title: Case C-224/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 20 April 2016 — Asotsiatsiya na balgarskite predpriyatiya za mezhdunarodni prevozi i patishtata (AEBTRI) v Nachalnik na Mitinitsa Burgas (Director of the Burgas customs office) as successor to the Svilengrad customs office

text:
               4.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/22

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 20 April 2016 — Asotsiatsiya na balgarskite predpriyatiya za mezhdunarodni prevozi i patishtata (AEBTRI) v Nachalnik na Mitinitsa Burgas (Director of the Burgas customs office) as successor to the Svilengrad customs office
   (Case C-224/16)
   (2016/C 243/23)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Varhoven administrativen sad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant on a point of law: Asotsiatsiya na balgarskite predpriyatiya za mezhdunarodni prevozi i patishtata (AEBTRI)

      Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Nachalnik na Mitinitsa Burgas (Director of the Burgas customs office) as successor to the Svilengrad customs office

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the Court of Justice have jurisdiction, with a view to forestalling divergent judgments, to interpret, in a manner binding on the courts of the Member States, the TIR Convention, approved on behalf of the European Economic Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2112/78 of 25 July 1978 (1) concerning the conclusion of the Customs Convention on the international transport of goods under cover of TIR carnets (TIR Convention) of 14 November 1975 at Geneva (OJ 1978 L 252, p. 1, in force in the Community as from 20 June 1983), in so far as concerns the scope of Articles 8 and 11 of that convention, with regard to the assessment of liability of a guaranteeing association, also referred to in Article 457(2) of the regulation implementing the Community Customs Code (CCIP)? (2)

               2.

               Does the interpretation of Article 457(2) of the CCIP, in conjunction with Article 8(7) (now Article 11(2)) of the TIR Convention and the explanatory notes thereto, allow for a finding that, in a situation such as that in the present case, where the debts referred to in Article 8(1) and (2) of the [TIR Convention] become due, the customs authorities have required payment thereof so far as possible from the holder of the TIR carnet, who is directly liable for those sums, before bringing a claim against the guaranteeing association?

               3.

               Must the recipient, who acquired or held an item known to have been conveyed under cover of a TIR carnet, where it was not established that that item was submitted and declared before the customs office of destination, be considered to be, on account of those circumstances alone, a person who should have been aware that that item had been removed from customs supervision, and to be recognised as jointly and severally liable within the meaning of the third indent of Article 203(3), in conjunction with Article 213, of the Community Customs Code?

               4.

               If the answer to the third question is in the affirmative, does the customs administration’s failure to require payment of the customs debt from the recipient preclude the liability under Article 457(2) of the CCIP of the guaranteeing association, pursuant to Article 1(16) of the [TIR Convention]?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2112/78 of 25 July 1978 concerning the conclusion of the Customs Convention on the international transport of goods under cover of TIR carnets (TIR Convention) of 14 November 1975 at Geneva (OJ 1978 L 252, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1).


title: Case T-407/13: Action brought on 30 July 2013 — Al Assad v Council

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/56

         Action brought on 30 July 2013 — Al Assad v Council
   (Case T-407/13)
   2013/C 344/101
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Bouchra Al Assad (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: G. Karouni and C. Dumont, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul:

                           —

                           Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria in so far as it concerns Ms Bouchra (known as Bushra) Al Assad;

                           —

                           Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 363/2013 of 22 April 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, corrected on 9 May 2013 in so far as it concerns Ms Bouchra (known as Bushra) Al Assad;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs in accordance with Articles 87 and 91 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to the first, second, third, fifth, sixth and seventh pleas in law relied on in Case T-383/11 Makhlouf v Council.
       (1)

      (1)  OJ 2011 C 282, p.30.


title: Case C-425/14: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 22 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Giustizia amministrativa per la Regione Siciliana — Italy) — Impresa Edilux Srl, as the representative of a temporary joint venture, Società Italiana Costruzioni e Forniture Srl (SICEF) v Assessorato Beni Culturali e Identità Siciliana — Servizio Soprintendenza Provincia di Trapani, Assessorato ai Beni Culturali e dell’Identità Siciliana, UREGA — Sezione provinciale di Trapani, Assessorato delle Infrastrutture e della Mobilità della Regione Siciliana (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2004/18/EC — Grounds for exclusion from participation in a tendering procedure — Contract falling below the threshold of application of that directive — Fundamental rules of the FEU Treaty — Declaration of acceptance of a legality protocol on combating criminal activity — Exclusion for failure to lodge such a declaration — Whether permissible — Proportionality)

text:
               14.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 414/9

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 22 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Giustizia amministrativa per la Regione Siciliana — Italy) — Impresa Edilux Srl, as the representative of a temporary joint venture, Società Italiana Costruzioni e Forniture Srl (SICEF) v Assessorato Beni Culturali e Identità Siciliana — Servizio Soprintendenza Provincia di Trapani, Assessorato ai Beni Culturali e dell’Identità Siciliana, UREGA — Sezione provinciale di Trapani, Assessorato delle Infrastrutture e della Mobilità della Regione Siciliana
   (Case C-425/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2004/18/EC - Grounds for exclusion from participation in a tendering procedure - Contract falling below the threshold of application of that directive - Fundamental rules of the FEU Treaty - Declaration of acceptance of a legality protocol on combating criminal activity - Exclusion for failure to lodge such a declaration - Whether permissible - Proportionality))
   (2015/C 414/12)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Giustizia amministrativa per la Regione Siciliana

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Impresa Edilux Srl, as the representative of a temporary joint venture, Società Italiana Costruzioni e Forniture Srl (SICEF)

      Defendants: Assessorato Beni Culturali e Identità Siciliana — Servizio Soprintendenza Provincia di Trapani, Assessorato ai Beni Culturali e dell’Identità Siciliana, UREGA — Sezione provinciale di Trapani, Assessorato delle Infrastrutture e della Mobilità della Regione Siciliana

      Other party to the main proceedings: Icogen Srl

      Operative part of the judgment

   The fundamental rules and general principles of the FEU Treaty, in particular the principles of equal treatment and of non-discrimination and the consequent obligation of transparency, must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national law under which a contracting authority may provide that a candidate or tenderer be automatically excluded from a tendering procedure relating to a public contract for not having lodged, with its tender, a written acceptance of the commitments and declarations contained in a legality protocol, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the purpose of which is to prevent organised crime from infiltrating the public procurement sector. However, inasmuch as that protocol contains declarations that the candidate or tenderer is not in a relationship of control or of association with other candidates or tenderers, has not concluded and will not conclude any agreement with other participants in the tendering procedure and will not subcontract any type of tasks to other undertakings participating in that procedure, the lack of such declarations is not to lead to the automatic exclusion of the candidate or tenderer from that procedure.

      (1)  OJ C 431, 1.12.2014.


title: Case T-483/08: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2009 — Giordano Enterprises v OHIM — Dias Magalhães & Filhos (GIORDANO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark GIORDANO — Earlier national word mark GIORDANO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Partial refusal of registration — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/36

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2009 — Giordano Enterprises v OHIM — Dias Magalhães & Filhos (GIORDANO)
   (Case T-483/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark GIORDANO - Earlier national word mark GIORDANO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Partial refusal of registration - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2010/C 37/48
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Giordano Enterprises Ltd (F.T. Labuan, Malaysia) (represented by: M. Nentwig, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Montguiral, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: José Dias Magalhães & Filhos Lda (Arrifana Vfr, Portugal) (represented by: J.M. João, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 July 2008 (Case R 1864/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between José Dias Magalhães & Filhos Lda and Giordano Enterprises Ltd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Giordano Enterprises Ltd. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs).

      (1)  OJ C 19, 24.1.2009.


title: Case C-564/07: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 49 EC — Freedom to provide services — Patent lawyers — Obligation to take out professional indemnity insurance — Obligation to appoint an approved agent in the Member State in which the services are to be performed)

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/10

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-564/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 49 EC - Freedom to provide services - Patent lawyers - Obligation to take out professional indemnity insurance - Obligation to appoint an approved agent in the Member State in which the services are to be performed)
   2009/C 180/16
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Traversa and H. Krämer, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: E. Riedl and G. Kunnert, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 49 EC — Requirements imposed by national legislation on patent lawyers lawfully established in other Member States in relation to the performance of services, on a temporary basis, in the Member State concerned — Obligation to enrol in the national register, to hold for those purposes professional indemnity insurance, to agree to be bound by all the national disciplinary rules other than those related to professional qualifications and to act in cooperation with a local agent

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by obliging patent lawyers lawfully established in another Member State who wish temporarily to perform services in Austria to appoint an approved agent resident in Austria, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 79, 29.03.2008.


title: Case T-433/17: Action brought on 12 July 2017 — Dehousse v Court of Justice of the European Union

text:
               11.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/32

         Action brought on 12 July 2017 — Dehousse v Court of Justice of the European Union
   (Case T-433/17)
   (2017/C 300/40)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Franklin Dehousse (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

      Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the present action both admissible and well founded;

         and, consequently,

               —

               annul the decision of 18 May 2017 whereby the defendant rejected the confirmatory application for access to documents submitted by the applicant on 12 April 2017, and the decision of 22 May 2017 whereby the defendant partially rejected the confirmatory application for access to documents submitted by the applicant on 16 March 2017;

               —

               acknowledge the defendant’s liability under Article 340 TFEU;

               —

               order the defendant to pay compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant, assessed ex aequo et bono at ten thousand (10 000) euros, and, in the alternative, one symbolic euro;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs in their entirety.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law in relation to his claim for annulment and a single plea in law in relation to his claim for damages.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the Decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 11 October 2016 concerning public access to documents held by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the exercise of its administrative functions (OJ 2016 C 445, p. 3), Article 15(3) TFEU and Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in relation to public access to documents of the institutions and the duty of transparency. In particular, the applicant submits that the contested decisions must be annulled in so far as they refuse to provide certain documents, and provide others either in an incomplete manner or with numerous redactions.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter, in that the contested decisions are vitiated by a failure to provide a statement of reasons or by an insufficient statement of reasons.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality.

         Concerning the non-contractual liability of the European Union, the applicant submits that the defendant institution engaged in misconduct giving rise to liability. That misconduct caused the applicant serious non-material damage in respect of which he is seeking compensation.


title: Case T-389/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 18 February 2008 — Earth Products v OHIM — Meynard Designs (EARTH) (Community trade mark — Refusal of registration — Withdrawal of the application for registration — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/37

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 18 February 2008 — Earth Products v OHIM — Meynard Designs (EARTH)
   (Case T-389/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Refusal of registration - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to adjudicate)
   (2008/C 171/70)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Earth Products Inc. (Carlsbad, United States) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Meynard Designs Inc. (Waltham, United States) (represented by: E. Cornu and E. De Gryse, lawyers)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 August 2007 (Case R 1590/2006-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Meynard Designs Inc. and Earth Products Inc.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               Each party is ordered to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 297, 8.12.2007.


title: Case T-285/11: Action brought on 6 June 2011 — Gooré v Council

text:
               13.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/21

         Action brought on 6 June 2011 — Gooré v Council
   (Case T-285/11)
   2011/C 238/38
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Charles Kader Gooré (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire) (represented by: F.L. Meynot, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul in part Council Regulation (EU) No 330/2011 of 6 April 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire, as regards the inclusion of the name of Mr Charles Kader Gooré in the list in Annex II thereto (and declare that it is inapplicable to him);

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay damages to Mr Charles Kader Gooré in the amount of fifty thousand euros (EUR 50 000) by way of compensation for the harm suffered;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant puts forward two pleas in law in support of his action:

               1.

               The first plea in law alleges infringement of essential procedural requirements. The applicant criticises the Council of the European Union, first, of failing to provide a statement of reasons and, second, of infringing the principle of proportionality, in that the restrictive measures go beyond what is necessary for achieving the objectives pursued by the Council of the European Union.

               2.

               The second plea in law alleges infringement of the treaties. The applicant criticises the Council of the European Union, first, of infringing the rights of the defence in that all of the evidence in support of a measure were never communicated to the applicant and, second, of infringing the right to property.


title: Case C-318/06: Order of the President of the Court of 13 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/26

         Order of the President of the Court of 13 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-318/06) (1)

   (2006/C 331/59)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.


title: Case C-104/05 P: Appeal brought on 2 March 2005 (faxed on 28 February 2005) by El Corte Inglés against the judgment delivered on 13 December 2004 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-8/03 between El Corte Inglés SA and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)

text:
               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/10

         Appeal brought on 2 March 2005 (faxed on 28 February 2005) by El Corte Inglés against the judgment delivered on 13 December 2004 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-8/03 between El Corte Inglés SA and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)
   (Case C-104/05 P)
   (2005/C 115/20)
   Language of the case: Italian
   On 2 March 2005 El Corte Inglés SA, represented by J. L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer, brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities an appeal against the judgment delivered on 13 December 2004 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-8/03 El Corte Inglés SA and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)
   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 December 2004 notified to the appellant on 20 December 2004 in Case T-8/03 dismissing the action brought by the appellant and ordering it to pay the costs;

               2.

               uphold the action brought before the Court of First Instance seeking to establish:

                           (a)

                           annulment of the decision of 3 October 2002 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM (Joined Cases 700/2000-4 and 746/2000-4) in so far as it allows the appellant's appeal in part, dismisses the respondent's appeal and allows Community mark 203570 to be granted in respect of goods in Classes 18 and 24;

                           (b)

                           refusal of registration of Community trade mark 203570 ‘Emilio Pucci’ in respect of all the goods in Class 18: ‘Leather and imitations of leather, and goods made of these materials and not included in other classes; animal skins, hides; trunks and travelling bags; umbrellas, parasols and walking sticks; whips, harness and saddlery’ and of Class 24: ‘Textiles and textile goods, not included in other classes; bed and table covers’; the only classes in respect of which registration was allowed by OHIM;

                           (c)

                           Liability on the part of the respondent and the intervener to pay the costs in regard both to the present proceedings and to the proceedings at first instance.

         Pleas and main arguments
   Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 given the similarity in this case between the products of the earlier marks and the products designated in the application;
   The judgment under appeal refers to general and abstract criteria on the absence of similarity between the products, whereas the present case constitutes an exception;
   The complementarity between the products in Classes 18 and 25 affirmed by the intervener itself in its pleading was not taken into consideration by the judgment, whereas that complementarity confirms the judicial criterion according to which the classes in the nomenclature are merely administrative criteria.
   The criterion of the consuming public is a matter for consideration at the time when the application is dealt with. To that end the ‘relevant factors’ relied on in the judgment under appeal which generally characterise similarity between products are not absolute requirements in dealing with the scope of protection of two opposing marks.
   The judgment appealed against centres the comparison on deductive and abstract criteria of a mechanistic nature without assessing the common denominator of the concept of fashion in its manifold aspects.
   The consuming public (average consumer) is the first and last reference point to be taken into consideration in conflicts of marks for the purposes of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94.
   Since similarity of signs and products gives rise to a likelihood of confusion the prohibition under Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 should be applied.
   The evidence adduced by the applicant attests the fact that the mark ‘Emidio Tucci’ is well known, thus rendering Article 8(5) of Regulation No 40/94 applicable.
   The judgment of the Court of First Instance does not adequately assess the reputation of the mark from 1994 or prior to 1996.
   In the final analysis, a part of the Emidio Tucci clientele could be misled by the mark ‘Emilio Pucci’, bringing about an unwarranted advantage in favour of the latter mark to the detriment of the former mark and its exclusive sphere of distinctiveness.


title: Case T-87/99: Action brought on 13 April 1999 by Michel Hendrickx against CEDEFOP

text:
C 174/12              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     19.6.1999
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicants claim to be affected by some provisions of the            — annul the Commission’s decision of 5 January 1999
United Kingdom VAT Act 1994, which were adopted on the                        rejecting his complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff
basis of an enabling power under Article 4(4) of Council                      Regulations against the Commission’s refusal of authoris-
Directive 77/388/EEC, as amended (the Sixth VAT Directive),                   ation to publish a detailed transcript of the lecture which
which provides inter alia that ‘each Member State may treat as                he had been authorised to give in Cordoba on 30 October
a single taxable person persons established in the territory of               1997 on the subject of ‘The need for economic fine-tuning
the country who, while legally independent, are closely bound                 at the local and regional level in the Monetary Union of
to one another by financial, economic and organisational                      the European Union’;
links’. No Member State may, however, rely on this power
unconditionally because Article 4(4) states clearly that its use         — declare his claim for authorisation to publish the transcript
is ‘subject to the consultations provided for in Article 29’.                 of his lecture admissible and well-founded;
Article 29 of the Sixth VAT Directive establishes the ‘Advisory
Committee on VAT’.
                                                                         — order the Commission to pay the costs.
The applicants are of the view that if the United Kingdom did
not consult the Committee as required or, if no direct evidence
in the form of a probative contemporaneous report of                     Pleas in law and main arguments
consultation can be adduced, then the abovementioned pro-
visions of United Kingdom law are invalid on the ground of
breach of an essential procedural requirement and cannot be              The applicant states that he personally participated in a
applied as against the applicant.                                        seminar, at which he gave a lecture, having requested and
                                                                         obtained the authorisation of his superiors at the Commission
The applicants did ask the United Kingdom authorities for                on the strength of a résurmé and an outline of the main points
details of the consultations, but the request was declined on            he was going to raise in his presentation. Subsequently, the
the grounds that the relevant details were not in the public             organisers of the seminar asked him to supply a detailed text
domain. The applicants consequently lodged an application                of his lecture for an inclusion in a publication they intended
with the defendant. The defendant did not reply to the                   to issue. The applicant’s application under Article 17(2) of the
application for access within one month of the application               Staff Regulations for leave to publish the text in question was
being made or within one month to the application for review.            refused by the Commission on the grounds that, first, it risked
                                                                         compromising the interests of the institution by reducing its
The applicants submit that, by failing to reply within one               room for manoeuvre, and, secondly, there were significant
month of the application for review, the defendant was deemed            differences between the résumé of the lecture (which had been
to have refused the application by virtue of Article 2(4) of the         the basis of the authorisation to deliver it) and the text in
Access Decision. That refusal is unlawful per se and also                question.
because it is not accompanied by a statement of reasons and
therefore infringes Article 190 EC, which is a mandatory                 The applicant challenges that statement of reasons, arguing
provision. The time-limit of one month for each of the                   that, in denying him the right to publish his article, the
abovementioned applications imposes a necessary discipline,              Commission committed an obvious error of assessment and a
designed to protect the rights of persons such as the applicants         misuse of powers, and infringed the principle of the protection
who seek access to documents against prevarication, by                   of legitimate expectations and duty to have due regard for the
requiring the Commission to do everything necessary —                    welfare of officials.
including the conduct of internal consultations and the
obtaining of all necessary consents — within the time-limit,
and must be regarded as mandatory and binding in all respects.
Action brought on 12 April 1999 by Michael Cwik against                  Action brought on 13 April 1999 by Michel Hendrickx
       the Commission of the European Communities                                                against CEDEFOP
                         (Case T-82/99)
                                                                                (Case T-87/99)
                        (1999/C 174/24)
                                                                                (1999/C 174/25)
                   (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                                    (Language of the case: French)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 12 April 1999 by Michael Cwik,
residing at Tervuren (Belgium), represented by Nicholas Lhöest,          An action against the European Centre for the Development
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg           of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP) was brought before the
at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.             Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
 ---pagebreak--- 19.6.1999              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 174/13
13 April 1999 by Michel Hendrickx, residing at Ambelokipon,             Action brought on 15 April 1999 by Salzgitter AG against
Greece, represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Françoise Parmentier                   the Commission of the European Communities
and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL,
30 Rue de Cessange, L-1320 Luxembourg.                                                            (Case T-90/99)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (1999/C 174/26)
— annul CEDEFOP’s decision of 3 June 1998 rejecting the
     applicant’s application for the post of ‘Head of General
     Support Services (Administration)’;
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
— annul CEDEFOP’s decision not to give consideration to his
     application for the post of ‘Head of Administration’;
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
— annul the decision not to extend his contract as a member             ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
     of the temporary staff beyond 30 June 1998;                        European Communities on 15 April 1999 by Salzgitter AG,
                                                                        of Salzgitter, Germany, represented by Jochim Sedemund,
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                                 Rechtsanwalt, of Deringer Tessin Herrmann & Sedemund, with
                                                                        an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                        Aloyse May, 31 Grand Rue.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant, a Council official, was seconded to CEDEFOP in
order to occupy a post as a member of its temporary staff. By
note of 12 December 1997, the applicant applied to the                  1. annul the Commission decision of 3 March 1999 (reference
Director of CEDEFOP for renewal of his contract until at least              SG (99) D/1542, procedure C 10/99/ex NN 55/98-
30 June 1998.                                                               Germany);
On 2 April 1998 CEDEFOP published an internal notice of                 2. order the Commission to pay the costs.
vacancy concerning the post of ‘Head of General Support
Services (Administration)’. On the same date, it also published
an internal notice of vacancy with regard to the post of ‘Head
of Administration’. The applicant applied for each of the               Pleas in law and main arguments
vacant posts.
                                                                        In the contested decision the Commission initiated a procedure
By note of 3 June 1998, the Director of CEDEFOP informed                for examining aid under Article 6(5) of the ‘Sixth Steel Aid
the applicant that he had decided to regard the applicant as            Code’ (1).
unsuitable for the post of ‘Head of General Support Services’
within the administration, and not to take into consideration
his internal application for the post of ‘Head of Adminis-              In the applicant’s view, the Commission concludes in its
tration’, or to extend his contract beyond 30 June 1998.                reasoning that tax write-offs and the possibility of creating
                                                                        reserves under the German Zonenrandförderungsgesetz (Law
The applicant maintains that the vacancy notices are illegal,           on the Promotion of Zone Boundary Areas) (2), taken advantage
inasmuch as they do not state the precise level of the post to          of by various companies in the applicant’s group, were
be filled or the nature of the tasks to be performed and                subsidies which constituted impermissible State aid. The
the qualifications required. According to the applicant, the            Commission therefore, in the applicant’s view, decides that
rejection of his applications for the posts in question is vitiated     proof has been provided of the grant of impermissible and
by a manifest error of assessment, inasmuch as that rejection           incompatible aid by the authorities to Salzgitter/Preussag Stahl
is based not on the decision of the Selection Committee but             and to the subsidiary companies in the ECSC sector of the
solely on the dissenting minority view of its President.                group.
Moreover, the decision not to give consideration to the
applicant’s application for the post of ‘Head of Administration’
is vitiated not only by a manifest error of assessment but also         The applicant complains of incorrect interpretation of
by misuse of powers and an abuse of procedure. Those                    Articles 4(c) and 67(1) of the ECSC Treaty: The purpose of the
decisions were adopted in flagrant breach of the principles of          Zonenrandförderungsgesetz was partial economic compen-
equal treatment and of non-discrimination.                              sation for the massive locational disadvantages resulting from
                                                                        the former situation along the border with the GDR and the
The applicant claims that the decision not to renew his                 CSSR. The law applied without exception to all Community
contract as a temporary agent beyond 30 June 1998 is a direct           undertakings with plants in that region. The factor of specific
consequence of those two decisions, the illegality of which,            preferential treatment of an undertaking, essential for the
according to him, renders unlawful the subsequent decision              definition of aid, is therefore lacking. Those provisions merely
not to renew his contract as a temporary agent.                         allowed the undertakings concerned a temporary post-
                                                                        ponement of the date of taxation, and never, as the Com-
                                                                        mission wrongly asserts, led to a transfer of State resources.
                                                                        Even the basic conditions for aid are thus absent.


title: Case T-713/13: Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2015  — 9Flats v OHIM — Tibesoca (9flats.com) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark 9flats.com — Earlier national figurative mark 50flats — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               13.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2015 — 9Flats v OHIM — Tibesoca (9flats.com)
   (Case T-713/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark 9flats.com - Earlier national figurative mark 50flats - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 118/36)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: 9Flats GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: H. Stoffregen, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially A. Pohlmann, then S. Hanne, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Tibesoca, SL (Valencia, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 October 2013 (Case R 1671/2012-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Tibesoca, SL and 9Flats GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders 9Flats GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 October 2002 in Case C-82/01 P: Aéroports de Paris v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Competition — Air transport — Airport management — Abuse of dominant position — Discriminatory fees)

text:
C 323/20                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        21.12.2002
Article 40 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2392/89 of 24 July                1.    Dismisses the appeal;
1989 laying down general rules for the description and presentation
of wines and grape musts, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC)            2.    Orders Aéroports de Paris to pay the costs.
No 3897/91 of 16 December 1991, is to be interpreted as not
prohibiting the use of a trade mark which contains a geographical           (1 ) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.
reference and is intended for use in connection with the sale of wine
and is likely to give the false impression that the geographical
reference is protected, unless there is a real risk that use of such a
mark will mislead consumers and, as a result, alter their economic
behaviour. It is a matter for the national court to determine whether
or not that is the case.                                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
( 1) OJ C 108 of 7.4.2001.
                                                                                of 24 October 2002
                                                                            in Case C-99/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                            the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Gottfried Linhart v Hans
                                                                                Biffl ( 1)
                                                                            (Approximation of laws — Articles 30 and 36 of the EC
                                                                            Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC and 30 EC)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                            — Directive 76/768/EEC relating to cosmetic products —
                                                                            Directive 84/450/EEC concerning misleading advertising —
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                   National legislation laying down restrictions on advertising)
                                                                                (2002/C 323/26)
                         of 24 October 2002
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
in Case C-82/01 P: Aéroports de Paris v Commission of
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                  the European Communities (1)
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Appeal — Competition — Air transport — Airport man-
agement — Abuse of dominant position — Discriminatory                       In Case C-99/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
                                 fees)                                      by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary
                                                                            ruling in the proceedings pending before that court against
                                                                            Gottfried Linhart and Hans Biffl, on the interpretation of
                           (2002/C 323/25)                                  Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
                                                                            Articles 28 EC and 30 EC) and Council Directive 76/768/EEC
                                                                            of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the
                     (Language of the case: French)                         Member States relating to cosmetic products (OJ 1976 L 262,
                                                                            p. 169), as amended by Council Directive 93/35/EEC of
                                                                            14 June 1993 (OJ 1993 L 151, p. 32), and Council Directive
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                            84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 relating to the approxi-
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            mation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
                                                                            of the Member States concerning misleading advertising (OJ
                                                                            1984 L 250, p. 17), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
                                                                            J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen,
In Case C-82/01 P, Aéroports de Paris (Agent: H. Calvet):                   V. Skouris, F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur),
Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of               Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
the European Communities (Third Chamber) of 12 December                     has given a judgment on 24 October 2002, in which it has
2000 in Case T-128/98 Aéroports de Paris v Commission                       ruled:
[2000] ECR II-3929, seeking to have that judgment set aside,
the other parties to the proceedings being: Commission of the               1.    Article 6(3) of Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July
European Communities (Agent: L. Pignataro, assisted by                            1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States
B. Geneste) and Alpha Flight Services SAS (Agents: L. Marville                    relating to cosmetic products, as amended by Council Directive
and A. Denants), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:                          93/35/EEC of 14 June 1993, precludes national legislation
C. Gulmann, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber,                        which prohibits reference to expert medical opinions in the
V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues                       marketing of cosmetic products — in particular, the use of the
(Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass,                      statement ‘dermatologically tested’ — if that reference does not
Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 October 2002, in which                      include information relating to the contents and outcome of
it:                                                                               those assessments.


title: Case C-489/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Gent (Belgium) lodged on 30 November 2009 — Vandoorne NV v Belgische Staat

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/21

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Gent (Belgium) lodged on 30 November 2009 — Vandoorne NV v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-489/09)
   2010/C 37/23
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van Beroep te Gent

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Vandoorne NV

      Respondent: Belgische Staat

      Question referred

   Is Belgian law, in particular Article 58(1), in conjunction with Article 77(1)(7), of the Value Added Tax Code (Wetboek van de belasting over de toegevoegde waarde), compatible or incompatible with Article 27 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC, (1) which allows the Member States to adopt simplification measures, and/or with Article 11.C(1) of that directive, which grants a right to a refund of value added tax (VAT) in the case of total or partial non-payment, by reason of the fact that such national law (1) lays down a simplified procedure for charging VAT on supplies of manufactured tobacco products by imposing a single charge at source; and (2) does not give persons liable to tax at the various intermediary stages of the chain of supply who have borne VAT on those products a right to a refund of VAT on account of the total or partial loss of the purchase price?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1)


title: Case T-18/03: Action brought on 17 January 2003 by CD-Contact Data against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
22.3.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 70/29
Decision of the Board of       Appeal upheld and opposition                In support of its application, the applicant submits a violation
Appeal:                        dismissed in its entirety                   of Article 81 EC Treaty and a serious error of assessment in
                                                                           fact and in law, as well as an infringement of essential
Grounds of claim:              Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b)           procedural requirements, such as the duty to state reasons.
                               of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (like-          According to the applicant, the Commission has not proven
                               lihood of confusion and associ-             to the requisite legal standard that the applicant agreed with
                               ation between the trade marks at            Nintendo to hinder parallel trade.
                               issue)
                                                                           The applicant furthermore submits a breach of the principles
                                                                           of proper administration, such as the principle of equality and
                                                                           the principle of proportionality. In this respect, the applicant
                                                                           also invokes a violation of the duty to state reasons. The
                                                                           applicant states that the Commission needs to have regard to
                                                                           the gravity and the duration of the infringement when
                                                                           establishing the fine. According to the applicant, the Com-
                                                                           mission has not acted in accordance with these principles
                                                                           because there is no convincing evidence that the applicant
Action brought on 17 January 2003 by CD-Contact Data                       entered into an agreement with Nintendo and, in any event,
  against the Commission of the European Communities                       the alleged infringements by the applicant had a much more
                                                                           limited impact and shorter duration than the infringements of
                                                                           Nintendo and its other distributors.
                          (Case T-18/03)
                          (2003/C 70/46)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           Action brought on 22 January 2003 by KAHLA/Thüringen
                                                                           Porzellan GmbH against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                          (Case T-20/03)
European Communities on 17 January 2003 by CD-Contact
Data, Burglengenfeld, Germany, represented by Mr J. K. de                                           (2003/C 70/47)
Pree and Mr R. Wesseling, Lawyers.
                                                                                (Language of the Case: German)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 30 October 2002 in                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      Cases COMP/35.587 PO Video games, COMP/35.706                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      PO Nintendo Distribution and COMP/36.321 Omega-                      European Communities on 22 January 2003 by KAHLA/
      Nintendo in as far as addressed to the applicant (in                 Thüringen Porzellan GmbH, having its registered office in
      particular articles 1 and 3) in whole or in part;                    Kahla (Germany), represented by M. Schütte and S. Zühlke,
                                                                           Rechtsanwälte.
—     order the Commission to pay the costs
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           (1) Set aside Article 1(2) of Commission Decision
                                                                                C(2002)4040 final of 30 October 2002 concerning State
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  aid provided by Germany for Kahla Porzellan GmbH and
                                                                                KAHLA/Thüringen Porzellan GmbH (Proceeding C 62/
                                                                                2000) in so far as that provision adversely affects the
The applicant is active in the fields of distributing and                        applicant;
republishing entertainment software. Between April and
December 1997, the applicant acted as exclusive distributor                (2) Set aside Article 2 in so far as it relates to the measures
for Nintendo products in Belgium and Luxemburg. The                              referred to in point (1);
Commission alleges that the applicant entered into an agree-
ment and/or restricted practice with Nintendo to restrict                  (3) Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceed-
parallel export.                                                                 ings.


title: Case T-188/15: Order of the General Court of 10 November 2015 — Compagnia Trasporti Pubblici and Others v Commission (State aid — Undertaking operating bus route networks in the Campania Region — Compensation for public service obligations paid by the Italian authorities following a judgment of the Consiglio di Stato — Commission declaring the measure incompatible with the internal market — Action brought by undertakings in a similar situation to that of the aid beneficiary)

text:
               18.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/39

         Order of the General Court of 10 November 2015 — Compagnia Trasporti Pubblici and Others v Commission
   (Case T-188/15) (1)

   ((State aid - Undertaking operating bus route networks in the Campania Region - Compensation for public service obligations paid by the Italian authorities following a judgment of the Consiglio di Stato - Commission declaring the measure incompatible with the internal market - Action brought by undertakings in a similar situation to that of the aid beneficiary))
   (2016/C 016/48)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicants: Compagnia Trasporti Pubblici SpA (Naples, Italy); Atap — Azienda Trasporti Automobilistici Pubblici delle Province di Biella e Vercelli SpA (Biella, Italy); Actv SpA (Venice, Italy); Ferrovie Appulo Lucane Srl (Bari, Italy); Asstra — Associazione Trasporti (Rome, Italy); and Associazione Nazionale Autotrasporto Viaggiatori (ANAV) (Rome) (represented by: M. Malena, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati, G. Conte and P.J. Loewenthal, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1075 of 19 January 2015 on State aid SA.35843 (2014/C) (ex 2012/NN) implemented by Italy — Additional public service compensation for Buonotourist (OJ 2015 L 179, p. 128).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Compagnia Trasporti Pubblici SpA, Atap — Azienda Trasporti Automobilistici Pubblici delle Province di Biella e Vercelli SpA, Actv SpA, Ferrovie Appulo Lucane Srl, Asstra Associazione Trasporti, and Associazione Nazionale Autotrasporto Viaggiatori (ANAV), are ordered to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 198, 15.6.2015.


title: Case T-97/09: Action brought on 4 March 2009 — Germany v Commission

text:
               6.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/15

         Action brought on 4 March 2009 — Germany v Commission
   (Case T-97/09)
   2009/C 129/26
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and C. von Donat, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare void Commission Decision C(2008) 8465 final of 19 December 2008 on the reduction of the assistance from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) for an operational programme in the Objective 1 region of the Land of Saxony in the Federal Republic of Germany (1994-1999) in accordance with Commission Decision C(94) 1939/4 of 5 August 1994, Commission Decision C(94) 2273/4 of 22 August 1994 and Commission Decision C(94) 1425 of 6 September 1994;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of the action.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant challenges Commission Decision C(2008) 8465 final of 19 December 2008, by which the financial assistance granted from the European Regional Development Fund for the Objective 1 region of Freistaat Sachsen in the Federal Republic of Germany (1994-1999) was reduced.
   The applicant bases its claim on the following grounds:
   Firstly, there is no legal basis for the consolidation and extrapolation of financial corrections in the funding period 1994 to 1999.
   Secondly, the contested decision infringes Article 24(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88, (1) since the requirements are not met for a reduction to be made.
   In particular, the Commission has misapplied the concept of ‘irregularity’ and has established important factual elements without any foundation for doing so. The assumption of systematic errors in administration and monitoring is based on incorrect findings of fact.
   In the alternative, the applicant submits that the Commission has not used the discretion given to it pursuant to Article 24(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88. The lump sum corrections were disproportionate and the extrapolation was incorrectly calculated.
   The applicant complains in addition that insufficient reasons were given for the contested decision. The derivation and grounds for the size of the consolidation applied could not be deduced from those reasons.
   Finally, the applicant submits that the defendant infringed the principle of cooperation, since, despite the finding of operational capability of the administrative and monitoring systems in an administrative agreement, it complains in the contested decision of systematic deficiencies in the administrative and monitoring systems.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988, laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (OJ 1988 L 374, p. 1).


title: Case F-50/13: Action brought on 22 May 2013 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/63

         Action brought on 22 May 2013 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-50/13)
   2013/C 207/112
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: B. Cambier and A. Paternostre, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the Commission’s decision on the claim for further compensation, made by the applicant on the basis of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations, in order to obtain full compensation for the material and non-material damage that he suffered as a result of his occupational disease and the multiple irregularities in the processing of his claim under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission’s decision of 7 August 2012 on the claim for further compensation under ordinary law and the relevant articles of the Staff Regulations, made by the applicant on 18 April 2012 on the basis of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               Annul the Commission’s decision of 14 February 2013 rejecting the applicant’s complaint made on 25 October 2012 on the basis of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               Grant the applicant the sum of EUR 1 798 650 by way of compensation for the material and non-material damage suffered as a result of the occupational disease and payable under the ordinary law principle of full compensation, after deduction of the compensation granted under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations, possibly revised by the Tribunal in the context of the ongoing Case F-142/12;

               —

               Grant the applicant the sum of EUR 145 850 in respect of the non-material damage resulting from misconduct of the Commission with regard to the applicant;

               —

               Grant the applicant reimbursement of the legal costs and other expenses incurred, and interest on late payments and all other interest payments that the Court deems just and proper, running from December 2004, when the damage suffered by the applicant could have been calculated and made good;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-670/13 P: Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2015 — Commission v D’Agostino (Appeal — Cross-appeal — Civil service — Member of the contract staff — Decision not to renew the contract — Duty of care — Infringement of Article 12a(2) of the Staff Regulations — Obligation to state reasons — Distortion of the file)

text:
               18.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2015 — Commission v D’Agostino
   (Case T-670/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Cross-appeal - Civil service - Member of the contract staff - Decision not to renew the contract - Duty of care - Infringement of Article 12a(2) of the Staff Regulations - Obligation to state reasons - Distortion of the file))
   (2016/C 016/34)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented initially by J. Currall and G. Gattinara, and subsequently by G. Gattinara, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Luigi D’Agostino (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 23 October 2013 in Case F-93/12 D’Agostino v Commission (F-93/12, ECR-SC, EU:F:2013:155), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 23 October 2013 in D’Agostino v Commission (F-93/12) in so far the Civil Service Tribunal incorrectly applied the duty of care;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the main appeal;

               3.

               Sets aside the judgment in D’Agostino v Commission in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal failed to adjudicate on the first part of the second ground of appeal and distorted it;

               4.

               Dismisses the cross-appeal for the remainder;

               5.

               Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

               6.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 78, 15.3.2014.


title: Case T-57/16: Action brought on 8 February 2016 — Chanel v EUIPO — Li Jing Zhou and Golden Rose 999 (Representation of an ornament)

text:
               4.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/35

         Action brought on 8 February 2016 — Chanel v EUIPO — Li Jing Zhou and Golden Rose 999 (Representation of an ornament)
   (Case T-57/16)
   (2016/C 118/40)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Chanel SAS (Neuilly-sur-Seine, France) (represented by: C. Sueiras Villalobos, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Li Jing Zhou (Fuenlabrada, Spain) and Golden Rose 999 Srl (Rome, Italy)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the design at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Design at issue: Community design representation of an ornament — Community Design No 1 689 027-0001

      Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 November 2015 in Case R 2346/2014-3

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               declare the contested design invalid;

               —

               order EUIPO, and any other parties or interveners liable to appear in the present proceedings in support of the contested decision, to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 5 and 6 of Regulation No 6/2002.


title: Case T-768/16: Action brought on 31 October 2016 — BNP Paribas v ECB

text:
               9.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/49

         Action brought on 31 October 2016 — BNP Paribas v ECB
   (Case T-768/16)
   (2017/C 006/61)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: BNP Paribas (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Champsaur and A. Delors, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Central Bank

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul, on the basis of Articles 256 and 263 TFEU, decision ECB/SSM/2016 — R0MUWSFPU8MPRO8K5P83/136 adopted by the European Central Bank on 24 August 2016;

               —

               order the European Central Bank to pay the entirety of the costs.

      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 European Central Bank (ECB) committed an error in law in the interpretation of the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1; ‘Regulation No 575/2012’).
               Accordingly, the applicant in particular criticises ECB decision of 24 August 2016 for rejecting the request which it had made in order to obtain the authorisation to exclude the exposure of public sector entities to the calculation of the leverage ratio (‘the contested decision’):

                           —

                           as being contrary to the intention of the European legislature and to the objectives pursued by Regulation No 575/2013;

                           —

                           as rendering Article 429(14) of that regulation wholly ineffective;

                           —

                           as constituting an encroachment by the ECB on the powers of the European legislature.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is marred by a manifest error in the assessment of the prudential risk relating to the regulated savings, inasmuch as the ECB failed to take account of the legal framework and the empirical data relating to those savings as well as the relevant reports of the European Banking Authority, and made such an error of assessment both as regards the leverage risk and the other prudential risks relating thereto.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality which mars the contested decision, in so far as it, first, infringes the general principle of proportionality laid down in Article 5 of the Treaty on the European Union, and second, it does not comply with the specific requirements of the principle of proportionality with regard to prudential supervision, requiring that the prudential requirements be adapted to the bank’s business model and to the risks associated with it for the financial sector and for the economy.


title: Case C-541/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 16 October 2013 — Douane Advies Bureau Rietveld v Hauptzollamt Hannover

text:
               11.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/20

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 16 October 2013 — Douane Advies Bureau Rietveld v Hauptzollamt Hannover
   (Case C-541/13)
   2014/C 9/30
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Douane Advies Bureau Rietveld

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hannover

      Question referred
       (1)

   Is the concept of ‘reagent’, as used in the phrase ‘diagnostic or laboratory reagents’ in tariff heading 3822 of the CN, to be interpreted as meaning a substance which by means of its chemical transformation as a result of a chemical reaction on or with a substance under investigation is used to indicate a state or property of the latter substance?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1) as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 927/2012 of 9 October 2012 (OJ 2012 L 304, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 June 1999 in Case T-82/96: Associação dos Refinadores de Açúcar Portugueses (ARAP) and Others v Commission of the European Communities (State aid - Complaints from competing undertakings - Judicial protection of complainants - Sugar - Aid granted in implementation of a general State aid scheme approved by the Commission - State aid for vocational training - State aid for co-financing under the rules on Structural Funds)

text:
18.9.1999                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 265/7
4. There is no need to adjudicate on the alternative form of                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     annulment order sought.
5. The Commission shall bear its own costs together with those                                       of 17 June 1999
     incurred by the applicant, with the exception of the costs incurred
     by the applicant as a result of the intervention by the French          in Case T-82/96: Associação dos Refinadores de Açúcar
     Republic.                                                               Portugueses (ARAP) and Others v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
6. The French Republic shall bear its own costs, together with the
     costs incurred by the applicant as a result of its intervention.
                                                                             (State aid — Complaints from competing undertakings —
                                                                             Judicial protection of complainants — Sugar — Aid granted
(1) OJ C 95 of 30.3.1996.                                                    in implementation of a general State aid scheme approved
                                                                             by the Commission — State aid for vocational training —
                                                                             State aid for co-financing under the rules on Structural
                                                                                Funds)
                                                                                (1999/C 265/12)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                           of 19 May 1999
                                                                             In Case T-82/96: Associação dos Refinadores de Açúcar
in Joined Cases T-34/96 and T-163/96: Bernard Connolly                       Portugueses (ARAP), established in Lisbon, Alcântara Refinari-
                                                                             as — Açúcares SA, established in Santa Iria de Azóia, Portugal,
       v Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                             and RAR Refinarias de Açúcar Reunidas SA, established in
                                                                             Oporto, Portugal, represented by Gerard van der Wal, Advo-
(Officials — Disciplinary proceedings — Removal from post                    caat with a right of audience before the Hoge Raad der
— Articles 11, 12 and 17 of the Staff Regulations —                          Nederlanden, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Freedom of expression — Duty of an official to show good                     Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue v Commission of
faith and to exercise dignity in the performance of his duties)              the European Communities (Agents: Nicholas Khan, Anders
                                                                             Christian Jessen and James Flett), supported by Portuguese
                           (1999/C 265/11)                                   Republic (Agents Susana Brasil de Brito and Luis Inez Fernan-
                                                                             des), and DAI — Sociedade de Desenvolvimento Agro-
                                                                             industrial SA, established in Monte da Barca, Portugal, rep-
                                                                             resented by Luis Sáragga Leal, Dulce Franco and Ricardo
                    (Language of the cases: French)                          Oliveira, of the Lisbon Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                             Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue
In Joined Cases T-34/96 and T-163/96: Bernard Connolly, a                    — application for annulment of the Commission decision of
former official of the Commission of the European Communi-                   11 January 1996 not to raise objections to State Aid N11/95
ties, residing in Everberg (Belgium), represented by Jacques                 in favour of DAI — Sociedade de Desenvolvimento Agro-
Sambon and Pierre-Paul Van Gehuchten, of the Brussels Bar,                   industrial SA and of the Commission’s letter to the applicants
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                 of 19 March 1996 — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed
Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim against Commission                   of: R.M. Moura Ramos, President, R. Garcia-Valdecasas. V. Tiili,
of the European Communities (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and                  P. Lindh and P. Mengozzi, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for
Julian Currall) — application, in the first place, for annulment             the Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 June 1999, in which
of the opinion of the Disciplinary Board of 7 December 1995                  it:
and of the Commission decision of 16 January 1996 removing
the applicant from his post, and, second, for compensation —
                                                                             1. Dismisses the application.
the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of
B. Vesterdorf, President, J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges; H.
Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 May 1999, the                    2. Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to pay those
operative part of which is as follows:                                            of the defendant and the intervener DAI — Sociedade de
                                                                                Desenvolvimento Agro-industriel SA.
1. Case T-34/96 is removed from the Register of the Court;
2. The application in Case T-163/96 is dismissed;                            3. Orders the Portuguese Republic to bear its own costs.
3. Each party shall bear its own costs.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 233 of 10.8.1996.
(1) OJ C 133 of 4.5.1996 and OJ C 370 of 7.12.1996.


title: Case F-36/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 18 May 2015 — Bischoff v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Compulsory retirement — Article 23(1) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — Retirement age — Refusal to extend the period of activity — Second paragraph of Article 52 of the Staff Regulations — Interest of the service)

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/43

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 18 May 2015 — Bischoff v Commission
   (Case F-36/14) (1)

   ((Civil service - Officials - Compulsory retirement - Article 23(1) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Retirement age - Refusal to extend the period of activity - Second paragraph of Article 52 of the Staff Regulations - Interest of the service))
   (2015/C 213/70)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Hartwig Bischoff (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz and A. Blot, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Ehrbar, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application to annul the Commission’s decisions rejecting, first, the application to extend the applicant’s service and, second, confirming the applicant’s compulsory retirement on 1 June 2014.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Declares that Mr Bischoff is to bear all of his own costs and all of the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 292, 1/9/2014, p. 60.


title: Case C-516/04: Action brought on 15 December 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               5.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/17

         Action brought on 15 December 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-516/04)
   (2005/C 31/34)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 15 December 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by C. O'Reilly and R. Troosters, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2001/51/EC of 28 June 2001 supplementing the provisions of Article 26 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 (1) and, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposition of the Directive into national law expired on 11 February 2003.

      (1)  OJ L 187, 10.7.2001, p. 45.


title: Case T-578/16: Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2017 — Gillet v Commission (Civil service — Contract staff — Former employed worker under Belgian law — Allowance applicable pursuant to Articles 6 and 7 of Decision C(2005) 1287 — Recalculation of the amount of the allowance by the administration in the context of an update of management procedures — Act adversely affecting an official or other member of staff — Act which is merely confirmatory — Obligation to state reasons — Recovery of sums overpaid)

text:
               23.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 357/11

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2017 — Gillet v Commission
   (Case T-578/16) (1)

   ((Civil service - Contract staff - Former employed worker under Belgian law - Allowance applicable pursuant to Articles 6 and 7 of Decision C(2005) 1287 - Recalculation of the amount of the allowance by the administration in the context of an update of management procedures - Act adversely affecting an official or other member of staff - Act which is merely confirmatory - Obligation to state reasons - Recovery of sums overpaid))
   (2017/C 357/14)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Évelyne Gillet (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking the annulment of the Commission’s decisions of 12 December 2014 and of 9 April 2015 and subsequent salary statements that reduce the amount of the allowance paid to the applicant, who was employed under an employment contract of indeterminate duration governed by Belgian law, and that require the repayment of amounts overpaid.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the European Commission’s decision of 9 April 2015 in so far as it seeks to recover the amount of EUR 3 959,38 under Article 85 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and Article 116 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders Ms Évelyne Gillet to bear her own costs;

               4.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 145 of 25.4.2016 (case originally registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under case number F-7/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).


C 397/28             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  19.12.98
       Removal from the register of Case C-34/97 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-188/98 (1)
                        (98/C 397/50)                                                        (98/C 397/52)
By order of 13 October 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the                 By order of 20 October 1998 the President of the Court of
removal from the register of Case C-34/97 (reference for a          Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin):                  removal from the register of Case C-188/98: Commission
1. RWE Energie Aktiengesellschaft 2. Stadt Nordhorn v.              of the European Communities v. Grand Duchy of
Bundeskartellamt.                                                   Luxembourg.
(1) OJ C 94, 22.3.1997.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 234, 25.7.1998.
      Removal from the register of Case C-187/97 (1)
                        (98/C 397/51)
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-47/98 (1)
By order of 13 October 1998 the President of the Court of                                    (98/C 397/53)
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-187/97 (reference
for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof):               By order of 23 October 1998 the President of the Court of
WINGAS GmbH (formerly Wintershall Gas GmbH) v.                      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Stadt Detmold.                                                      removal from the register of Case C-47/98: Commission of
                                                                    the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium.
(1) OJ C 212, 12.7.1997.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 113, 11.4.1998.
                                                   COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           tendering procedure for a feasibility study for the
                                                                    modernisation of a railway junction in Warsaw on the E-
                     of 29 October 1998
                                                                    20 line, and of the restricted invitation to tender of
in Case T-13/96: TEAM Srl v. Commission of the                      4 December 1995 for a feasibility study for the
                  European Communities (1)                          modernisation of the Warsaw railway node on the E-20
                                                                    TEN line Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
(PHARE programme Ð Decision to annul an invitation to               composed of: P. Lindh, President, K. Lenaerts and J. D.
tender and issue a new invitation to tender Ð Action for            Cooke, Judges; M. Johansson, Legal Secretary, for the
damages Ð Admissibility Ð Damage resulting from the                 Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 October 1998, in
loss suffered by a tenderer, from its loss of profit and from       which it:
                the harm caused to its image)
                        (98/C 397/54)
                                                                    1. Dismisses the action;
               (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                    2. Orders the applicant to pay all the costs relating to the
                                                                        claim for damages;
In Case T-13/96: TEAM Srl, a company incorporated
under Italian law, represented by Antonio Tizzano, Gian
Michele Roberti and Francesco Sciaudone, of the Naples              3. Orders the parties to bear their own costs relating to
Bar, 36 Place du Grand Sablon, Brussels, against                        the application for annulment.
Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
Marie-JoseÂ Jonczy and Lucio Gussetti) Ð application, at
the stage ultimately reached in the proceedings, for                (1) OJ C 108, 13.4.1996.
compensation in respect of the damage suffered by the
applicant as a result of the Commission decision,
contained in a letter of 16 November 1995, annulling the