made                                    (Language of the case: German)
by the applicants at first instance upheld, the other parties to
the proceedings being: European Parliament (Agents: C. Penn-
era and M. Berger), Council of the European Union (Agents:                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
R. Gosalbo Bono and S. Marquardt), defendants at first                                          in the European Court Reports)
instance, Lancaster BV, established in Amsterdam (Nether-
lands), represented by B. Wägenbaur, Avocat, Commission of
the European Communities (Agents: U. Wölker and I. Martı́nez
del Peral), Markenverband eV, established in Wiesbaden (Germ-              In Case P: Anton Dürbeck GmbH, established in Frankfurt-am-
any), Manifattura Lane Gaetano Marzotto & Figli SpA, estab-                Main, represented by Dr Gert Meier, Rechtsanwalt — appeal
lished in Valdagno (Italy), French Republic, Republic of Finland,          against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,                      European Communities (Fifth Chamber) of 19 September
interveners at first instance, Salamander AG, established in               2000 in Case T-252/97 Dürbeck v Commission [2000] ECR
Kornwestheim (Germany), Una Film ‘City Revue’ GmbH,                        II-3031, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other
established in Vienna (Austria), Alma Media Group Advertising              party to the proceedings being Commission of the European
SA & Co. Partnership, Panel Two and Four Advertising                       Communities (Agents: K.-D. Borchardt and C. van der
SA, Rythmos Outdoor Advertising SA and Media Center                        Hauwert), Kingdom of Spain (Agent: R. Silva de Lapuerta) and
Advertising SA, established in Athens (Greece) — the Court                 by French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and C. Vasak) —
(Third Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, acting for the                   the Court (Third Chamber), composed of C. Gulmann, acting
President of the Third Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur)              for the President of the Third Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and
and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,                  J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on                General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 13 November
23 October 2001, the operative part of which is as follows:                2001, the operative part of which is as follows:


title: Case C-459/08: Action brought on 21 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/21

         Action brought on 21 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-459/08)
   (2008/C 313/31)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and M. França, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt and publish the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/36/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications or, in any event, by failing to notify the Commission of such measures, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposing the directive expired on 20 October 2007.

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22.


title: Case F-41/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 13 June 2012 — Mocová v Commission (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract — Discretion — Article 8 of the Conditions of Employment of other Servants of the European Communities — Article 4 of the decision of the Director General of OLAF, of 30 June 2005 , on the engagement and employment of OLAF’s temporary staff — Maximum duration of contracts of a temporary agent)

text:
               28.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 227/36

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 13 June 2012 — Mocová v Commission
   (Case F-41/11) (1)

   (Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract - Discretion - Article 8 of the Conditions of Employment of other Servants of the European Communities - Article 4 of the decision of the Director General of OLAF, of 30 June 2005, on the engagement and employment of OLAF’s temporary staff - Maximum duration of contracts of a temporary agent)
   2012/C 227/59
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Dana Mocová (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by:D. Abreu Caldas, S. Orlandi, A.. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J Currall and D Martin, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of the Director General of OLAF to reject the applicant’s application to extend her contract as a member of the temporary staff for the purposes of Article 2(1) of the Conditions of Employment of other Servants of the European Communities.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 282 of 24/09/11, p. 51.


title: Case T-266/11: Order of the General Court of 31 March 2014  — El Gazaerly v Council

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/38

         Order of the General Court of 31 March 2014 — El Gazaerly v Council
   (Case T-266/11) (1)

   2014/C 184/61
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 219, 23. 7. 2011.


title: Case C-121/09: Order of the President of the Court of 24 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/44

         Order of the President of the Court of 24 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-121/09) (1)

   2010/C 63/73

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 141, 20.6.2009.


title: Case T-399/10: Order of the General Court of 7 June 2011 — Arcelor Mittal Espãna v Commission

text:
               23.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 219/21

         Order of the General Court of 7 June 2011 — Arcelor Mittal Espãna v Commission
   (Case T-399/10) (1)

   2011/C 219/34
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010


title: Case T-252/16: Order of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — Cleversafe v EUIPO (Beyond Scale)

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/62

         Order of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — Cleversafe v EUIPO (Beyond Scale)
   (Case T-252/16) (1)

   (2017/C 144/94)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 287, 8.8.2016.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamburg by order of that court of 20 December 1995 in the case of Lilli Schröder v. Deutsche Bundespost Telekom (Case C-50/96)

text:
 No C 133/ 12           EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                     4 . 5 . 96
 but leaves to the national authority the choice of form and              concerning Article 119 of the Treaty establishing the
 methods .                                                                European Community ( the 'Barber Protocol ') prevail
                                                                          over German constitutional law ( Article 3 ( 1 ) of the
Under Article 1 92 of the same Treaty, the Member States are              Grundgesetz ( Basic Law)), which specifically precludes a
to take all appropriate measures, whether general or                      prohibition of retroactivity in cases such as that
particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out           described in Question 1 ?
of the Treaty or resulting from action taken by the
 institutions of the Community . Furthermore, under the first        4 . Does the retroactivity permitted by German
paragraph of Article 33 of the Treaty, each Member State is              constitutional law pursuant to Article 3 ( 1 ) of the
to lay down the appropriate provisions , whether by                       Grundgesetz constitute , in a case such as that described
legislation, regulation or administrative action, to ensure              in Question 1 , an impermissible circumvention of the
compliance with the basic standards which have been                      prohibition of retroactivity contained in the Protocol
established and to take the necessary measures with regard               concerning Article 119 of the EC Treaty, where, by
to teaching, education and vocational training. In the                   contrast with Community law, the national law
present case , since the Directive was adopted on the basis of           applicable in comparable circumstances, which is
Article 31 of the Treaty, the principles which it lays down              also aimed at establishing equality of treatment in
are to be deemed to be basic standards within the meaning of             occupational pension schemes, operates retroactively in
Article 33 .                                                             favour of employees, in particular women who are the
                                                                         subject of indirect discrimination ?
The Commission claims that Articles 3 , 4 and 5 of the
Directive have been inadequately transposed, since various           5 . If Question 4 is to be answered in the affirmative :
draft Royal Decrees have not yet been adopted . The period               does the application of paragraph 2 ( 1 ) of the
prescribed in Article 399 of the Act of Accession of the                 Beschàftigungsfôrderungsgesetz        ( Law     for      the
Kingdom of Spain expired on 1 April 1986 .                               Promotion of Employment ) of 26 April 1985 , which
                                                                         purports to allow retroactivity up to 26 April 1985 ,
(') OJ No L 265 , 5 . 10 . 1984 , p . 1 .                                constitute an impermissible circumvention of the
                                                                         prohibition of retroactivity contained in the Protocol
                                                                         concerning Article 119 of the EC Treaty ( the 'Barber
                                                                         Protocol')?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                         6 . Does the retroactivity permitted pursuant to
Landesarbeitsgericht Hamburg by order of that court of                   Article 3 ( 1 ) of the Grundgesetz in cases such as
20 December 1995 in the case of Lilli Schroder v. Deutsche               that described in Question 1 constitute a breach
                       Bundespost Telekom                                of Community law from the standpoint of
                         ( Case C-50/96 )
                                                                         disproportionate discrimination against nationals such
                                                                         as the German undertakings affected , or in the light of
                            96/C 133/24 )                                an interpretation of national law that renders it
                                                                         consistent with the Community rules or a principle of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of                       Community law, and does Community law prevail in
the European Communities by order of the Landes                         that respect over national law ?
arbeitsgericht Hamburg ( Regional Labour Court,
Hamburg) of 20 December 1996 , which was received at the
Court Registry on 21 February 1996, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of Lilli Schroder v. Deutsche Bundespost
Telekom on the following questions :
                                                                    Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
1 . Where part-time employees working less than 18 hours            Première Instance de Namur by interim order of the
     per week are excluded by gender-neutral wording from           President of that court of 16 February 1996 in the case of
     eligibility for a supplementary pension operated within        Christelle Deliège v. Asbl Ligue Francophone de Judo et
     the framework of an occupational pension scheme, and                Disciplines Associées and Asbl Ligue Belge de Judo
     approximately 95 % of the employees affected by that                                   ( Case C-51/96 )
     exclusion are women, does that constitute indirect
     discrimination against women within the meaning of the                                   ( 96/C 133/25 )
     case-law of the Court of Justice on Article 119 of the
     EEC Treaty ?                                                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                    European Communities by an interim order of the President
2 . If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative : do         of the Tribunal de Première Instance de Namur ( Court of
     the Protocol concerning Article 119 of the Treaty              First Instance, Namur) of 16 February 1996, which was
     establishing the European Community ( the ' Barber             received at the Court Registry on 21 February 1996 , for a
     Protocol') and the prohibition of retroactivity contained      preliminary ruling in the case of Christelle Deliège v. Asbl
     therein also cover cases of indirect discrimination            Ligue Francophone de Judo et Disciplines Associées and
     against women in circumstances such as those described         Asbl Ligue Belge de Judo on the following question:
     in Question 1 ?
                                                                    Whether or not rules which require a professional or
3 . If Question 2 is to be answered in the affirmative : does       semi-professional sportsman or a person aspiring to such
     the prohibition of retroactivity contained in the Protocol     status to have been authorized or selected by his national


title: Case T-278/11: Order of the General Court of 13 November 2012 — ClientEarth and Others v European Commission (Actions for annulment — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Implied refusal of access — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Delay — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/46

         Order of the General Court of 13 November 2012 — ClientEarth and Others v European Commission
   (Case T-278/11) (1)

   (Actions for annulment - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Implied refusal of access - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Delay - Manifest inadmissibility)
   2013/C 26/90
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom); Friends of the Earth Europe (Amsterdam, Netherlands); Stichting FERN (Leiden, Netherlands); and Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory (Amsterdam) (represented by: P. Kirch, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann and C. ten Dam, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s implied decision of 22 April 2011 refusing access to certain documents relating to the voluntary certification schemes for seeking recognition from the Commission under Article 18 of Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (OJ 2009 L 140, p. 16).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               The European Commission is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs of ClientEarth, Friends of the Earth Europe, Stichting FERN and Corporate Europe Observatory, which shall bear one quarter of their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 219, 23.7.2011.


               28.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/13

         Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Fürstliches Landgericht by decision of that court of 31 January 2007 in the criminal proceedings against Sedin Poric

   (Case E-1/07)
   (2007/C 143/08)
   A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 31 January 2007 of Fürstliches Landgericht (Princely Court of Liechtenstein), which was received at the Court Registry on 7 February 2007, for an Advisory Opinion in the criminal proceedings against Sedin Poric on the following questions:

               1.

               Is a provision such as that of Article 57a of the Liechtenstein Lawyers Act [Rechtsanwaltsgesetz], according to which, in proceedings in which a party is represented by a lawyer or a defending counsel must be engaged, the European lawyer providing services must call in a local lawyer to act in conjunction with [Einvernehmensrechtsanwalt] pursuant to Article 49 of the Liechtenstein Lawyers Act, compatible with the provisions of the EEA Agreement relating to the freedom to provide services (Article 36(1) of the EEA Agreement), and in particular with Council Directive 77/249/EEC of 22 March 1977 to facilitate the effective exercise by lawyers of freedom to provide services, and specifically with the second indent of Article 5 thereof?

               2.

               In case the EFTA Court answers the first question in the negative: may a provision of national law such as that of Article 57a of the Liechtenstein Lawyers Act which fails appropriately to transpose into national law a directive adopted in pursuance of Article 7 litra b of the EEA Agreement, such as the directive mentioned in Question 1, nevertheless be applied in a State which is a Contracting Party to the EEA Agreement?


title: Case T-111/17: Action brought on 20 February 2017 — Computer Market v EUIPO (COMPUTER MARKET)

text:
               3.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/30

         Action brought on 20 February 2017 — Computer Market v EUIPO (COMPUTER MARKET)
   (Case T-111/17)
   (2017/C 213/41)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Computer Market (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: B. Dimitrova, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘COMPUTER MARKET’ — Application for registration No 14 688 477

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 December 2017 in Case R 1778/2016-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 60(1) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-55/16 P: Order of the General Court of 3 May 2017 — De Nicola v EIB (Appeal — Civil Service — EIB staff — Appraisal — Career evaluation report — Appraisal year 2009 — Errors of law — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               10.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/26

         Order of the General Court of 3 May 2017 — De Nicola v EIB
   (Case T-55/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil Service - EIB staff - Appraisal - Career evaluation report - Appraisal year 2009 - Errors of law - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded))
   (2017/C 221/36)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: G. Ferabecoli, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented by: G. Nuvoli and G. Faedo, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 18 December 2015, De Nicola v EIB (F-45/11, EU:F:2015:167) seeking to have that judgment set aside in part.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Carlo De Nicola shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Investment Bank (EIB) in the present appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.


8.3.2003               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 55/17
      Freedoms, preclude the barring of the submission of an                     Removal from the register of Case C-304/99 ( 1)
      application to participate in or a tender for a public
      contract for works, supplies or services by any person
      who has been responsible for research, testing, study or                                    (2003/C 55/31)
      development in respect of those works, supplies or
      services where that person has not been given an
      opportunity to prove that, in the circumstances of the
      case, the experience he has acquired could not distort             By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of
      competition?                                                       Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                         from the register of Case C-304/99 (Reference for a preliminary
2.    Would the answer to the preceding question be different if         ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): F. Apollonio & C. SpA v
      the abovementioned directives, considered in conjunction           Ministero delle Finanze.
      with the same principle, freedom and law, were interpret-
      ed as covering only private undertakings or undertakings
      which had supplied gratuitous services?                            (1 ) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
3.    Can Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992
      coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative
      provisions relating to the application of Community rules
      on the procurement procedures of entities operating in
      the water, energy, transport and telecommunications
      sectors (3), and in particular Articles 1 and 2 thereof, be
      interpreted as meaning that a contracting entity may
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-305/99 ( 1)
      exclude, up to the end of the process of evaluation of
      the tenders, from participation in the procedure or
      submission of a tender, an undertaking connected to any                                     (2003/C 55/32)
      person who has been responsible for the research, testing,
      study or development in respect of the works, supplies or
      services, although when questioned in that regard by the
      contracting authority that undertaking declares that it has
      gained therefrom no unfair advantage of a nature such as           By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of
      to distort the normal conditions of competition?                   Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                         from the register of Case C-305/99 (Reference for a preliminary
                                                                         ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Leglerdata SpA v Ministero
                                                                         delle Finanze.
( 1) OJ L 199 of 09.08.1993, p. 84.
( 2) OJ L 101 of 01.04.1998, p. 1.
( 3) OJ L 76 of 23.03.1992, p. 14.
                                                                         (1 ) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
        Removal from the register of Case C-303/99 ( 1)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-358/99 ( 1)
                          (2003/C 55/30)                                                          (2003/C 55/33)
By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of               By order of 19 November 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-303/99 (Reference for a preliminary          from the register of Case C-358/99 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Markfactor SpA v Ministero          ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Tecnologie Meccaniche
delle Finanze.                                                           Avanzate Srl (TMA) v Ministero delle Finanze.
( 1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.                                             (1 ) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.


title: ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 3 March 1998 in Case T-610/97 R: Hanne Norup Carlsen and Others v. Council of the European Union (Decision refusing access to certain documents - Opinion of the Legal Service - Protection of the public interest - Application for interim measures - Request that documents be released to a national court)

text:
C 137/16              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   2.5.98
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            Instance suspending the operation, in part and subject to
                      of 20 March 1998                               certain conditions, of Council Decision 97/803/EC of
                                                                     24 November 1997 amending at mid-term Decision 91/
in Case T-301/97: Pierre-Alexis Feral v. Committee of the            482/EEC on the association of the overseas countries and
                          Regions (1)                                territories with the European Economic Community (1) Ð
(Officials Ð Time limit for lodging complaint Ð Manifest             the President of the Court of First Instance made an order
                 inadmissibility of the action)                      on 2 March 1998, the operative part of which is as
                                                                     follows.
                        (98/C 137/34)
               (Language of the case: French)                        1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
In Case T-301/97: Pierre-Alexis Feral, official of the
Committee of the Regions, residing at Brussels,                      2. Costs are reserved.
represented by Georges Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at Fiduciaire
Myson SARL, 30, rue de Cessange, against Committee of                (1) OJ L 329, 29.11.1997, p. 50.
the Regions (Agents: Jordi Garcia-Petit and Denis
Waelbroeck) Ð application for the annulment of a
decision of the Committee of the Regions of 2 September
1997 refusing to grant to the applicant the daily
subsistence allowance provided for by the first paragraph
of Article 10(2)(b) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of
the European Communities Ð the Court of First Instance                              ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
(Fourth Chamber), composed of P. Lindh, President, K.                          OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Lenaerts and J. D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
made an order on 20 March 1998, the operative part of                                      of 3 March 1998
which is as follows:                                                 in Case T-610/97 R: Hanne Norup Carlsen and Others v.
                                                                                Council of the European Union
1. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
                                                                     (Decision refusing access to certain documents Ð Opinion
                                                                     of the Legal Service Ð Protection of the public interest Ð
2. Each party is to bear its own costs.
                                                                     Application for interim measures Ð Request that
                                                                              documents be released to a national court)
(1) OJ C 26, 24.1.1998.
                                                                                (98/C 137/36)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Danish)
               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
         OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              In Case T-610/97 R: Hanne Norup Carlsen, residing in
                       of 2 March 1998                               Kokkedal (Denmark), Ingeborg Fangel, residing in
                                                                     Copenhagen, Nicolas Fischer, residing in Copenhagen,
in Case T-310/97 R: Government of the Netherlands                    Jùrgen Erik Hansen, residing in Frederiksberg (Denmark),
         Antilles v. Council of the European Union                   Marianne Henriksen, residing in Karrebñksminde
(Association of the overseas countries and territories Ð             (Denmark), Ole Donbñk Jensen, residing in Copenhagen,
Decision amending at mid-term the OCT Decision Ð                     Yvonne Petersen, residing in Copenhagen, Iver Reedtz-
Interlocutory proceedings Ð Application for interim                  Thott, residing in Copenhagen, Lars Ringholm, residing in
               measures Ð Urgency Ð None)                            Ringsted (Denmark), Arne Würgler, residing in Hellerup
                                                                     (Denmark), represented by Karen Dyekjñr-Hansen and, at
                        (98/C 137/35)                                the hearing, by Katja Hùegh, of the Copenhagen Bar, with
                                                                     an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
               (Language of the case: English)                       Aloyse May, 31, Grand-rue, v. Council of the European
                                                                     Union (Agents: Jean-Claude Piris, Bjarne Hoff-Nielsen,
In Case T-310/97 R, Government of the Netherlands                    and Martin Bauer) Ð application for interim measures,
Antilles, represented by Pierre Vincent FrancËois Bos and            requesting, first, an injunction ordering the Council to
Marco Marinus Slotboom, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an                release to the Hùjesteret (Danish Supreme Court) and the
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                 parties in the case pending before that court documents
Marc Loesch, 11, rue Goethe, against Council of the                  DOK.R/2026/77 (ENV.118) (AGRI 563) and DOK.R/
European Union (Agents: Jürgen Huber and Guus                        1867/77 (JUR.95) (ENV.106) and, secondly, that the
Houttuin), supported by the Commission of the European               Hùjesteret and the parties to the proceedings be required
Communities (Agents: Thomas van Rijn and Xavier                      not to divulge, in the course of any public hearing, the
Lewis) and Italian Republic (Agents: Umberto Leanza and              tenor of the documents so released, the President of the
Francesca Quadri) Ð application for interim measures in              Court of First Instance has made an order on 3 March
the form of an order of the President of the Court of First          1998, in which he:
 ---pagebreak--- 2.5.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 137/17
1. dismisses the application for interim measures;                Communities in accordance with Article 47(1) of the EC
                                                                  Statute of the Court of Justice.
2. reserves the costs.
                                                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                  Ð annul the decision of the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities of 25 November 1997 (K (97) 3620),
              ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT                              Ð declare that the applicant's case is one of hardship
         OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                within the meaning of Article 30 of Regulation (EEC)
                      of 2 March 1998                                  No 404/93.
in Case T-24/98 R: Antonio Pernice v. Commission of the           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                  European Communities
(Temporary member of staff Ð Suspension Ð Suspension              In 1991 the applicant made investments in a banana-
        of operation Ð No need to give a decision)                ripening centre. In its view there had at that time been no
                                                                  grounds at all to suppose that the market in bananas
                        (98/C 137/37)
                                                                  might be affected by Commission intervention or other
                                                                  regulatory measures. When the proposal for the
              (Language of the case: French)                      organisation of the market in bananas was put forward all
                                                                  the applicant's investments had already been made. The
In Case T-24/98 R: Antonio Pernice, a member of the               reference years used as a basis, which have caused the
temporary staff at the Commission of the European                 applicant heavy losses, unfairly place it at a disadvantage.
Communities, represented by Ariane Tornel and Jean-NoeÈl
Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in        Furthermore, the organisation of the market has resulted
Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30, rue de                   in improper interference with the applicant's business
Cessange, against Commission of the European                      enterprise which has been set up and carried on, because a
Communities (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Julian                special sacrifice is expected of the applicant, in contrast to
Currall) Ð application for suspension of the operation of         other traders. It simultaneously follows, moreover, that the
the decision of the Commission of the European                    applicant and its shareholders and management are being
Communities of 12 November 1997 seeking to maintain               denied the right freely to choose their trade, without
the suspension imposed on the applicant pursuant to               reasons which would justify such a difference in treatment
Article 88 of the Staff Regulations and the second                being apparent.
paragraph of Article 49(1) of the conditions of
employment of other servants of the European
Communities Ð the President of the Court of First
Instance made an order on 2 March 1998, the operative
part of which is as follows:
                                                                  Action brought on 2 March 1998 by Aruba against the
1. there is no need to adjudicate on the application;                            Council of the European Union
                                                                                (Case T-36/98)
2. costs are reserved.
                                                                                (98/C 137/39)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                  An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                  brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Action brought on 3 February 1998 by Hermanek &
                                                                  Communities on 2 March 1998 by Aruba, represented by
    Rademacher GmbH against the Commission of the
                                                                  Mr P. V. F. Bos and Mr M. Slotboom, with an address for
                  European Communities
                                                                  service in Luxembourg at the Offices of Loesch & Wolter,
                       (Case T-26/98)                             11, rue Goethe.
                        (98/C 137/38)
                                                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
             (Language of the case: German)
                                                                  Ð annul Council Decision 97/803 of 24 November
An action against the Commission of the European                       1997 (1) pursuant to Articles 173 and 174 of the EC
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      Treaty,
Instance of the European Communities on 3 February
1998 by Hermanek & Rademacher GmbH, Cologne,                      or, in the alternative,
represented by, and with an address for service at the
offices of, Hubert Weber, Rechtsanwalt, 14, Zülpicher             Ð annul paragraphs 31, 32, 53 (in so far as they concern
Platz, Cologne. The application was transmitted to the                 Article 232(1), first and second indent, of Council
Registry of the Court of First Instance of the European                Decision 91/482/EEC), 54 and 55 of Article 1 of


title: Case T-228/02: Action brought on 26 July 2002 by the Organisation des Modjahedines du Peuple d'Iran (OMPI) against the Council of the European Union

text:
C 247/20               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    12.10.2002
Action brought on 26 July 2002 by the Organisation des                    In support of its claims, the applicant pleads:
Modjahedines du Peuple d’Iran (OMPI) against the Council
                     of the European Union
                                                                          —    Breach of its rights of defence in that it was not given the
                                                                               opportunity to be heard before being included in the
                         (Case T-228/02)                                       contested lists.
                         (2002/C 247/31)                                  —    In the alternative, failure to have regard to the right to
                                                                               revolt against tyranny and oppression as a superior rule
                                                                               of law. It observes in this regard that it is conducting
                   (Language of the case: French)                              legitimate resistance against the Iranian regime, while
                                                                               complying with the fundamental principles of democracy
                                                                               and of respect for human rights. Its resistance is, more-
                                                                               over, supported by the international community.
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                —    In the further alternative, breach of the principle of non-
Communities on 26 July 2002 by the Organisation des                            discrimination, both in relation to the organisations
Modjahedines du Peuple d’Iran (People’s Mujahidin of Iran)                     which are included in the list and in relation to those that
(OMPI) established in Auvers sur Oise (France), represented by                 are not, for example Al-Qaida. It points out in this regard
Jean-Pierre Spitzer, Lawyer.                                                   that, unlike almost all the organisations included in the
                                                                               list, it is not opposing a democratic regime, that it has
                                                                               never undertaken actions against civilians and that it is
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    the only resistance movement which is acting within
                                                                               Iran’s borders and defending peace in the region.
—     partially annul Council Decision 2002/460/EC of 17 June
      2002 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC)
      No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed
      against certain persons and entities with a view to
      combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2002/334/
      EC;
—     partially annul Common Position 2002/462/CFSP of
      17 June 2002 updating Common Position 2001/931/
      CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat              Action brought on 2 August 2002 by X against Com-
      terrorism and repealing Common Position 2002/340/                               mission of the European Communities
      CFSP;
—     partially annul Common Position 2002/340/CFSP of                                            (Case T-230/02)
      2 May 2002 updating Common Position 2001/931/CFSP
      on the application of specific measures to combat
      terrorism, revising the list of persons covered;                                            (2002/C 247/32)
—     declare all those legislative texts inapplicable to the
      applicant;                                                                             (Language of the case: French)
—     order the Council of the European Union to pay OMPI
      the sum of EUR 1 for harm suffered;
—     order the Council of the European Union to pay all the              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      costs.                                                              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 2 August 2002 by X, represented
                                                                          by Gilles Bounéou, lawyer.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant organisation seeks annulment of the legislative             —    order the defendant to pay EUR 75 000 by way of
texts which are the subject-matter of the present action in so                 compensation or any other amount to be determined ex
far as they expressly refer to it. The applicant states in this                aequo et bono by the Court;
regard that inclusion in the contested lists is a penalty which
causes it considerable harm, if only because it is equiparated
with terrorist organisations denounced by it.                             —    order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case T-105/99: Action brought on 28 April 1999 by the Council of European Municipalities and Regions against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 246/34                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      28.8.1999
Action brought on 24 April 1999 by Campina Melkunie                       Action brought on 28 April 1999 by the Council of
B.V. against the Commission of the European Communi-                      European Municipalities and Regions against the Com-
                                 ties                                                 mission of the European Communities
                          (Case T-100/99)                                                           (Case T-105/99)
                          (1999/C 246/69)                                                          (1999/C 246/70)
                    (Language of the Case: Dutch)                                             (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on 28 April
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          1999 by the Council of European Municipalities and Regions
European Communities on 24 April 1999 by Campina                          (‘CCRE’), an association established in Paris, represented by
Melkunie B.V., of Rosmalen (Netherlands), represented by P.               Francis Herbert, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
Glazener and G.W.A. van de Meent, of the Amsterdam Bar,                   in Luxembourg at the chambers of Katia Manhaeve, 56-58
with an address for service in Luxembourg care of Messrs Loeff
                                                                          Rue Charles Martel.
Claeys Verbeke, 58 Rue Charles Martel.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          — annul the decision of the Commission of the European
— annul the Commission Decision of 3 February 1999 on                          Communities, contained in debit note 97002489N of 15
     the clearance of the accounts presented by the Member                     February 1999, not to pay certain sums to the CCRE;
     States in respect of the expenditure for 1995 of the
     Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance              — order the Commission to pay the costs.
     and Guarantee Fund;
— order the Community to pay compensation for the damage                  Pleas in law and main arguments
     suffered by Campina Melkunie, provisionally estimated to
     amount to NLG 9 108 538;
                                                                          The applicant association, the Council of European Munici-
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                  palities and Regions, contests the decision of the Commission,
                                                                          contained in debit note 97002489N of 15 February 1999, by
                                                                          which the defendant set off the sum of EUR 195 991.00
                                                                          allegedly due to it in connection with the MED-URBS 1994,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           MED-URBS 1995 and MED-URBS MIGRATION 1995 pro-
                                                                          grammes against sums which it acknowledges owing to the
The applicant produces caseinates of a particular type which,             CCRE by virtue of:
according to the contested decision, are ineligible for Com-
munity aid on account of their being contrary to Directive                1. the following grant documents:
83/417/EEC (1) and Regulation No 2921/90 (2).
                                                                               — Regional seminars in the target 2 zones (DG XVI),
                                                                                amounting to EUR 39 447.39;
It maintains that the connection which the Commission
purports to establish between the two legislative acts referred                — Declaration B4-3040/98/208/jnb/d3 (DG XI), amount-
to above cannot be reconciled with their different legal bases,                    ing to EUR 82 800.00;
and effectively amounts to giving direct effect to the provisions
of the directive, to the detriment of individuals. It further             2. the subsidy allocated to the CCRE by the European
pleads breach of the principles of the protection of legitimate
                                                                               Parliament, entitled ‘Subvention Programme 1998’ (Gen-
expectations and of legal certainty, inasmuch as the Com-
                                                                               eral Secretariat), amounting to EUR 50 000.00; and
mission did not make its position in the matter known in
advance, together with breach of the duty to provide a
statement of reasons.                                                     3. agreement SC 98 101185 05D05 (DG V), amounting to
                                                                               EUR 23 743.61 (out of a total of EUR 31 405.08).
(1) Council Directive 83/417/EEC of 25 July 1983 on the approxi-          In support of its claims, the applicant association argues, first,
    mation of the laws of the Member States relating to certain           that the contested decision must be annulled on the ground
    lactoproteins (caseins and caseinates) intended for human con-        that it lacks any legal basis for refusal to pay the Community
    sumption (OJ 1983 L 237, p. 25).                                      contributions referred to in it. The applicant maintains in that
(2) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2921/90 of 10 October 1990             connection that the existence of any debts which may be due
    on aid for the production of casein and caseinates from skimmed       to the Commission from the applicant in the context of the
    milk (OJ 1990 L 279, p. 22).                                          MED programmes cannot constitute a permissible ground for
                                                                          suspending payment of the subsidies in issue. In the applicant’s
                                                                          view, there exists no general rule on which the Commission
                                                                          can base its decision. At all events, it is not permissible for the
 ---pagebreak--- 28.8.1999              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 246/35
Commission to offset against debts owed by it, arising from             The applicant argues that the aforementioned Article 115 and
non-contractual prescriptive obligations, contractual debts due         Rule 1(1)(j) are invalid and lack binding force because they
to it which are governed by the laws of a Member State — in             infringe Article 12 EC (ex Article 6) and Article 1 of Council
this case, Belgium — to which the MED-URBS contracts refer.             Regulation No 1 (2). While the Community trade mark may be
                                                                        lodged in the Dutch language, one of the five working
The applicant also pleads breaches of the principles of legal           languages of the Office must be used during the subsequent
certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations, and         procedure and in opposition proceedings. This rule on
of the obligation to provide a statement of reasons for                 languages places the applicant at a disadvantage vis-à-vis trade
measures adopted.                                                       mark agents from Member States whose languages feature
                                                                        among the official working languages of the Office.
                                                                        (1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December
                                                                            1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the
                                                                            Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).
                                                                        (2) Council Regulation of 15 April 1958 determining the languages
                                                                            to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ, English
Action brought on 19 May 1999 by C. Kik against the                         Special Edition 1952-1958, p. 59).
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade
                       marks and designs)
                        (Case T-120/99)
                        (1999/C 246/71)
                                                                        Action brought on 21 May 1999 by Enrique Gutiérrez de
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)                            Quijano y Llorens against the European Parliament
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                   (Case T-125/99)
Market (trade marks and designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 19                                        (1999/C 246/72)
May 1999 by C. Kik, trade mark agent, The Hague, represented
by G.L. Kooy, of the Bar of The Hague, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of N. Decker, 16                                     (Language of the case: Spanish)
Avenue Marie-Thérèse.
                                                                        An action against the European Parliament was brought before
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                        21 May 1999 by Enrique Gutiérrez de Quijano y Llorens,
1. declare her application to be well founded;                          represented by Juan Ramón Iturriagagoitia, with an address for
                                                                        service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Stephan Le Goueff,
2. annul, or review, the decision of the Board of Appeal,               9 Avenue Guillaume, 1651 Luxembourg.
     Third Chamber, rejecting her application for registration
     of the (Community) trade mark KIK and, ruling afresh,
     annul the decision taken by the Office on 19 March 1999;           The applicant claims that the Court should:
3. in the alternative, rule that all formal requirements were           — partially annul Notice of Open Competition PE/215/LA of
     satisfied with regard to the application for registration of            the General Secretariat of the European Parliament — as
     the trade mark KIK;                                                     regards ‘option 2’ — published in Official Journal of the
                                                                             European Communities No C-53 A of 24 February 1999;
4. in the further alternative, rule that the applicant is not
     obliged to submit only one of the Office’s official working        — order the European Parliament to pay the costs.
     languages as a second language;
5. order the Office to pay the costs of the proceedings.                Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        The applicant, an official of the Court of Justice and a former
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         official of the European Parliament, contests Notice of Open
                                                                        Competition PE/215/LA in that, in one of its options, that
The applicant’s application for registration of the trade mark          notice provides for the drawing up of a reserve list of
KIK for ‘providing advice on situations of unfair competition           Spanish-language interpreters. It must be remembered in this
on the European Community market (Class 42)’ was submitted              connection that, by judgment of 22 May 1996 (1), upheld on
in the Dutch language. Dutch was also indicated as the second           appeal by judgment of the Court of Justice of 19 November
language. The application was rejected on the ground that it            1998 (2), the Court of First Instance annulled the decision of
failed to comply with Rule 1(1)(j) of Regulation No 2868/95 (1)         the defendant institution rejecting the applicant’s complaint
and Article 115(3) of Regulation No 40/94 with regard to the            against the rejection of his candidature for the post advertised
second language. The Board of Appeal confirmed the decision             in Notice PE/LA91 for the recruitment by transfer of a
of the examiner.                                                        Spanish-language interpreter.