title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 21 May 1996 in Case T-153/95, Raymond Kaps v. Court of Justice of the European Communities (Officials - Competition - Selection board - Oral test - Decision of selection board not to enter the applicant on the reserve list - Scope of the duty to state reasons - Scope of judicial review)

text:
22. 6 . 96          EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 180/29
Chamber), R. Garcia-Valdecasas and J. Azizi, Judges; H.                            ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 May 1996 , in                     OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
which it :                                                                               of 29 March 1996
                                                                     in Case T-24/96 R: U. v. European Centre for the
1 . Dismisses the application.                                                  Development of Vocational Training
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/77 )
2 . Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
H OJ No C 331 , 26 . 11 . 1994 .
                                                                     In Case T-24/96 R: U, an official of the European Centre for
                                                                     the Development of Vocational Training, residing in Berlin,
                                                                     represented by Frank Montag, Rechtsanwalt, Brussels, with
                                                                     an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                     Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue , v. European Centre for the
                                                                     Development of Occupational Training (Agent: Bertrand
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Wägenbaur ) — application, first, for suspension of
                                                                     operation of the defendant's decision transferring the
                        of 21 May 1996                               applicant to Thessaloniki and, second, for an order that the
in Case T-153/95 , Raymond Kaps v. Court of Justice of the           applicant's posting in the Commission's office in Berlin be
                  European Communities (*)                           maintained for the time being — the President of the Court
(Officials — Competition — Selection board — Oral test —             of First Instance made an order on 29 March 199 6 , the
Decision ofselection board not to enter the applicant on the         operative part of which is as follows :
reserve list — Scope of the duty to state reasons — Scope of
                         judicial review)
                          ( 961C 180/76 )                            1 . The suspension granted by the order of the President of
                                                                         the Court of First Instance of 29 February 1996 is
                                                                         renewed up to and including 12 April 1996. Until that
                (Language of the case: French)                           date, the applicant's posting in Berlin is to continue;
In Case T-153/95 : Raymond Kaps, an official of the Court            2 . The remainder ofthe application for interim measures is
of Justice of the European Communities, residing in                      dismissed:
Schifflange, represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Thierry
Demaseure, Véronique Leclercq and Ariane Tornel, all of
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg          3.  The costs are reserved.
at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 Rue Glesener,
against the Court of Justice of the European Communities
( Agent: Timothy Millett ) — application for the annulment
of the selection board's decisions in the internal competition
by tests No CJ 51 /93 awarding the applicant marks for his
written and oral tests which did not qualify him for entry on
the reserve list and, in so far as necessary, the annulment of
the defendant's decision not to enter the applicant on the
reserve list of Competition No CJ 51/93 and of the decision
of the complaints committee of 15 May 1995 rejecting the             Action brought on 22 March 1996 by Eyckeler & Malt AG
applicant's complaint — the Court of First Instance ( Fifth            against the Commission of the European Communities
Chamber ), composed of R. Schintgen ( President of the                                     ( Case T-42/96 )
Chamber ), R. Garcia-Valdecasas and J. Azizi , Judges; B.                                    ( 96/C 180/78 )
Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
a judgment on 21 May 1996 , in which it:
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
1 . Dismisses the application.
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
2 . Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                     Instance of the European Communities on 22 March 1 996
                                                                     by Eyckeler & Malt AG, of Hilden ( Federal Republic of
C ) OJ No C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 .                                    Germany ), represented by Dietrich Ehle and Volker Schiller,
                                                                     Rechtsanwälte , Cologne, with an address for service in
                                                                     Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Lucius, 6 Rue Michel
                                                                     Welter .


title: Case T-67/00: Action brought on 23 March 2000 by NKK Corporation against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
27.5.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 149/39
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              In that connection it raises the following pleas:
                                                                         — Infringement of the rights of the defence, of Articles 872
                                                                              and 906 of Regulation No 2454/93, the principles of
Principally:                                                                  procedural equality and of sound administration. The
                                                                              Commission omitted, when it was minded to depart from
                                                                              the view taken by the customs authority, to have the
— order the Commission to produce all documents on                            applicant heard by the national authority. It did not arrange
    which it based the contested decision, together with all                  for the applicant to receive the documents and decisions
    documents, including administrative items, which have a                   on which its complaints concerning waiver of post-
    bearing on this matter, comprising for example the                        clearance recovery and/or remittance are based. By not
    documents which prompted the Commission in 1993 to                        making available documents which could have been of use
    organise a mission to Turkey to conduct an investigation                  to the applicant’s arguments the Commission infringed the
    into the issue of ATR certificates for television sets, the               principle of procedural equality.
    results of that mission and the reports drawn up concern-
    ing it, any correspondence between the Commission and                — Infringement of Article 5(2) of Regulation No 1697/79.
    the Member States as well as between the Commission and                   The Commission was wrong to adjudge that the criteria
    the Turkish authorities on this subject etc, for examination              for the application of that article were not met.
    by the Court and production to the applicant so as to
    enable it to investigate whether it can use those documents          — Infringement of the first paragraph of Article 13 of
    in further support of this application and the pleas and                  Regulation No 1430/79. The Commission was wrong to
    arguments raised therein;                                                 take the view that the situation in the present case did not
                                                                              constitute ‘special circumstances’ within the meaning of
                                                                              that article.
— annul the decision of the Commission of the European
    Communities of 14 December 1999 rejecting the request                — Infringement of the principle that decisions must be
    by the Kingdom of Belgium to refrain in favour of the                     supported by a statement of the reasons on which they are
    applicant from the post-clearance recovery of import                      based (Article 253 EC).
    duties or to remit them on imports of television sets from
    Turkey in the period from 8 October 1991 to 28 May                   — In the alternative, infringement of the principle of pro-
    1993 inclusive (Decision C(1999) 4419 fin);                               portionality and of Articles 2 and 3 of the Additional
                                                                              Protocol to the EC-Turkey Association Agreement.
— order the Commission to pay the costs;
In the alternative, if the decision is not annulled:
— none the less order the Commission to pay the costs (its               Action brought on 23 March 2000 by NKK Corporation
    own and the applicant’s);                                              against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-67/00)
In the further alternative:
                                                                                (2000/C 149/74)
— order the Commission to pay its own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          European Communities on 23 March 2000 by NKK Corpor-
                                                                         ation (Tokyo), represented by Martin Smith and Conor Magui-
                                                                         re, Solicitors, Simmons & Simmons, Brussels.
The applicant’s action under the fourth paragraph of Article
230 of the EC Treaty is for annulment of the Commission’s                The applicant claims that the Court should:
decision of 14 December 1999 rejecting the request by the
Kingdom of Belgium to refrain in favour of the applicant from            — pursuant to Article 230 EC, review the legality of the
the post-clearance recovery of import duties or to remit them                 contested decision and, in so far as it relates to the
on imports of television sets from Turkey in the period from                  applicant, annul it pursuant to Article 231 EC, in the
8 October 1991 to 28 May 1993 inclusive.                                      alternative;
 ---pagebreak--- C 149/40              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     27.5.2000
— pursuant to Article 229 EC, should it uphold the decision             Action brought on 23 March 2000 by P.E. Hoyer against
    in whole or in part, reduce the fine.                                      the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-70/00)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                 (2000/C 149/75)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
In the contested decision, the Commission asserts that the
applicant was, between 1977 and 1995, party to an agreement
which had the object and the effect of restricting or distorting        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
competition in the supply of seamless standard OCTG and line            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
pipe within the common market and which affected trade                  European Communities on 23 March 2000 by P.E. Hoyer,
between Members States.                                                 residing in Hoeilaart (Belgium), represented by G. van der Wal,
                                                                        of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                        at the Chambers of A. May, 398 Route d’Esch.
This application raises six main pleas against the Commission’s
factual and legal assessment, namely:                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        — annul the contested decision of 24 January 2000;
— manifest error in the assessment of the facts of the case;
                                                                        — order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
— failure properly to assess the trade barriers which are the
    natural explanation of the applicant’s lack of activity on
    the French, German and Italian markets for the duration             Pleas in law and main arguments
    of the alleged infringement;
                                                                        The applicant has worked since 1984 as a member of the
— breach of essential procedural requirements by preventing             Commission’s temporary staff (interpreter). His temporary
    the applicant from exercising its rights of defence to the full     appointment was renewed a number of times. In 1988 his
    and by the manner in which it obtained the documentary              position as a member of the temporary staff was prolonged
    evidence used against the applicant;                                indefinitely. He was on that occasion also required to take part
                                                                        in the next external open competition for interpreters. In 1989
                                                                        the applicant unsuccessfully applied to sit internal competition
                                                                        COM/LA/2/89. His action against the decision of the selection
— failure to assess properly the evidence on the Commission’s           board in that competition was upheld. He was also successful
    file which seriously undermines not only the finding in             in his action against the decision terminating his appointment
    recital 164 of the decision but also irretrievably weakens          as a member of the temporary staff. Contrary to the agreements
    the validity and accuracy of the key elements of the case           concluded, the Commission decided to re-open and continue
    against the applicant;                                              internal competition COM/LA/2/89, and it called on the
                                                                        applicant to take part in it. The applicant was unsuccessful in
                                                                        that competition. The Commission thereupon terminated his
— failure to assess properly in law the applicant’s partici-            contract for an indefinite period, referring to the decision of
    pation in the alleged infringement; and                             the selection board in the aforementioned internal compe-
                                                                        tition. His appeal against that decision was dismissed. By
                                                                        decision of 24 January 2000 the Commission confirmed the
                                                                        decision to dismiss him. The present action challenges that
— failure to reduce the fine imposed on the applicant, in               decision.
    accordance with the principles laid down in the relevant
    Commission Notices.
                                                                        Grounds of the application:
                                                                        — the decision dismissing the applicant is wrongly based on
                                                                             the decision of the selection board in the aforementioned
                                                                             internal competition not to include him on the list of
                                                                             suitable candidates;


title: Case T-392/15: Action brought on 17 July 2015 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v European Railway Agency

text:
               5.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/13

         Action brought on 17 July 2015 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v European Railway Agency
   (Case T-392/15)
   (2015/C 328/12)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Evropaiki Dinamiki — Proigmena Sistimata Tilepikinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Αthens, Greece), European Dynamics Belgium SA (Βrussels, Βelgium) (represented by: I. Ambazis and M. Sfyri, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Railway Agency (ERA)

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Railway Agency which was communicated to the applicants by letter dated 08/05/2015 from the Head of Resources and Support Unit and whereby ERA ranked in second place the applicant’s tender for one of three individual lots and specifically for Lot 1 ‘On-site time and means information system development, support and assistance’, in the framework of the open procurement procedure No 2015/S 019-029728 titled ‘ΕRA/2015/01/OP ESPEISD 5 — External Service Provision for ERA Information System’·

               —

               annul the decision of the European Railway Agency which was communicated to the applicants by letter dated 01/07/2015 from the Head of Resources and Support Unit and whereby ERA ranked in second place the applicant’s tender for one of three individual lots and specifically for Lot 2 ‘Off-site information system development, support and assistance’, in the framework of the open procurement procedure No 2015/S 019-029728 titled ‘ΕRA/2015/01/OP ESP-EISD 5 — External Service Provision for ERA Information System’, and

               —

               order the European Railway Agency to pay all the costs of the applicants.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the opinion of the applicants, the contested decisions should be annulled, under Article 263 TFEU, due to a breach by ERA of the obligation to state reasons, since it provided an inadequate statement of reasons with regard to the assessment of the applicants’ technical tender with respect to the existence of excessively low tenders.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 8 October 1996 in Joined Cases C-178/94, C-179/94, C-188/94, C-189/94 and C-190/94 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Bonn): Erich Dillenkofer and Others v. Federal Republic of Germany (Directive 90/314/EEC on package travel, package holidays and package tours - Non-transposition - Liability of the Member State and its obligation to make reparation)

text:
No C 354/ 12            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    23 . 11 . 96
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                   4 . If a Member State allows the package travel organizer
                        of 8 October 1996                                  and/or retailer party to a contract to require payment of
                                                                           a deposit of up to 10% towards the travel price, with a
in Joined Cases C-178/94, C-179/94 , C-188/94, C-189/94                    maximum of DM 500, the protective purpose pursued
and C- 190/94 ( references for a preliminary ruling from the               by Article 7 of Directive 90/314/EEC is not satisfied
Landgericht Bonn ): Erich Dillenkofer and Others v. Federal                unless a refund of that deposit is also guaranteed in the
                     Republic of Germany ( 1 )                             event of the insolvency of the package travel organizer
(Directive 90/3 14/EEC on package travel, package holidays                 and/or retailer party to the contract.
and package tours — Non-transposition — Liability of the
   Member State and its obligation to make reparation)
                           ( 96/C 354/22 )
                                                                       5 . Article 7 of Directive 90/3 1 4/EEC is to be interpreted as
                                                                           meaning that the 'security ' of which organizers must
                                                                           offer sufficient evidence is lacking even if, on payment of
                (Language of the case: German)                             the travel price, travellers are in possession of
                                                                           documents of value and that the Federal Republic of
                                                                           Germany could not have omitted altogether to
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be               transpose Directive 90/314/EEC on the basis of the
          published in the European Court Reports)                         Bundesgerichtshofs 'advance payment ' judgment of
                                                                            72 March 1987.
In Joined Cases C-178/94 , C-179/94 , C-188/94 , C-189/94
and C - 190/94 : references to the Court under Article 177 of          6 . Directive 90/314/EEC does not require Member States
the EC Treaty from the Landgericht [ Regional Court] Bonn                  to adopt specific measures in relation to Article 7 in
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before                 order to protect package travellers against their own
that court between Erich Dillenkofer, Christian Erdmann,                   negligence.
Hans-Jiirgen Schulte , Anke Heuer, Werner, Ursula and
Torsten Knor and the Federal Republic of Germany — on
                                                                       (>) OJ No C 254 , 10 . 9 . 1994 .
the interpretation of Council Directive 90/314/EEC of
13 June 1990 on package travel , package holidays and
package tours ( OJ No L 158 , 1990 , p. 59 ) — the Court,
composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, G. F.
Mancini , J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , J. L. Murray and L.
Sevon ( Presidents of Chambers ), C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G.
Kapteyn , C. Gulmann ( Rapporteur ), D. A. O. Edward, J. -P.
Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm, Judges;                                 ORDER OF THE COURT
G. Tesauro, Advocate-General ; R. Grass , Registrar, gave a
judgment on 8 October 1996 , in which it ruled :                                              ( Third Chamber )
                                                                                of 12 June 1996
1 . Failure to take any measure to transpose a directive in            in Case C-95/96 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the
      order to achieve the result it prescribes within the period      Tribunal de Commerce de Marseille ): URSSAF ( Union de
                                                                       Recouvrement des Cotisations de Sécurité Sociale et
      laid down for that purpose constitutes per se a serious
      breach of Community law and consequently gives rise to           d'Allocations Familiales ) des Bouches-du-Rhône v. Clinique
      a right of reparation for individuals suffering injury if                           de la Pointe Rouge SA (')
      the result prescribed by the directive entails the grant to      (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Lack ofjurisdiction of
      individuals of rights whose content is identifiable and a                                Court ofJustice)
      causal link exists between the breach of the State 's                                      ( 96/C 354/23 )
      obligation and the loss and damage suffered.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
2 . The result prescribed by Article 7 of Council Directive
      90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel,
      package holidays and package tours entails the grant to          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
      package travellers of rights guaranteeing a refund of                     published in the European Court Reports)
      money paid over and their repatriation in the event of
      the organizer 's insolvency; the content of those rights is
      sufficiently identifiable.                                       In Case C-95 /96 : reference under Article 177 of the EC
                                                                       Treaty by the Tribunal de Commerce [ Commercial Court],
                                                                       Marseille ( France ) for a preliminary ruling in the case
3 . In order to comply with Article 9 of Directive                     pending before that court between URSSAF ( Union de
      90/314/EEC, the Member State should have adopted,                Recouvrement des         Cotisations  de  Securite    Sociale   et
      within the period prescribed, all the measures necessary         d'Allocations     Familiales )    des Bouches-du-Rhone        and
      to ensure that, as from 1 January 1993 , individuals             Clinique de la Pointe Rouge SA on the question whether it is
      would have effective protection against the risk of the          possible to request the opening of proceedings for
    ' insolvency of the organizer and/'or retailer party to the        redressement judiciaire ( judicial settlement ) in respect of a
      contract.                                                        defendant who has been acquitted , where the damage


title: Case T-14/16: Action brought on 8 January 2016 — Apimab Laboratoires and Others v Commission

text:
               7.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/23

         Action brought on 8 January 2016 — Apimab Laboratoires and Others v Commission
   (Case T-14/16)
   (2016/C 090/32)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Apimab Laboratoires (Clermont-l'Hérault, France), Sarl BBI — Blanche Bresson Institut (Barbentane, France), Institut de recherche biologique — IRB (Montaigu, France), Laboratoires Arkopharma (Carros, France), Laboratoires Juva Santé (Paris, France), Ortis (Bütgenbach, Belgium), Pierre Fabre Médicament (Boulogne-Billancourt, France), Pollenergie (Saint-Hilaire-de-Lusignan, France) (represented by: A. de Brosses, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Hold and rule and Regulation No 2015/1933 of 27 October 2015 was adopted without prior consultation of the European Food Safety Authority and, accordingly, in breach of the procedure applicable to its adoption;

               —

               Hold and rule and the Commission erred in law in adopting Regulation No 2015/1933 without a scientific assessment of the risk, in breach of Article 6 of Regulation No 178/2002;

               —

               Hold and rule that the Commission has made a manifest error of assessment by restricting, in Regulation No 2015/1933 of 27 October 2015, the levels of benzo(a)pyrene in certain food supplements to 10 micrograms if used alone or to 50 micrograms if mixed with other substances;

               —

               Hold and rule that the Commission has infringed the principle of proportionality by restricting, in Regulation No 2015/1933 of 27 October 2015, the levels of benzo(a)pyrene in certain food supplements to 10 micrograms if used alone or to 50 micrograms if mixed with other substances;

               —

               Hold and rule that the Commission has infringed the principle of non-discrimination by restricting, in Regulation No 2015/1933 of 27 October 2015, the levels of benzo(a)pyrene in certain food supplements to 10 micrograms if used alone or to 50 micrograms if mixed with other substances.

         In consequence:

               —

               Annul Regulation No 2015/1933 of 27 October 2015 as regards its provisions on food supplements;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an infringement by the Commission of the procedural rules following from Council Regulation (EEC) No 315/93 of 8 February 1993 laying down Community procedures for contaminants in food (‘the Framework Regulation’) in the adoption of Commission Regulation (EU) No 2015/1933 of 27 October 2015 amending Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 as regards maximum levels for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in cocoa fibre, banana chips, food supplements, dried herbs and dried spices (‘the contested regulation’).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an error of law committed by the Commission at the time of the adoption of the contested regulation and an infringement of Article 2 of the Framework Regulation justifying the annulment of the contested regulation as without legal basis.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging an error of law committed by the Commission, in that it failed to consult the European Food Safety Authority and did not carry out any prior scientific assessment, in disregard of the requirements of Article 6 of Regulation No 178/2002.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment, in that the contested regulation impliedly rests on the finding that consumers would ingest similar quantities of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) via food supplements as they would via common foods, which is not the case.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging an infringement by the Commission of the principle of proportionality, in that the setting of the maximum levels of PAHs goes beyond what is necessary to protect public health.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging an infringement by the Commission of the principle of non-discrimination, in that the contested regulation has not taken account of the differences between food supplements and other foodstuffs, by setting the maximum levels of PAHs in line with the type of foodstuff concerned.


C 219/12               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 14.9.2002
        Removal from the register of Case C-144/01 ( 1)              register of Case C-279/01: Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities v Kingdom of Sweden.
                        (2002/C 219/23)
                                                                     (1 ) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
By order of 4 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-144/01: Commission of the European
Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-365/01 ( 1)
( 1) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001.
                                                                                (2002/C 219/27)
                                                                     By order of 5 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                     of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
        Removal from the register of Case  C-247/01 ( 1)             register of Case C-365/01: Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities v Ireland.
                        (2002/C 219/24)
                                                                     (1 ) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.
By order of 20 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-247/01: Commission of the European
Communities v Kingdom of Sweden.
( 1) OJ C 227 of 11.8.2001.                                                  Removal from the register of Case C-391/01 ( 1)
                                                                                (2002/C 219/28)
                                                                     By order of 27 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
        Removal from the register of Case  C-258/01 ( 1)             of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                     register of Case C-391/01: Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities v Portuguese Republic.
                        (2002/C 219/25)
                                                                     (1 ) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.
By order of 14 May 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-258/01: Commission of the European
Communities v Portuguese Republic.
( 1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.                                                   Removal from the register of Case C-412/01 ( 1)
                                                                                (2002/C 219/29)
                                                                     By order of 7 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
        Removal from the register of Case C-279/01 ( 1)              of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                     register of Case C-412/01: Commission of the European
                        (2002/C 219/26)                              Communities v Italian Republic.
                                                                     (1 ) OJ C 348 of 8.12.2001.
By order of 20 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the


title: Case C-114/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (France), acting in its judicial capacity, by order of that court of 10 January 2005 in Ministre de l'Économie, des Finances and de l'Industrie v Gillan Beach

text:
               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (France), acting in its judicial capacity, by order of that court of 10 January 2005 in Ministre de l'Économie, des Finances and de l'Industrie v Gillan Beach
   (Case C-114/05)
   (2005/C 115/25)
   Language of the case: French
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Conseil d'Etat (France), acting in its judicial capacity, of 10 January 2005, received at the Court Registry on 8 March 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Ministre de l'Economie, des Finances and de l'Industrie and Gillan Beach, a company, on the following question:
   Whether an overall service provided by an organiser to exhibitors at a fair or in an exhibition hall falls within the scope of the first indent of Article 9(2)(c) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388 of 17 May 1977 (1), Article 9(2)(a) of that directive or within any other of the categories of supply of services referred to in Article 9(2) of the directive.

      (1)  OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1.


title: Case C-98/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 3 March 2014  — Berlington Hungary Tanácsadó és Szolgáltató Kft. and Others v Magyar Állam

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/24

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 3 March 2014 — Berlington Hungary Tanácsadó és Szolgáltató Kft. and Others v Magyar Állam
   (Case C-98/14)
   2014/C 142/33
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Törvényszék

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Berlington Hungary Tanácsadó és Szolgáltató Kft., Lixus Szerencsejáték Szervező Kft., Lixus Projekt Szerencsejáték Szervező Kft., Lixus Invest Szerencsejáték Szervező Kft., Megapolis Terminal Szolgáltató Kft.

      Defendant: Magyar Állam (Hungarian State)

      Questions referred

      In connection with the amendments to the Law on games of chance made in 2011 increasing the amount of tax on gambling:

               1.

               Is non-discriminatory legislation of a Member State compatible with Article 56 TFEU if, by a single measure and with no transitional period, it introduces a five-fold increase in the previous amount of direct tax, known as gambling tax, to be paid on slot machines operated in amusement arcades and, in addition introduces a tax on gambling at a percentage rate, in such a way that it restricts the activity of operators of games of chance who run amusement arcades?

               2.

               May Article 34 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that its scope covers nondiscriminatory legislation of a Member State which, by a single measure and with no transitional period, introduces a five-fold increase in the previous amount of direct tax, known as gambling tax, to be paid on slot machines operated in amusement arcades and, in addition introduces a tax on gambling at a percentage rate, in such a way that it restricts the importation of slot machines into Hungary from elsewhere in the European Union?

               3.

               If questions 1 and/or 2 are answered in the affirmative, may a Member State rely exclusively on the regularisation of the budgetary position in the context of the application of Articles 36 TFEU, 52(1) TFEU and 61 TFEU or where there are overriding requirements?

               4.

               If questions 1 and/or 2 are answered in the affirmative, having regard to Article 6(3) TFEU, must account be taken of the general principles of law, as regards the restrictions imposed by a Member State and the grant of a period of adjustment to new tax rules?

               5.

               If questions 1 and/or 2 are answered in the affirmative, must the judgment in Joined Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93 Brasserie du Pêcheur be interpreted as meaning that infringement of Articles 34 TFEU and/or 56 TFEU may give rise to liability for damages on the part of the Member State on the ground that those provisions — because of their direct effect — confer rights on individuals in the Member States?

               6.

               Can Directive 98/34/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that a tax provision of a Member State which introduces in a single step a fivefold increase in the amount of a direct tax on gambling which has to be paid in respect of slot machines operated in amusement arcades and, in addition, introduces a tax at a percentage rate constitutes a ‘de facto technical regulation’?

               7.

               If question 6 is answered in the affirmative, may individuals of a Member State allege that the Member State has breached Articles 8(1) and/or 9(1) of Directive 98/34/EC, and therefore failed to fulfil its obligations, thereby giving rise to liability for damages; in other words, is that Directive intended to confer rights on individuals? What matters must the national court take into account in order to determine whether the defendant has committed a sufficiently serious breach and what type of claim for damages can such a breach give rise to?

      In connection with the amendment of the Law on games of chances made in 2012 which prohibited the operation of slot machines in amusement arcades (allowing them only in casinos):

               1.

               Is non-discriminatory legislation of a Member State compatible with Article 56 TFEU if it prohibits with immediate effect the use of slot machines in amusement arcades, without allowing the operators of games of chance affected a transitional or adjustment period or offering them appropriate compensation, and, at the same time, establishes in favour of casinos a monopoly in the operation of slot machines?

               2.

               Can Article 34 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that it must also be decisive and applicable in the event that a Member State adopts non-discriminatory legislation which, although it does not directly prohibit the purchase of slot machines from elsewhere in the European Union, restricts or prohibits the effective use and operation of such machines in the organisation of games of chance, without allowing the operators of games of chance affected who carry out that activity a transitional or adjustment period or any compensation?

               3.

               If questions 1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative, what criteria must the national court take into account to determine whether the restriction was necessary, appropriate and proportionate in the context of the application of Articles 36 TFEU, 52(1) TFEU and 61 TFEU or where there are overriding requirements?

               4.

               If questions 1 and/or 2 are answered in the affirmative, having regard to Article 6(3) TFEU, must account be taken of the general principles of law, as regards the prohibitions laid down by a Member State and the grant of a period of adjustment? Must account be taken of fundamental rights — such as the right to property and the prohibition on depriving a person of property without compensation — in connection with the restriction arising in the present case and, if so, in what way?

               5.

               If questions 1 and/or 2 are answered in the affirmative, must the judgment in Joined Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93 Brasserie du Pêcheur be interpreted as meaning that infringement of Articles 34 TFEU and/or 56 TFEU may give rise to liability for damages on the part of the Member State on the ground that those provisions — because of their direct effect — confer rights on individuals in the Member States?

               6.

               Can Directive 98/34/EC be interpreted as meaning that a provision of a Member State which, by restricting the use of slot machines to casinos, prohibits their use in amusement arcades constitutes ‘other requirements’?

               7.

               If question 6 is answered in the affirmative, may individuals of a Member State allege that the Member State has breached Articles 8(1) and/or 9(1) of Directive 98/34/EC and therefore failed to fulfil its obligations, thereby giving rise to liability for damages; in other words, is that Directive intended to confer rights on individuals? What matters must the national court take into account in order to determine whether the defendant has committed a sufficiently serious breach and what type of claim for damages can such a breach give rise to?

               8.

               Is the principle of Community law applicable according to which the Member States are obliged to pay compensation to individuals for damage resulting from breaches of Community law attributable to the Member States also where the Member State has sovereignty in the area which the adopted legislation concerns? In such a case do fundamental rights and the general principles of law derived from the common constitutional traditions of the Member States also serve as a guide?

      (1)  Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services (OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37).


title: Case T-596/16: Order of the General Court of 14 February 2017 — HP v Commission and eu-LISA

text:
               10.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/50

         Order of the General Court of 14 February 2017 — HP v Commission and eu-LISA
   (Case T-596/16) (1)

   (2017/C 112/70)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 296, 16.8.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number F-26/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1 September 2016).


title: Case T-321/99: Action brought on 15 November 1999 by Garage en Tankstation Milder V.O.F. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 63/24               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     4.3.2000
Action brought on 15 November 1999 by Garage en                          — order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of
Tankstation Milder V.O.F. against the Commission of the                      FF 20 000 in respect of the unrecoverable expenditure
                    European Communities                                     which he was obliged to incur in the defence of his
                                                                             interests.
                        (Case T-321/99)
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
                         (2000/C 63/47)
                                                                         The applicant submits that the Commission unlawfully failed
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)                         to reply to the request which he had made to it for access to
                                                                         certain documents, thereby infringing Article 232 EC (ex
                                                                         Article 175) and Commission Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC,
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         Euratom (1) of 8 February 1994 on public access to Com-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         mission documents.
European Communities on 15 November 1999 by Garage en
Tankstation Milder V.O.F., of Gendt (Netherlands), represented
by M.J.C. Deriks, of the Rotterdam Bar.                                  (1) OJ L 46 of 18.2.1994, p. 58.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
(a) annul the Commission’s decision [C(1999) 2539 final] (1)
    of 20 July 1999 concerning State aid granted by the
    Netherlands to 633 service stations in the region bordering
    Germany;
                                                                         Action brought on 17 November 1999 by Generale
(b) order the Commission to pay the costs.                               Conserve Spa against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                  (Case T-325/99)
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Cases                                      (2000/C 63/49)
T-273/99 to T-278/99.
(1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.                                                          (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 17 November 1999 by Generale
                                                                         Conserve Spa, with Carlo Cigolini and Giuseppe Durazzo, of
                                                                         the Genoa Bar, and Mathis Hengel, of the Luxembourg Bar,
                                                                         with an address for service in Luxembourg at the latter’s
Action brought on 16 November 1999 by Karl L. Meyer                      Chambers, 12 Avenue de la Porte Neuve.
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        (Case T-322/99)
                                                                         — annul the contested decision;
                         (2000/C 63/48)
                                                                         — order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               The applicant contests the Commission decision of 17 June
European Communities on 16 November 1999 by Karl                         1999 rejecting its application for exemption from the post-cle-
L. Meyer, domiciled in Raiatea (French Polynesia), represented           arance recovery of customs duties in respect of 9 IM4
by Jean-Dominique des Arcis, of the Papeete Bar, with an                 certificates — representing a total of ITL 330 517 600 —
address for service in Luxembourg c/o M. Pakowski, 20-22                 relating to 9 consignments of processed and tinned tuna
Avenue Emile Reuter.                                                     deriving from raw material declared as being of Turkish origin
                                                                         but later regarded as being of third-country origin on the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              ground that the Turkish supplier allegedly failed to keep raw
                                                                         material of Turkish or Community origin separate from stocks
— rule that Commission DG VIII has infringed Article 175 of              of third-country origin and it was impossible therefore to issue
    the EC Treaty;                                                       the related ATR 1 certificates.


title: Case C-460/09 P: Appeal brought on 20 November 2009 by Inalca SpA — Industria Alimentari Carni and Cremonini SpA against the order made on 4 September 2009 in Case T-174/06 Inalca and Cremonini v Commission

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/36

         Appeal brought on 20 November 2009 by Inalca SpA — Industria Alimentari Carni and Cremonini SpA against the order made on 4 September 2009 in Case T-174/06 Inalca and Cremonini v Commission
   (Case C-460/09 P)
   2010/C 24/65
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellants: Inalca SpA — Industria Alimentari Carni and Cremonini SpA (represented by: F. Sciandone and C. D'Andria, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the order under appeal and refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for a decision on the substance in the light of such guidance as the Court of Justice may provide;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings together with those incurred in Case T-174/06.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

                  A.

                  The distinction between the procedural criterion relating to the point at which time starts to run for the purposes of bringing proceedings and verification that the conditions for liability have been satisfied: (i) contradictory nature of the grounds stated and (ii) non-compliance with Community case-law

               The grounds of the order under appeal are manifestly contradictory in so far as, on the one hand, the order refers to settled Community case-law according to which time for the purposes of bringing actions seeking to establish non-contractual liability on the part of the Community starts to run only upon fulfilment of all the conditions necessary for the creation of an obligation to pay compensation and, in particular, only when the damage in respect of which compensation is sought has become actual whereas, on the other hand, the order rejects the applicants’ argument that the damaging effects of the letter at issue became certain only upon the adoption of the Commission decision of 3 October 2006. (1)

               Moreover, the Court of First Instance distorted the Community case-law by determining the initial point from which time started to run for the purposes of bringing proceedings by reference to the material damage suffered by the applicants.

                  B.

                  Time-barring of the action by reference to the costs of legal assistance and consultation and staff costs: (i) contradictory and manifestly illogical nature of the grounds stated and (ii) non-compliance with the Community case-law

               The grounds of the order under appeal are plainly contradictory, in so far as the Court of First Instance begins by stating a general principle relating to damage which is ongoing and then goes on to disregard that general principle when determining the nature (whether instantaneous or not) of the costs of legal assistance and consultation and the staff costs. The grounds are also vitiated by an obvious lack of logical cohesion, in so far as, on the one hand, the Court of First Instance acknowledged the ongoing nature of the costs generated by the lodging of insurance policies guaranteeing payment while, on the other hand, it ruled out the possibility that the legal assistance costs were ongoing, even though these had also arisen again and again over the years, pending resolution of the various procedures launched in the wake of the UCLAF investigation.
               The approach of the Court of First Instance was also at odds with its own case-law, which has come to recognise in the course of the years that the provision of legal advice is not instantaneous.

                  C.

                  The inadmissibility of the claim for compensation for loss of profit: distortion of the arguments and infringement of Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance

               The Court of First Instance infringed Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure and distorted the arguments of the applicants in failing to take into consideration the numerous items of evidence provided in the course of the proceedings and in holding that the claim for compensation for the damage suffered by the applicants in the form of loss of profit lacked the necessary precision.

                  D.

                  The non-material damage: non-compliance with the case-law and manifestly illogical nature of the grounds stated

               In categorising the non-material damage as instantaneous and not ongoing, without taking into account the particular characteristics of the non-material damage, the Court of First Instance adopted an approach which was manifestly at odds with Community case-law. The order under appeal is also vitiated by manifest lack of logical cohesion, in so far as the Court of First Instance takes case-law relating exclusively to material damage as a basis for holding that the non-material damage is not ongoing.

                  E.

                  The non-material damage: infringement of Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, non-compliance with the case-law on non-material damage and manifestly illogical nature of the grounds stated

               The Court of First Instance infringed Article 44(1)(c) in holding that the claim for compensation for non-material damage was inadmissible for lack of the necessary precision, in so far as the applicants did not merely complain of vague intangible damage, but provided the Court with numerous items of evidence, which were nevertheless wholly ignored.
               The Court of First Instance also acted counter to the relevant case-law on entitlement to compensation for non-material damage in seeking to determine the extent of the damage by reference to parameters which are inherently difficult to quantify or to demonstrate conclusively.
               Subsequently, the Court of First Instance further erred in law by stating grounds which are manifestly illogical in so far as it took case-law relating exclusively to material damage as a basis for holding that the claim for compensation for non-material damage was insufficiently precise.

                  F.

                  Error in law relating to the condition concerning a causal link

               The Court of First Instance erred in law by concluding that there was no direct causal link between the sending of the letter of 6 July 1998 to the Italian authorities — which gave rise to the reimbursement letters from the Italian authorities to the applicants — and the damage suffered by the applicants, that is to say, the payment of the insurance policies as guarantees for the purpose of suspending the immediate reimbursement of the sums contested.

                  G.

                  Breach of the principle that the duration of proceedings must be reasonable: (i) annulment of the order under appeal and (ii) further manifestation of the flaw for the purposes of the action for damages

               The Court of First Instance breached the principle that the duration of proceedings must be reasonable, a general principle of Community law which is also set out in the first paragraph of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

      (1)  Commission Decision 2006/678/EC of 3 October 2006 on the financial treatment to be applied, in the context of clearance of expenditure financed by the Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Section, in certain cases of irregularity by operators (OJ L 278, 10.10.2006, p. 24).


title: Case T-473/09: Action brought on 26 November 2009 — Matkompaniet v OHIM — DF World of Spices (KATOZ)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/64

         Action brought on 26 November 2009 — Matkompaniet v OHIM — DF World of Spices (KATOZ)
   (Case T-473/09)
   2010/C 24/113
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Matkompaniet AB (Borås, Sweden) (represented by: J. Gulliksson, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: DF World of Spices GmbH (Dissen, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 September 2009 in case R 1023/2008-2;

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs incurred both in these proceedings and in the proceedings before it.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark “KATOZ”, for goods in classes 29 and 30

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration of the figurative mark “KATTUS”, for goods in classes 29 and 30

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the Opposition Division

      Pleas in law:

   Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly held that there was a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.


title: Case T-360/02: Action brought on 27 November 2002 by Wolf-Dieter Graf Yorck von Wartenburg against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
8.3.2003              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 55/27
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Grounds of claim:               —     Infringement of Article 43(2)
                                                                                of Regulation (EC) No 40/
                                                                                94 ( 1) and Rule 22(2) of the
                                                                                implementing Regulation (2);
                                                                                —     Infringementof Article 8(1)(b)
Applicant for the Com-       The applicant                                                                    of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.
munity trade mark:
                                                                        (1 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
Community trade mark         Word mark ‘VITAKRAFT’ for                       Community Trade Mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
                                                                        (2 ) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December
concerned:                   goods in Classes 1, 3, 4, 12 and
                                                                             1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the
                             19 (inter alia, Chemicals used in               Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).
                             industry, science, photography, as
                             well as in agriculture, horticulture
                             and forestry, Bleaching prep-
                             arations and other substances for
                             laundry use, Industrial oils and
                             greases, Vehicles and Building
                             materials (non metallic)) — Appli-
                             cation No 303909
                                                                        Action brought on 27 November 2002 by Wolf-Dieter
Owner of the right to        KRAFFT, S.A.                               Graf Yorck von Wartenburg against the Commission of
the trade mark or sign                                                                     the European Communities
asserted by way of oppo-
sition in the opposition
proceedings                                                                                (Case T-360/02)
                                                                                (2003/C 55/76)
Trade mark or sign           The Spanish figurative marks
asserted by way of oppo-     ‘krafft’ for goods in Classes 1, 3,
sition in the opposition     4, 12 and 19 (inter alia, Chemicals
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
proceedings:                 used in industry, science, pho-
                             tography, as well as in agriculture,
                             horticulture and forestry, Bleach-
                             ing preparations and other sub-
                             stances for laundry use, Industrial
                             oils and greases, Vehicles and             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                             Building materials (non metallic))         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 27 November 2002 by Wolf-
                                                                        Dieter Graf Yorck von Wartenburg, Wittibreut, Germany,
                                                                        represented by H.-H. Heyland, Rechtsanwalt, with an address
Decision of the Oppo-        Refusal of registration as regards         for service in Luxembourg.
sition Division:             Classes 1 and 3 and dismissal of
                             the opposition in so far as it
                             concerned Classes 4, 12 and 19             The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        —      Declare that, in amending the decision of 22 June 2000
Decision of the Board of     Dismissal of KRAFFT S.A.’s appeal                 and in its conduct of the complaint procedure R/332/
Appeal:                      with regard to the following                      2002 which followed, the Commission disregarded the
                             goods in the application, ‘candles,               prescribed legal and administrative provisions inasmuch
                             wicks’ in Class 4, ‘Vehicles, appar-              as it announced a change in the decision of 22 June 2000,
                             atus for locomotion by land, air                  carried out no hearing with representation of the parties
                             or water’ in Class 12 and ‘non-                   following an objection by the applicant and the direct
                             metallic transportable buildings;                 beneficiaries of the decision, ignored the formal require-
                             monuments, not of metal’ in                       ments for attachment under German and Belgian law,
                             Class 19 and dismissal of the                     even though these had been notified to it in writing, and
                             applicant’s appeal in respect of                  instead instructed bailiff M to draw up a partition scheme,
                             all goods in the application in                   which it received and, without giving reasons, then failed
                             Classes 1 and 3                                   to carry out;
 ---pagebreak--- C 55/28                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          8.3.2003
—     Order the Commission to carry out the partition scheme              The applicant claims that the Court should:
      of bailiff M of 19 August 2002, at least in relation to the
      amount of his pension, which under Belgian law has
                                                                          —     annul the decision of the defendant of 25 September
      protection against the seizure order of bailiff V of
                                                                                2002 in the appeal procedure R 338/2001-1;
      18 March 2002;
                                                                          —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
—     Order the Commission to compensate the applicant
      for the loss (including that incurred through interest
      payments on bridging loans and non-material damage at
      the discretion of the court, not being less than EUR 100,
      together with costs incurred in enforcing his rights)
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
      arising from the fact that, since May 2002, his pension
      has been entirely deposited with bailiff M, although the
      Commission is or must be aware that such conduct is
                                                                          Community trade mark         Word mark ‘SnTEM’ — Appli-
      unlawful, the amount of compensation for material
                                                                          applied for:                 cation No 1421734
      damage on account of the continuing illegality to be
      determined in the event of the declaration being granted.
                                                                          Goods or services:           Goods in Class 6 (inter alia, met-
                                                                                allic semi-finished products in the
                                                                                form of sheets, trips, wires, tubes,
                                                                                sections and rods)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Decision before       the    Refusal of registration by the
                                                                          Board of Appeal:             examiner
The applicant, a former temporary servant now in retirement,
draws a pension from the Communities. He claims that the                  Decision of the Board of     Dismissal of appeal
Commission has unlawfully made maintenance payments out                   Appeal:
of his pension to his former wives.
                                                                          Pleas in law:                —      Infringement                of
                                                                                Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of
The applicant argues that, in making deductions from his                                                      Regulation (EC) No 40/94
pension, the Commission disregarded the prescribed legal and                                                  since the mark is not descrip-
administrative rules and infringed his right to a proper hearing.                                             tive.
Action brought on 9 December 2002 by Wieland-Werke                        Action brought on 9 December 2002 by Wieland-Werke
AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                   AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
               Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                                         Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                         (Case T-367/02)                                                          (Case T-368/02)
                         (2003/C 55/77)                                                            (2003/C 55/78)
                   (Language of the case: German)                                           (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal            An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the                   Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                    Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
9 December 2002 by Wieland-Werke AG, Ulm (Germany),                       9 December 2002 by Wieland-Werke AG, Ulm (Germany),
represented by S. Gruber and F. Graf von Stosch, lawyers.                 represented by S. Gruber and F. Graf von Stosch, lawyers.


title: Case T-28/13: Action brought on 23 January 2013 — ECC Couture v OHIM — Ball Wholesale (Culture)

text:
               16.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/26

         Action brought on 23 January 2013 — ECC Couture v OHIM — Ball Wholesale (Culture)
   (Case T-28/13)
   2013/C 79/45
   Language in which the application was lodged: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: ECC Couture BV (Oldenzaal, Netherlands) (represented by: M.A.S.M. van Leent and I. de Jonge, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ball Wholesale ApS (Billund, Denmark)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 October 2012 in Case R 290/2012-1 in so far as the applicant has been unsuccessful under that decision and in so far as the applicant is ordered to pay the costs;

               —

               declare that Community Trade Mark No 993 511 in respect of the figurative mark ‘Culture’ is valid for all goods and services that were the subject of the procedure before the Board of Appeal;

               —

               order OHIM to pay all the costs of the proceedings in accordance with Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: International registration designating the European Union of figurative mark ‘Culture’ for goods in Classes 14, 18 and 25 — Community trade mark No 993 511

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Ball Wholesale ApS

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: National word mark ‘CULTURE’ for goods in Classes 14, 25 and 26

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application refused

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal allowed in part

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case C-62/09: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 April 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — United Kingdom) — The Queen, Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry v Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (Directive 2001/83/EC — Article 94 — Financial inducements to medical practices which prescribe certain medicinal products to their patients — Public health authorities — Doctors — Freedom to prescribe)

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/11

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 April 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — United Kingdom) — The Queen, Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry v Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency
      (Case C-62/09) (1)

      (Directive 2001/83/EC - Article 94 - Financial inducements to medical practices which prescribe certain medicinal products to their patients - Public health authorities - Doctors - Freedom to prescribe)
      (2010/C 161/14)
      Language of the case: English

         Referring court

      High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court)

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: The Queen, Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry

         Defendant: Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency

         Intervener in support of the defendant: NHS Confederation (Employers) Company Ltd

         Re:

      Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — Interpretation of Article 94(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67) — Implementation by a public body forming part of the national health service of a financial inducement scheme in favour of medical practices which prescribe certain medicinal products to their patients

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 94(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004, must be interpreted as not precluding financial incentive schemes, such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, implemented by the national public health authorities in order to reduce their public-health expenditure and designed to encourage, for the purpose of treating certain conditions, the prescription by doctors of specific named medicinal products containing an active substance which is different from the active substance of the medicinal product which was previously prescribed or which might have been prescribed but for such an incentive scheme.

         (1)  OJ C 90, 18.4.2009.


title: Case F-95/09: Action brought on 13 November 2009 — Skareby v Commission

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/81

         Action brought on 13 November 2009 — Skareby v Commission
   (Case F-95/09)
   2010/C 24/155
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Carina Skareby (Leuven, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues, C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      The subject matter and description of the proceedings

   An appeal lodged against the decision of the Commission rejecting the applicant’s request that an administrative inquiry be opened in order to establish the psychological harassment she alleges to have been a victim of.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare her appeal admissible;

               —

               annul the decision of the Commission of 4 March 2009 and, so far as necessary, the decision rejecting the complaint;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-200/03: Action brought on 6 June 2003 by Annelies Keyman against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 200/26             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                       23.8.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant is an official at the Commission. He worked                The applicant in this case contests the appointing authority's
from 1992 to 2000 in Brussels. In 2000 he was transferred to             decision to dismiss her for inadequate performance.
Luxembourg and then on 1 September 2001 he was trans-
ferred back to Brussels, where he moved back into the house
in which he had previously lived.                                        In support of her claims, she pleads breach of Article 51 of
                                                                         the Staff Regulations since she could not in the circumstances
                                                                         have been found to be in any way incompetent, breach of the
The applicant alleges infringement of Article 5(1) of Annex VII          duty to have regard to the welfare of officials, misuse of
to the Staff Regulations. In his view, he and his family did in          powers, breach of the right to an inter partes hearing at the
fact move their family residence to his place of service in              time of the administrative inquiry, and disregard of the obliga-
Luxembourg. His transfer back to Brussels cannot therefore be            tion to state reasons and of the principles of proportionality
regarded as a return to his family residence.                            and good administration.
The applicant submits that, under Article 85 of the Staff                Finally, the applicant pleads that the principle of equal treat-
Regulations, recovery of a payment is justified only if the              ment has been infringed since similar cases have been treated
recipient was aware that there was no due reason for the                 differently.
payment or if the fact of the overpayment was patently such
that he could not have been unaware of it. In the applicant's
opinion, he was entitled to assume that the payment was
justified as the Commission, in full knowledge of the facts,
had decided to grant the installation allowance.
Lastly, the applicant alleges infringement of the principle of
equal treatment of staff members. Installation allowance is
                                                                         Action brought on 10 June 2003 by Lars Bo Rasmussen
payable to a staff member not entitled to the household
                                                                              against Commission of the European Communities
allowance but not to a staff member entitled to the household
allowance whose family have not yet settled at that staff
member's place of service.                                                                       (Case T-203/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 200/48)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Action brought on 6 June 2003 by Annelies Keyman                         An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
  against the Commission of the European Communities                     nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 10 June 2003 by Lars Bo
                        (Case T-200/03)                                  Rasmussen, residing in Hellerup (Denmark), represented by
                                                                         Gilles Bounéou, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxem-
                                                                         bourg.
                        (2003/C 200/47)
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                  (Language of the Case: French)
                                                                         —     annul Commission Decision No 34988 of 1 July 2000;
An action against the Commission of the European Commu-                  —     annul the decision of 21 January 2003 rejecting the
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                   complaint;
European Communities on 6 June 2003 by Annelies Keyman,
resident in Overijse, Belgium, represented by Carlos Mourato,            —     order the defendant to repay the sums wrongfully recov-
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                             ered on the basis of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations
                                                                               together with interest for late payment;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay the applicant 10 000 EUR in
                                                                               damages or any other amount, even greater, that the
—     annul the appointing authority's decision of 10 March                    Court may decide is equitable in compensation for the
      2003 to dismiss her;                                                     non-material damage sustained;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                              —     order the defendant to pay the costs, expenses and fees.


title: Appeal brought on 15 September 1997 by Smanor SA, Hubert Ségaud and Monique Ségaud against the order made on 3 July 1997 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-201/96 between, on the one hand, Smanor SA, Hubert Ségaud and Monique Ségaud and, on the other, Commission of the European Communities (Case C-317/97 P)

text:
C 357/12                 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  22 . 11 . 97
award of public works contracts must be interpreted as                  1 . The appeal is dismissed.
precluding contracting authorities from rejecting
abnormally low tenders after 31 December 1992 without
following the verification procedure provided for in the                2 . The applicants are ordered to pay the costs.
first subparagraph of that provision.
                                                                        (') OJ C 108 , 5 . 4 . 1997.
(') OJ C 336 , 9 . 11 . 1996 .
                                                                        Appeal brought on 15 September 1997 by Smanor SA,
                                                                        Hubert Ségaud and Monique Ségaud against the order
                                                                        made on 3 July 1997 by the Second Chamber of the Court
                                                                        of First Instance of the European Communities in Case
                    ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                        T-201/96 between, on the one hand, Smanor SA, Hubert
                           ( First Chamber)                             Ségaud and Monique Ségaud and, on the other,
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
                         of 6 October 1997                                                         ( Case C-3 17/97 P )
in Case C-55 /97 P: Association Internationale des Utilisa                                            ( 97/C 357/22 )
teurs de Fils de Filaments Artificiels et Synthétiques et de
Soie Naturelle ( AIUFFASS ), a company under Belgian law,
Apparel, Knitting & Textiles Alliance (AKT), a company                  An appeal against the order made on 3 July 1997 by the
under English law, against Commission of the European                   Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
Communities, supported by the United Kingdom of Great                   European Communities in Case T-201/96 between, on the
                Britain and Northern Ireland (')                        one hand, Smanor SA, Hubert Ségaud and Monique
                                                                        Ségaud and, on the other, Commission of the European
 (Appeal — Article 92 (3) (a) and (c) of the EC Treaty —                Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
 Textiles — Manifest error of assessment — Overcapacity                 the European Communities on 15 September 1997 by
                          — Admissibility)                              Smanor SA, Hubert Ségaud and Monique Ségaud,
                                                                        represented by Laurence Roques, of the Val de Marne Bar,
                             ( 97/C 357/21 )                            with an address for service at 7/9 Rue du General de
                                                                        Larminat, Créteil .
                  (Language of the case: French)                        The appellant claims that the Court should set aside the
                                                                        order appealed against and, ruling afresh, grant the
                                                                        applications originally made and order the Commission to
                                                                        pay all the costs.
 In Case C-55/97 P, Association Internationale des Utilisa
 teurs de Fils de Filaments Artificiels et Synthétiques et de            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 Soie Naturelle ( AIUFFASS ), a company under Belgian law,
 established in Gent ( Belgium ), Apparel , Knitting &
 Textiles Alliance ( AKT), a company under English law,                  Failure to comply with secondary Community law: in the
 established in London, represented by Michel Waelbroeck,               circumstances of the case, faced with a failure to act as
 Jules Stuyck and Olivier Spletdoorn, of the Brussels Bar,               persistent in duration as inexplicable in motivation,
 with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                        directly giving rise to a spiralling increase in the damage
 Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt —                     suffered, the Court of First Instance could not, without
 appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance              failing in its duty to take all the relevant aspects of the
 of the European Communities ( Fifth Chamber, Extended                   case into consideration, acknowledge that the Commission
 Composition ) in Case T-380/94 AIUFFASS and AKT v.                      enjoyed the discretion recognized in Case C-247/8 7 Star
 Commission [ 1996 ] ECR 11-2169, seeking the annulment                  Fruit v. Commission ('), which is totally irrelevant in
 of that judgment, the other party to the proceedings being :            this case because it referred to factual circumstances
 Commission of the European Communities ( Agent: Xavier                  completely unrelated to the legal consequences entailed by
 Lewis ), supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain                   the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case 298/87
 and Northern Ireland ( Agent: Lindsey Nicoll, assisted                  Smanor ( 2 ).
 by Richard Plender and Stephen Morris ) — the Court
 ( First Chamber ), composed of L. Sevón, President of                   (') [ 1989 ] ECR, p . 291 .
 the Chamber, D. A. O. Edward and M. Wathelet                            ( 2 ) [ 1988 ] ECR, p . 4489 .
 ( Rapporteur ), Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; R.
 Grass, Registrar, made an order on 6 October 1997, the
 operative part of which is as follows :


               25.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 74/37

         (2006/C 74/71)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 60, 11.3.2006

   Past publications

      OJ C 48, 25.2.2006

      OJ C 36, 11.2.2006

      OJ C 22, 28.1.2006

      OJ C 10, 14.1.2006

      OJ C 330, 24.12.2005

      OJ C 315, 10.12.2005

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex:http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex

               CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-97/93 and others

text:
No C 31 /20            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                           3 . 2 . 96
The choice of a 5 % profit margin is difficult to understand          Commission has hitherto failed to adopt a final decision
in that in a regional procedure limited to the United                 regarding their application for a negative clearance or an
Kingdom concerning the same product, which led the                    exemption for the rules for the certification of crane hire
Commission to accept quantitative undertakings from May               businesses which they have notified, and which include a
1994 , it accepted a profit margin of 10% .                           prohibition on the hiring of non-certificated cranes . In
                                                                      interlocutory proceedings the national court has ordered
The applicant finally considers that a 15 % profit margin is          that the prohibition of hiring such cranes is not to be applied
the vital minimum which would enable the Community                    until the Commission has adopted a final decision. The
industry, on the one hand, to finance necessary sustaining            applicants claim that as a result of the prohibition by the
investment and, on the other hand, to reinvest for updating           court there is a danger that the national Raad voor de
and replacing existing capacities .                                   Certificatie will withdraw its recognition of the applicants,
                                                                      which threatens their existence and impairs their good
                                                                      reputation .
                                                                      The applicants consider that the Commission's failure is
                                                                      unlawful because it infringes Article 6 of the European
                                                                      Convention on the Protection of Human Rights, in
Action brought on 27 November 1995 by the Stichting                   particular the requirement for a fair timelimit to
Certificatie Kraanverhuurbedrijf and the Federatie van                proceedings, and because it infringes general principles of
Nederlandse Kraanverhuurbedrijven against Commission                  law, namely the principle of legal certainty, the principle of
                 of the European Communities                          the protection of legitimate expectations and the applicants'
                        ( Case T-2 13/95 )                            right to a hearing.
                           ( 96/C 31 /47
                  (Language of the case: Dutch)
An action against the Commission of the European                             Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-97/93
Communities was brought before the Court of First                                                  and others (M
Instance of the European Communities on 27 November                                                   96/C 31 /48
 1995 by the Stichting Certificatie Kraanverhuurbedrijf and
the Federatie van Nederlandse Kraanverhuurbedrijven,                                   (Language of the case: German)
whose registered offices are both at Culemborg
 ( Netherlands ), represented by M. van Empel, of the                 By order of 11 December 1995 the President of the First
Amsterdam Bar, and T. Janssens, of the Brussels Bar, with             Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of the Court of First
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of               Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
M. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe .                                            from the register of Cases T-142/93 : Heinz Giinther Herken
                                                                      v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the
The applicants claim that the Court should:                           European Communities, and T-149/93 : Hans Roper v.
                                                                       Council of the European Union and Commission of the
 1 . hold the European Community liable for the damage                European Communities.
      which the applicants are suffering and will suffer as a
      result of the unlawful conduct of the Commission cited           ( ] ) OJ No C 178 , 18 . 7. 1990, OJ No C 146 , 5 . 6 . 1991 and OJ
                                                                             No C 44 , 19 . 2 . 1992 .
      in the application;
 2 . order the European Community to pay compensation
      for that damage and to establish the extent of the
      damage in consultation with the applicants, and if the
      parties are not able to reach a mutual agreement                         Removal from the register of Case T-224/94 ( J )
      regarding the determination of the extent of the damage                                          96/C 31 /49
      to declare that the Court will establish its extent, if
      necessary after appointing an expert in order to quantify                         (Language of the case: English)
      exactly what damage has been suffered;
                                                                       By order of 18 December 1995 the President of the Fifth
  3 . order the European Community to pay the costs of these           Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of the Court of First
      proceedings .                                                    Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                       from the register of Case T-224/94 : Ferchimex N.V. v.
  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   Council of the European Union, supported by the
                                                                        Commission of the European Communities .
  The applicants claim that despite an express call for it to act,
  made pursuant to Article 175 of the EC Treaty, the                    (!) OJ No C 218 , 6 . 8 . 1994 .