title: Case C-303/03: Action brought on 14 July 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
6.9.2003                  EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 213/21
—      order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                        Action brought on 14 July 2003 by Commission of the
                                                                           European Communities against PROSECOM — Protecção,
                                                                                Segurança e Comunicações, Lda
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Case C-304/03)
The time-limit for implementing the directive expired on
9 April 2002.                                                                                (2003/C 213/38)
( 1) OJ L 94 of 9.4.1999, p. 24.
                                                                           An action against PROSECOM — Protecção, Segurança e
                                                                           Comunicações, Lda. was brought before the Court of Justice of
                                                                           the European Communities on 14 July 2003 by the Com-
                                                                           mission of the European Communities, represented by R. Lyal
                                                                           and G. Braga da Cruz, acting as Agents, with an address for
                                                                           service in Luxembourg.
Action brought on 14 July 2003 by the Commission of
   the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                            (Case C-303/03)
                                                                           —     order the defendant to pay to the applicant
                            (2003/C 213/37)                                      EUR 111 605,10 (one hundred and eleven thousand six
                                                                                hundred and five euros and ten cents), composed of
                                                                                EUR 88 276 by way of capital, and EUR 23 329,10 by
                                                                                way of interest accrued between 15 November 1998 until
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the                    30 June 2003, inclusive, at the rate of 5,50 % (until
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 July                          31 December 2002) and 7,50 % (from 1 January 2003);
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by M. Konstantinidis and R. Amorosi, acting as
Agents.                                                                    —     order the defendant to pay EUR 18,14 (eighteen euros
                                                                                and fourteen cents) per day as interest calculated at the
                                                                                same rate from 1 July 2003, until full payment;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.
—      find that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
       and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
       Directive 2000/53/EC ( 1) of the European Parliament and
       of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of- life
       vehicles or, in any event, by failing to communicate the
       same to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed             Pleas in law and main arguments
       to fulfil its obligations under Article 10 of that directive;
—      order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                        Under the general terms and conditions of the contract,
                                                                           the signatories agreed, in the event that the total financial
                                                                           contribution by the Commission should prove to be less than
                                                                           the payment actually made, to return the difference forthwith
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            to the Commission. By failing to return forthwith the above-
                                                                           mentioned amounts which were given to it by the Com-
                                                                           mission, the defendant failed to fulfil its obligations under the
The time-limit for implementing the directive expired on                   contract. The total amount of costs accepted by the defendant
21 April 2002.                                                             found by the Commission after an audit was PTE 26 270 857,
                                                                           so that the Commission’s contribution was fixed at
                                                                           PTE 13 135 428 (ECU 68 686). In view of the fact that the
( 1) OJ L 269 of 21.10.2000, p. 34.                                        total received by the defendant was ECU 156 962, the
                                                                           amount overpaid which must be returned by the defendant is
                                                                           ECU 88 276. No payment has been made to date, so that the
                                                                           defendant is still in debt for the full amount. In addition to the


               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/1

         2010/C 234/01
   Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 221, 14.8.2010

      Past publications

      OJ C 209, 31.7.2010

      OJ C 195, 17.7.2010

      OJ C 179, 3.7.2010

      OJ C 161, 19.6.2010

      OJ C 148, 5.6.2010

      OJ C 134, 22.5.2010

   These texts are available on:
   EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Case T-396/13: Action brought on 30 July 2013 — Dosen v OHIM — Gramm (Nano-Pad)

text:
               21.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/23

         Action brought on 30 July 2013 — Dosen v OHIM — Gramm (Nano-Pad)
   (Case T-396/13)
   2013/C 274/39
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Franko Dosen (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: H. Losert, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Thomas Gramm (Bremen, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Cancellation Division of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 September 2011 (Ref: 4204 C) in the form of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 13 May 2013 in Case R 1981/2011-4.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Word mark ‘Nano-Pad’ for goods in Class 17 — Community trade mark No 8 228 421

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Franko Dosen

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Thomas Gramm

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Absolute grounds for invalidity under Article 52(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 207/2009

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: The application for a declaration of invalidity was granted in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 December 2001 in Case C-61/01 P: Francis Panichelli v European Parliament (Officials — Temporary agent — Lack of promotion — Reassessment of post — Drawing up of staff reports — Termination of contract — Appeal manifestly inadmissible and manifestly unfounded)

text:
1.6.2002                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 131/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                                           ORDER OF THE COURT
                        (Second Chamber)                                                             (Fourth Chamber)
                      of 11 December 2001                                                          of 13 December 2001
in Case C-301/00 P: Karl L. Meyer v Commission of the                        in Case C-61/01 P: Francis Panichelli v European Parlia-
                   European Communities (1)                                                                ment (1)
(PTOM — Project financed by the EDF — Action for                             (Officials — Temporary agent — Lack of promotion —
damages — Legitimate expectations — Commission duty to                       Reassessment of post — Drawing up of staff reports —
                              monitor)                                       Termination of contract — Appeal manifestly inadmissible
                                                                                and manifestly unfounded)
                          (2002/C 131/01)
                                                                                (2002/C 131/02)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case 301/00 P: Karl L. Meyer, residing at Uturoa (Island of
Raiatea, French Polynesia), represented by J.-D. des Arcis,
                                                                             In Case 61/01 P: Francis Panichelli, residing in Wezembeek-
avocat, — appeal against the judgment of the Court of First
                                                                             Oppem (Belgium), represented by E. Boigelot, lawyer — appeal
Instance of the European Communities, Third Chamber, of
                                                                             against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
27 June 2000 in Case T-72/99 Meyer v Commission [2000]
                                                                             European Communities, Second Chamber, of 13 December
ECR II-2521, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other
                                                                             2000 in Joined Cases T-130/98 and T-131/98 Panichelli v
party to the proceedings being Commission of the European
                                                                             Parliament [2000] ECR-SC I-A-287, II-1311, seeking to have
Communities (Agent: X. Lewis) — the Court, composed of
                                                                             that judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings
N. Colneric (Rapporteur), President of Chamber, R. Schintgen
                                                                             being European Parliament (Agents: J. F. de Wachter and
and V. Skouris, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass,
                                                                             D. Moore) — the Court, composed of S. von Bahr (Rapporteur),
Registrar, made an order on 11 December 2001, the operative
                                                                             President of Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and A. La Pergola,
part of which is as follows:
                                                                             Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
                                                                             made an order on 13 December 2001, the operative part of
1.    The appeal is dismissed.                                               which is as follows:
2.    Mr Meyer shall bear the costs.
                                                                             1.    The appeal brought by Mr Panichelli and the cross-appeal
                                                                                brought by the European Parliament are dismissed.
(1) OJ C 273 of 23.9.2000.
                                                                             2.    Mr Panichelli and the European Parliament shall bear their
                                                                                own costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 131/2                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        1.6.2002
3.    The Parliament’s application for the Court to order                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundespa-
      Mr Panichelli to bear his own costs at first instance in Case        tentgericht by order of that Court of 22 January 2002
      T-130/98 is rejected.                                                in the administrative appeal brought by Heidelberger
                                                                                Bauchemie GmbH
(1) OJ C 108 of 7.4.2001.
                                                                                (Case C-49/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 131/04)
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                     European Communities by order of the Bundespatentgericht
                                                                           (Federal Patents Court) (Germany) of 22 January 2002, received
                                                                           at the Court Registry on 20 February 2002, for a preliminary
                        (Fourth Chamber)                                   ruling in the administrative appeal brought by Heidelberger
                                                                           Bauchemie GmbH on the following questions:
                         of 14 March 2002
                                                                           For the purposes of registration as a trade mark, do colours or
in Joined Cases C-250/01 P and C-251/01 P: Mario Costac-                   combinations of colours claimed in the abstract, without
    urta v Commission of the European Communities (1)                      delineation and in hues which are indicated by a colour sample
                                                                           (colour specimen), named in words and identified under a
                                                                           recognised colour classification system fulfil the requirements
(Appeals — Application of Article 3 of Annex X to the Staff                for ability to constitute a trade mark laid down in Article 2 of
Regulations — Re-posting of the applicant to a non-Member                  First Council Directive 89/104/EEC (1) of 21 December 1988
State — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility — Appeal                    to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade
      manifestly unfounded and inadmissible — Costs)                       marks?
                          (2002/C 131/03)                                  In particular, for the purposes of Article 2 of the directive, is
                                                                           such an ‘(abstract) colour mark’
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           a)    a sign,
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     b)    sufficiently distinctive to be capable of indicating origin,
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           c)    capable of being represented graphically?
In Joined Cases C-250/01 P and C-251/01 P: Mario Costacurta,               (1) OJ L 40 of 11.2.1989, p. 1.
a former official of the Commission of the European Com-
munities, residing at Luxembourg, represented by M. Petit,
lawyer — two appeals against the orders of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities, Second Chamber, of
7 June 2001 in Case T-328/00 Costacurta v Commission, not
published in the European Court Reports, seeking to have
those orders set aside, the other party to the proceedings being
                                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall,                Eisenstadt by order of that Court of 17 January 2002 in
assisted by B. Wägenbaur) — the Court (Fourth Chamber),                    the private prosecutions brought by Montres Rolex S.A.
composed of S. von Bahr, President of Chamber,
                                                                                and Others
D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and A. La Pergola, Judges; D. Ruiz-
Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made
an order on 14 March 2002, the operative part of which is as                                         (Case C-60/02)
follows:
                                                                                (2002/C 131/05)
1.    The appeals are dismissed.
2.    Mr Costacurta shall bear the costs.                                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by order of the Landesgericht Eisen-
                                                                           stadt (Regional Court, Eisenstadt) of 17 January 2002, received
(1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
                                                                           at the Court Registry on 25 February 2002, for a preliminary
                                                                           ruling in the private prosecutions brought by Montres Rolex
                                                                           S.A. and Others, on the following question:


title: Case C-277/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — PPUH Stehcemp sp. j. Florian Stefanek, Janina Stefanek, Jarosław Stefanek v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Łodzi (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax — Sixth Directive — Right of deduction — Refusal — Sale by an entity regarded as non-existent)

text:
               14.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 414/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — PPUH Stehcemp sp. j. Florian Stefanek, Janina Stefanek, Jarosław Stefanek v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Łodzi
   (Case C-277/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax - Sixth Directive - Right of deduction - Refusal - Sale by an entity regarded as non-existent))
   (2015/C 414/09)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: PPUH Stehcemp sp. j. Florian Stefanek, Janina Stefanek, Jarosław Stefanek

      Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Łodzi

      Operative part of the judgment

   The provisions of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 2002/38/EC of 7 May 2002, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, by which a taxable person is not allowed to deduct the value added tax due or paid in respect of goods that were delivered to him on the grounds that the invoice was issued by a trader which is to be regarded, in the light of the criteria provided by that legislation, as a non-existent trader, and that it is impossible to determine the identity of the actual supplier of the goods, except where it is established, on the basis of objective factors and without the taxable person being required to carry out checks which are not his responsibility, that that taxable person knew, or should have known, that that transaction was connected with value-added-tax fraud, this being a matter for the referring court to determine.

      (1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.


title: Case F-72/10: Action brought on 2 September 2010 — da Silva Tenreiro v Commission

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/49

         Action brought on 30 August 2010 — Cantisani v Commission
   (Case F-71/10)
   ()
   2010/C 317/87
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Nicola Cantisani (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. de Lannoy, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the Commission's decision rejecting the applicant's request for assistance in respect of harrassment and claim for compensation.

      Forms of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Director of the Directorate General for Personnel and Administration of the Commission of 9 October 2009 (ADMIN.B2/JJ/jm 0(09)) whereby the adminstration decided it did not need to take action in respect of the applicant's request to the Commission for assistance of 29 January 2009;

               —

               Compensate the applicant for material and non-material damage suffered by reason of the acts of harrassment;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 14 July 1998 in Case T-119/95: Alfred Hauer v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment - Regulation (EEC) No 816/92 - Time limit for bringing proceedings - Admissibility - Action for damages - Common organisation of the market in milk and milk products - Reference quantities - Additional levy - Reduction of reference quantities without compensation)

text:
C 299/30               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  26.9.98
    Duchy of Luxembourg and the French Republic have                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    failed to fulfil their obligations under that Directive;
                                                                     The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to
                                                                     those put forward in Case C-311/98 (2).
Ð order the Kingdom of Belgium, the Grand Duchy of
    Luxembourg and the French Republic respectively to               (1) OJ L 280, 29.10.1994, p. 83.
    pay the costs.                                                   (2) See page 29 of this Official Journal.
                                                    COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 14 July 1998                                         (Third Chamber, extended composition)
in Case T-119/95: Alfred Hauer v. Council of the
European Union and Commission of the European                                                 of 16 July 1998
                        Communities (1)
                                                                     in   Case    T-109/96:      Gilberte Gebhard   v. European
(Action for annulment Ð Regulation (EEC) No 816/92 Ð                                           Parliament (1)
Time limit for bringing proceedings Ð Admissibility Ð
Action for damages Ð Common organisation of the                      (Officials Ð Auxiliary staff Ð Auxiliary session
market in milk and milk products Ð Reference quantities              interpreters of the European Parliament Ð Legality of
Ð Additional levy Ð Reduction of reference quantities                       levying Community tax on their remuneration)
                     without compensation)
                                                                                (98/C 299/48)
                          (98/C 299/47)
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-119/95: Alfred Hauer, residing in Niederweiler
(Germany), represented by FrancËois, Neuhaus & Co., with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                     In Case T-109/96: Gilberte Gebhard, conference
Annick Wurth, 100 Boulevard de la PeÂtrusse v. the
                                                                     interpreter, residing in Heidelberg (Germany), represented
Council of the European Union (Agent: Arthur Brautigam)
                                                                     by Thierry Schmitt and Pierre Soler-Couteaux, of the
and the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                     Strasbourg Bar, against European Parliament (Agents:
(Agent: Klaus-Dieter Borchardt) Ð application for
                                                                     Manfred Peter, Didier Petersheim and JoaÄo Sant'Anna) Ð
annulment of Council Regulation (EEC) No 816/92 of
                                                                     application for reimbursement of Community tax levied
31 March 1992 amending Regulation (EEC) No 804/68
                                                                     on two payments of remuneration to the applicant Ð the
on the common organisation of the market in milk and
                                                                     Court of First Instance (Third Chamber, extended
milk products (2) and for compensation for the damage
                                                                     composition), composed of: V. Tiili, President, C. P. BrieÈt,
suffered as a result of the application of that Regulation
                                                                     K. Lenaerts, A. Potocki and J. D. Cooke, Judges; A. Mair,
Ð the Court (First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf,
                                                                     Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
President, C. W. Bellamy and R. M. Moura Ramos,
                                                                     16 July 1998, in which it:
Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 14 July 1998, in which it:
1. dismisses the claim for annulment as inadmissible;                1. dismisses the application;
2. dismisses the claim for compensation as unfounded;
                                                                     2. orders the parties to bear their own costs.
3. orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 294, 5.10.1996.
(1) OJ C 208, 12.8.1995.
(2) OJ L 86, 1.4.1992, p. 83.


title: Action brought in the Court of Justice on 25 February 1997 by the Region of Wallonia against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-70/97)

text:
14 . 6 . 97             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 181 / 15
Action brought on 10 February 1997 by 'C' against the                  Court of Justice of 21 March 1997, by the Region of
          Commission of the European Communities                       Wallonia, established at Jambes ( Belgium ), represented by
                         ( Case T-27/97 )                              Jean-Marie De Backer, Georges Vandersanden and Olivier
                                                                       Ralet, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                           ( 97/C 181 /29 )
                                                                       Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 30
                                                                       Rue de Cessange .
                (Language of the case: Spanish)
An action against the Commission of the European                       The applicant claims that the Court should :
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 10 February                    — annul decision No C 43/96 of the Commission of
1997 by ' C', represented by Valeriano Hernandez Martin,                     18 December 1996 entitled 'Acier CECA — Forges de
of the Madrid Bar, of 2 Calle Conde de la Cimera ,                           Clabecq',
Madrid .
                                                                       — order the Commission to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— declare wholly null and void or non-existent the
     decision of the appointing authority of the European
     Commission of 30 March 1992 , by which it accepted                In June 1996 the applicant, which held, through the
     the resignation tendered by 'C' and regarded the same             intermediary of the Societe Wallonne pour la Siderurgie
     as definitive,                                                    ( SWS ), a public limited liability company wholly owned
                                                                       by the Region of Wallonia, 30% of the representative
                                                                       shares in the capital of SA Forges de Clabecq, approved
— acknowledge the current status of the applicant as that
     of an official of the Commission, and either ( a ) order
                                                                       the decision of SWS to participate in the restructuring of
                                                                       the capital of the undertaking in the sum of Bfrs
     the payment to him of the remuneration earned but                 1 500 000 000 .
     not received by him since 1 April 1992 or ( b ) confirm
     that the invalidity pension to be granted to ' C' should
     take effect, following completion of the appropriate              The contested decision of the Commission states that that
     formalities, from 1 April 1992 ,                                  measure in favour of Forges de Clabecq constitutes aid
                                                                       which is incompatible with the common market within the
— order the Commission of the European Communities                     meaning of Article 1 ( 2 ) of Decision No 3855/91 /ECSC .
     to pay the costs .
                                                                       The applicant contests that decision, which already forms
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    the subject-matter of two other applications ('), by
                                                                       pleading, first of all, a failure to have regard to
The applicant contests the acceptance by the appointing                fundamental rights. The Commission did not take
authority, on 30 March 1992, of the resignation tendered               account, in any way, of the effect which the
by him from his post as a grade LA 8 official of the                   characterization of the measures taken by SWS as illegal
Commission .                                                           aid within the meaning of the ECSC Treaty could have on
                                                                       the loss of the jobs of all of the employees of Forges de
The ground on which nullity is pleaded is that, because he             Clabecq and the deterioration of the social fabric of an
suffered from paranoid schizophrenia, the applicant did                entire region . The right to work constitutes a
not understand the significance of his actions at the time             constitutional tradition commonly recognized in all the
                                                                       Member States .
when he submitted his aforesaid resignation and thus
lacked the intention to be bound thereby. Consequently,
the act of resignation must be regarded as critically                  The applicant further complains that the Commission has
vitiated by the fact of its nullity or non-existence.                  disregarded general principles of law, such as the
                                                                       principles of equality of treatment and of proportionality,
                                                                       by applying competition law without taking any account
                                                                       of the economic and social consequences which that
                                                                       decision will have on a disadvantaged region in which
                                                                       there is already severe unemployment, and has violated
                                                                       the principle of the right to a fair hearing by refusing to
Action brought in the Court of Justice on 25 February                  discuss the matter with the applicant and its advisers.
1997 by the Region of Wallonia against the Commission
                 of the European Communities
                                                                       In addition, the applicant pleads infringement of
                         ( Case T-70/97)
                                                                       Article 4 ( c ) and Article 95 of the ECSC Treaty and
                           ( 97/C 181 /30 )                            various errors of reasoning, such as breach of the concept
                                                                       of public service .
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                       (') Case T-4/97 ( OJ No C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p. 23 ); Case T-37/97
An action against the Commission of the European                           ( OJ No C 131 , 26 . 4 . 1997, p. 22 ).
Communities has been brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities, by order of the


title: Case C-486/11: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães — Portugal) — Jonathon Rodrigues Esteves v Companhia de Seguros Allianz Portugal SA (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure — Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC, 90/232/EEC and 2005/14/EC — Right to compensation by means of compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Victim’s contribution to loss or injury — Exclusion or limitation of the right to compensation)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/41

         Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães — Portugal) — Jonathon Rodrigues Esteves v Companhia de Seguros Allianz Portugal SA
   (Case C-486/11) (1)

   (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure - Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC, 90/232/EEC and 2005/14/EC - Right to compensation by means of compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Victim’s contribution to loss or injury - Exclusion or limitation of the right to compensation)
   2013/C 225/70
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Jonathon Rodrigues Esteves

      Defendant: Companhia de Seguros Allianz Portugal SA

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling -Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães — Interpretation of Article 1a of Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1990 L 129, p. 33) — National provisions allowing the exclusion of the right of victims to compensation for accidents on the basis of an individual assessment of their contribution to the accident

      Operative part of the order

   Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles must be interpreted as not precluding national provisions falling within civil liability law that allow exclusion or limitation of the right of the victim of an accident to claim compensation under the civil liability insurance of the motor vehicle involved in the accident, on the basis of an individual assessment of the exclusive or partial contribution of that victim to his own loss or injury.

      (1)  OJ C 355, 3.12.2011.


title: Case C-42/16: Order of the President of the Court of 10 January 2017 — European Commission v Republic of Finland

text:
               24.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/13

         Order of the President of the Court of 10 January 2017 — European Commission v Republic of Finland
   (Case C-42/16) (1)

   (2017/C 129/18)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.


title: Case C-204/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 19 May 2008 — Peter Rehder v Air Baltic Corporation

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 19 May 2008 — Peter Rehder v Air Baltic Corporation
   (Case C-204/08)
   (2008/C 197/18)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesgerichtshof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Peter Rehder

      Defendant: Air Baltic Corporation
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is the second indent of Article 5(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) to be interpreted as meaning that in the case of journeys by air from one Member State to another the single place of performance for all contractual obligations must be taken to be the place of the main provision of services, determined according to economic criteria?

               2.

               Where a single place of performance is to be determined: What criteria are relevant for its determination; is the single place of performance determined, in particular, by the place of departure or the place of arrival?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.


title: Case T-17/14: Action brought on 8 January 2014  — U4U and Others v Parliament and Council

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/41

         Action brought on 8 January 2014 — U4U and Others v Parliament and Council
   (Case T-17/14)
   2014/C 112/54
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Union pour l’Unité (U4U) (Brussels, Belgium); Unité & Solidarité — Hors Union (USHU) (Brussels); Regroupement Syndical (RS) (Saint-Josse-ten-Noode, Belgium); and Georges Vlandas (Brussels) (represented by: F. Krenc, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union and European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The parties claim that the Court should:

               —

               declare the present action admissible and well founded;

               —

               accordingly, annul Regulation No 10223/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013, amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union in so far as it:

                           (1)

                           amends Annex X to the Staff Regulations (Art.1, No 70);

                           (2)

                           amends Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and Annex 1 thereto, and adds Section 5 to Annex XIII (Art. 1, No 27, No 61 and No 73(k)).

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.
   The first three pleas in law concern the amendment of Annex X to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’).

               1.

               The first plea alleging an infringement of Article 10 of the Staff Regulations, Articles 12, 27 and 28 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and Article 11 of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘the ECHR’), in particular by the failure to consult the Committee on the reform of Annex X to the Staff Regulations.

               2.

               Second plea alleging infringement of Articles 12, 27 and 28 of the Charter and Article 11 of the ECHR by the lack of information and genuine and appropriate consultation of the unions, officials and other servants as regards the reform of Annex X.

               3.

               Third plea in law alleging a breach of the principles of sound legislation and in particular the duty of thoroughness and the duty to state reasons
               The last three pleas concern the amendment of Article 45 and Annex I to the Staff Regulations, and the addition of Section 5 in Annex XIII thereof.

               4.

               Fourth plea alleging an infringement of Article 10 of the Staff Regulations, Articles 12, 27 and 28 of the Charter and Article 11 of the ECHR, in particular the lack of consultation of the Staff Regulations Committee concerning the reform of AD careers

               5.

               Fifth plea alleging an infringement of Articles 12, 27 and 28 of the Charter and Article 11 of the ECHR by the lack of information and genuine and adequate consultation of the unions, officials and other servants regarding the reform of AD careers.

               6.

               Sixth plea alleging breach of the principles of sound legislation and in particular the duty of thoroughness and the duty to state reasons.


title: Case T-605/14: Action brought on 11 August 2014  — Drex Technologies v Council

text:
               13.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 361/22

         Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Drex Technologies v Council
   (Case T-605/14)
   2014/C 361/33
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Drex Technologies SA (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: E. Ruchat and C. Cornet d’Elzius, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare its action to be both admissible and well founded;

               —

               consequently, annul Decision 2014/309/CFSP of 28 May 2014 and the subsequent measures implementing it in so far as they concern the applicant;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those raised in Case T-432/11 Makhlouf v Council
       (1).

      (1)  OJ C 290, p. 13.


title: Case C-590/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 26 October 2016 — Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI) v Alouminion tis Ellados VEAE, previously Alouminion AE, European Commission (Appeal — State aid — Production of aluminium — Preferential electricity tariff granted by a contract — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market — Termination of the contract — Judicial suspension of the effects of termination of the contract — Decision declaring the aid unlawful — Article 108(3) TFEU — Concepts of ‘existing aid’ and ‘new aid’ — Distinction)

text:
               9.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/7

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 26 October 2016 — Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI) v Alouminion tis Ellados VEAE, previously Alouminion AE, European Commission
   (Case C-590/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - State aid - Production of aluminium - Preferential electricity tariff granted by a contract - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - Termination of the contract - Judicial suspension of the effects of termination of the contract - Decision declaring the aid unlawful - Article 108(3) TFEU - Concepts of ‘existing aid’ and ‘new aid’ - Distinction))
   (2017/C 006/08)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI) (represented by: E. Bourtzalas, avocat, and by E. Salaka, C. Synodinos, C. Tagaras and A. Oikonomou, dikigoroi)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Alouminion tis Ellados VEAE, previously Alouminion AE (represented by: G. Dellis, N. Korogiannakis, E. Chrysafis, D. Diakopoulos and N. Keramidas, dikigoroi)
   European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier and A. Bouchagiar, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 8 October 2014 in Alouminion v Commission (T-542/11, EU:T:2014:859);

               2.

               Refers Case T-542/11 back to the General Court of the European Union;

               3.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.


title: Case C-425/04: Action brought on 4 October 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/32

         Action brought on 4 October 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
   (Case C-425/04)
   (2004/C 300/60)
   An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 October 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Wouter Wils and Claudio Loggi, acting as Agents.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/16/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2001 on the interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system or, in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 27 of that directive;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The period for transposition of the directive expired on 20 April 2003.

      (1)  OJ L 110 of 20.04.2001, p. 1.


title: Case C-294/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by order of the Juzgado de lo Social No 30 de Madrid of 5 July 2004 in the case between C. Sarkatzis Herrero and Instituto Madrileño de la Salud

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/28

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by order of the Juzgado de lo Social No 30 de Madrid of 5 July 2004 in the case between C. Sarkatzis Herrero and Instituto Madrileño de la Salud
   (Case C-294/04)
   (2004/C 228/57)
   A reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Juzgado de lo Social No 30 de Madrid of 5 July 2004 for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between C. Sarkatzis Herrero and the Instituto Madrileño de la Salud and received at the Court Registry on 12 July 2004.
   The Juzgado de lo Social No 30 de Madrid has requested the Court of Justice to rule on the following questions:

               1.

               Must the Community provisions on maternity leave and equal treatment for men and women in access to work be interpreted as meaning that a woman on maternity leave who while in that situation obtains a post in the public service must enjoy the same rights as the other applicants who have been successful in the competition for access to the public service?

               2.

               Irrespective of what might have occurred in the case of an employee taking up a post for the first time, if the employment relationship was in force, albeit suspended, while she was on maternity leave, does access to the status of permanent employee constitute one of the rights associated with career advancement whose effectiveness cannot be affected by the fact that the person concerned is on maternity leave?

               3.

               In application of the abovementioned provisions, and in particular those on equal treatment for men and women in access to employment or when employment has been obtained, is a temporary servant who is on maternity leave when she obtains a permanent post entitled to take up her administrative post and assume the status of official, with the rights inherent in such status, such as the initiation of her professional career and the calculation of her seniority, from that moment, and on the same conditions as all the other applicants who have obtained posts, notwithstanding that, according to the provisions of domestic law applicable in her case, the exercise of the rights associated with the actual performance of work may be suspended until such time as she actually commences work?


title: Case T-390/12: Action brought on 5 September 2012 — Lifted Research and LRG Europe/OHIM — Fei Liangchen (Lr geans)

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/30

         Action brought on 5 September 2012 — Lifted Research and LRG Europe/OHIM — Fei Liangchen (Lr geans)
   (Case T-390/12)
   2012/C 355/65
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Lifted Research Group, Inc (Irvine, United States) and LRG Europe Ltd (Hertfordshire, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Edenborough, QC)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fei Liangchen (Zhejiang, China)

      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 13 June 2012 in case R 1199/2010-2; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay to the applicants the applicants’ costs of and occasioned by this appeal; alternatively, if the other party to the proceedings intervenes, the defendant and the intervener are jointly and severally liable to pay to the applicants the applicants’ costs of and occasioned by this appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘Lr geans’, for goods and services in classes 3, 18 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 5572631

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicants

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 2473627 for the word mark ‘LIFTED RESEARCH GROUP’, for goods in class 8; Community trade mark registration No 1591478 for the word mark ‘LIFTED RESEARCH GROUP’, for goods in class 25; Community trade mark registration No 4709325 for the word mark ‘L R G’, for goods and services in classes 3, 9, 16, 25, 28, 35, 41 and 42; Community trade mark registration No 2473601 for the word mark ‘L R G’, for goods in class 18; Community trade mark registration No 1591452 for the word mark ‘L R G’, for goods in class 25; Community trade mark registration No 4708897 for the figurative mark representing a tree with a cross, for goods in classes 3, 9 and 25; Community trade mark registration No 4709218 of the figurative mark ‘L’, for goods in classes 9, 18 and 25; Community trade mark application No 4988127 of the figurative mark ‘L’, for goods and services in classes 3, 18, 25 and 35; Non-registered signs used in the course of trade in the European Union ‘LIFTED RESEARCH GROUP’, ‘LRG’, ‘L r geans’, ‘L’, ‘Lrg’, ‘Lr geans’, for goods in classes 3, 18 and 25.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009; and

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(4) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Rule 19(1) of Commission Regulation No 2868/95.


28.8.1999             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 246/47
       Removal from the register of Case T-214/97 (1)                           Removal from the register of Case T-149/98 (1)
                        (1999/C 246/99)                                                         (1999/C 246/101)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 20 April 1999 the President of the First Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities               By order of 12 April 1999 the President of the Second
has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-214/97:              Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance
Bernard Lavorel v Commission of the European Communities.                of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                         the register of Case T-149/98: Société Générale v Commission
                                                                         of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 318 of 18.10.1997.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 358 of 21.11.1998.
Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-302/97 and
                          T-303/97 (1)
                       (1999/C 246/100)                                         Removal from the register of Case T-165/98 (1)
                   (Language of the case: French)                                               (1999/C 246/102)
By order of 15 April 1999 the President of the First Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                                  (Language of the case: Italian)
has ordered the removal from the register of Joined Cases
T-302/97 and T-303/97: AZ COM. and S.P.R.L. École de                    By order of 21 May 1999 the President of the Fourth Chamber
Maîtrise Automobile v Commission of the European Com-                    of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
munities.                                                                has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-165/98:
                                                                         Grandi Molini SpA v Commission of the European Communi-
(1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.                                                ties.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 378 of 5.12.1998.


title: Appeal lodged on 12 September 1995 by Girish Ojha against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) of 6 July 1995 in Case T-36/93 Girish Ojha v. Commission of the European Communities (Case C-294/95 P)

text:
28 . 10. 95         I EN |                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 286/5
30 August 1995 by the Commission of the European                       — refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for a
Communities, represented by Antonio Aresu, of its Legal                    fresh ruling on Mr Ojha 's claims for compensation for
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                   the non-material damage suffered by him as a result of
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                       the above decision ,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                       — order the Commission to pay the costs of these
The applicant claims that the Court should :                               proceedings, and of the proceedings before the Court of
                                                                           First Instance .
— declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
     period the laws, regulations and administrative                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     measures necessary to implement Council Directive
     92/109/EEC (') of 14 December 1992 on the                         1 . Error of law and reasoning as regards the extent of the
                                                                           Commission 's obligation to state reasons , in so far as the
     manufacture and the placing on the market of certain                  Court of First Instance held that sufficient reasons were
     substances used in the illicit manufacture of narcotic
                                                                           stated for the contested Commission decision
     drugs and psychotropic substances, the Italian Republic
     has failed to fulfil its obligations under Community                  ( paragraphs 59 to 62 of the judgment );
     law,                                                              2 . Error of law and reasoning in that the Court of First
                                                                           Instance held that the Commission had not infringed the
— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .                            appellant's defence rights by failing to communicate to
                                                                           him the documents on which the contested decision was
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                        based;
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, which states that a directive is         3 . Error of law and reasoning in that the Court of First
binding upon Member States as to the result to be achieved,                Instance upheld the Commission 's argument that the
entails for Member States an obligation to comply with the                 mere existence of complaints against the appellant,
time limits laid down in directives for their transposition . In           irrespective of whether they were well founded, justified
the present case, the prescribed period expired on 1 July                  the reassignment of the appellant to Brussels in the
1993 , at which time the Italian Republic had still not                    interests of the service;
enacted the provisions necessary to comply with Directive
92 / 109/EEC .                                                         4 . Error of law and reasoning in that the Court of First
                                                                           Instance accepted the Commission 's argument that the
(•) OJ No L 370 , 19 . 12 . 1992 , p . 76 .                                contested decision could be justified by the interests of
                                                                           the service, having regard to an allegedly tense situation
                                                                           within the service ;
                                                                       5 . Error of law and reasoning in that the Court of First
                                                                           Instance did not take the personal interests of the
Appeal lodged on 12 September 1995 by Girish Ojha                          appellant into account;
against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities ( First Chamber ) of 6 July 1995 in               6 . Infringement of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations in
Case T-36/93 Girish Ojha v. Commission of the European                     that the Court of First Instance allowed documents not
                          Communities                                      forming part of an official 's personal file to be used
                      ( Case C-294/95 P)                                   against him.
                         ( 95/C 286/ 10 )
An appeal was lodged before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 12 September 1995 by Girish                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Dublin Circuit
Ojha , represented by E. H. Pijnacker Hordijk, of the                  Family Court, by order of that court of 15 May 1995 , in the
Amsterdam Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg                         case of Jackie Farrell against James Long
at the Chambers of L. Friden, Avenue Guillaume, against the
                                                                                ( Case C-295 /95 )
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ( First Chamber ) of 6 July 1995 in Case                                             ( 95 /C 286/ 11
T-36/93 Girish Ojha v. Commission of the European
Communities .                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by an order of the Dublin Circuit
The appellant claims that the Court should :                           Family Court of 15 May 1995 , which was received at the
                                                                       Court Registry on 15 September 1995 , for a preliminary
— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of             ruling in the case of Jackie Farrell against James Long, on the
     the European Communities of 6 July 1995 in Case                   following question :
     T-36/93 ,
                                                                       Do the provisions of Article 5 ( 2 ) of the Convention on
— annul the Commission 's decision of 20 October 1992 ,                Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and
     reassigning the appellant together with his post from the         Commercial Matters signed at Brussels on 27 September
      Commission delegation in Dacca to the seat of the                 1968 require as a condition precedent to the institution of
      Commission in Brussels,                                          maintenance proceedings in the Irish Courts by an applicant


title: Case C-412/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Queen’s Bench Division) — United Kingdom) — Deo Antoine Homawoo v GMF Assurances SA (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Law applicable to non-contractual obligations — Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 — Scope ratione temporis)

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/15

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Queen’s Bench Division) — United Kingdom) — Deo Antoine Homawoo v GMF Assurances SA
      (Case C-412/10) (1)

      (Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Law applicable to non-contractual obligations - Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 - Scope ratione temporis)
      (2012/C 25/23)
      Language of the case: English

         Referring court

      High Court of Justice (Queen’s Bench Division)

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Deo Antoine Homawoo

         Defendant: GMF Assurances SA

         Re:

      Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice (Queen’s Bench Division) (United Kingdom) — Interpretation of Articles 15(c), 31 and 32 of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) (OJ 2007 L 199, p. 40) and of Article 297 TFEU — Temporal scope — Scope of the law applicable to the facts giving rise to damage

         Operative part of the judgment

      Articles 31 and 32 of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (‘Rome II’), read in conjunction with Article 297 TFEU, must be interpreted as requiring a national court to apply the Regulation only to events giving rise to damage occurring after 11 January 2009 and that the date on which the proceedings seeking compensation for damage were brought or the date on which the applicable law was determined by the court seised have no bearing on determining the scope ratione temporis of the Regulation.

         (1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.


title: Case C-39/01: Action brought on 29 January 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom

text:
C 79/20                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    10.3.2001
2.    Irrespective of the reply to the preceding question, does         The Applicant claims that the Court should:
      the allocation to such a public undertaking of a significant
      proportion of the proceeds from the charge amount to              —     declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      abuse of a dominant position as a result of a State                     or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      legislative measure and is it thus contrary to Article 86 in            Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996
      conjunction with Article 90 of the Treaty?                              concerning integral pollution prevention and control(1)
                                                                              or in any event by failing to inform the Commission
                                                                              thereof, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its
3.    May the allocation to such an undertaking of a significant              obligations under that Directive, and
      proportion of the abovementioned charge be defined as
      State aid, within the meaning of Article 92 of the Treaty,
                                                                        —     order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.
      and does it therefore justify, in the event that the
      Commission is either not notified or adopts a decision
      finding the aid to be incompatible with the common
      market, pursuant to Article 93, the exercise by national          Pleas in law and main arguments
      courts of their powers — in accordance with the case-law
      of the Court of Justice — to ensure disapplication of             Article 249 EC, under which a directive shall be binding, as to
      illegal and/or incompatible aid?                                  the result to be achieved, upon each Member State carries by
                                                                        implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the
4.    Does the appropriation to the abovementioned public               period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period
      undertaking, ab origine, of a significant proportion of the       expired on 30 October 1999 without the United Kingdom
      proceeds from a State charge levied for or upon the               having enacted the provisions necessary to comply with the
      unloading or loading of goods at ports, without such              directive referred to in the conclusions of the Commission.
      payment being reciprocated by any services rendered by
      the AMM itself, constitute a charge having an effect
                                                                        (1) OJ L 257, 10.10.1996, p. 26.
      equivalent to a customs duty on imports (prohibited by
      Articles 12 and 13 of the Treaty), or an internal taxation
      imposed on products of other Member States in excess of
      that imposed on similar domestic products (Article 95),
      or a barrier to imports, prohibited by Article 30?
5.    In the event that the national provisions are in conflict
      with Community law, do the factors set out in the
      foregoing paragraphs, considered individually, affect the         Action brought on 1 February 2001 by the Commission
      charge as a whole or only the portion allocated to the            of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-
      AMM?                                                                                lic of Germany
                                                                                (Case C-41/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 79/38)
                                                                        An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                        brought before the Court of Justice on 1 February 2001 by the
                                                                        Commission of the European Communities, represented by
                                                                        Götz zur Hausen, Legal Adviser, of the Legal Service of the
Action brought on 29 January 2001 by the Commission of                  Commission of the European Communities, with an address
the European Communities against the United Kingdom                     for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
                                                                        Cruz, of the Legal Service of the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.
                         (Case C-39/01)
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         (2001/C 79/37)
                                                                        (1) declare that, by having, contrary to the judgment of the
                                                                              Court of Justice of 22 October 1998 in Case C-301/95 (1),
An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the                   excluded in advance from the environmental impact
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 January                    assessment requirement whole classes of projects listed
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                           in Annex II to Council Directive 85/337/EEC (2) of 27 June
represented by Mr Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal                         1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public
Adviser, acting as agent, with an address for service at the                  and private projects on the environment, the Federal
office of Mr Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, a member of its Legal                  Republic of Germany has failed to comply with its
Service, at the Wagner Centre, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.                         obligations under Article 228 of the EC Treaty;


title: Case T-121/09: Action brought on 27 March 2009 — Al Shanfari v Council and Commission

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/43

         Action brought on 27 March 2009 — Al Shanfari v Council and Commission
   (Case T-121/09)
   2009/C 113/87
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Thamer Al Shanfari (represented by: P. Saini, QC, T. Nesbitt and B. Kennelly, Barristers, A. Patel, N. Sheikh, and K. Mehta, Solicitors)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               the annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 77/2009, in so far as it concerns the applicant; and

               —

               an order that the Council and the Commission pay the applicant’s costs of this action.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By operation of Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 (1) as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 77/2009 (2) (‘the Contested Regulation’), all of the applicant’s funds within the Member States of the European Union have been frozen with the effect of preventing him from doing business in the EU, as well as being branded as having ties to the repressive regime in Zimbabwe and as being implicated in activities that seriously undermine democracy, respect of human rights and the rule of law. In addition, the applicant is subject to a travel ban pursuant to Article 4 of Council Common Position 2004/161/CFSP (3).
   The applicant contends that the Contested Regulation should be annulled on the following grounds, each of which is addressed below:
   First, the applicant submits that the Contested Regulation has no proper legal basis since neither Article 60 EC nor Article 301 EC give the Council the power to freeze the entirety of an individual’s funds who is not connected with the Government of Zimbabwe.
   Second, according to the applicant’s submissions, the Contested Regulation infringes the Council and the Commission’s obligation to state reasons under Article 253 EC since the brief statement relating to the applicant in Annex III is manifestly inadequate and the Council Common Position which subjects the applicant to a travel ban provides no further particulars.
   Third, the applicant claims that the Contested Regulation infringes the applicant’s fundamental rights, by interfering with his rights to effective judicial protection and to a fair hearing; as well as by interfering to a disproportionate extent with his rights to peaceful enjoyment of his property.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 of 19 February 2004 concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Zimbabwe (OJ 2004 L 55, p. 1)

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 77/2009 of 26 January 2009 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Zimbabwe (OJ 2009 L 23, p. 5)

      (3)  Council Common Position 2004/161/CFSP of 19 February 2004 renewing restrictive measures against Zimbabwe (OJ L 50, p. 66)


title: Case C-629/11 P: Appeal brought on 8 December 2011 by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 20 September 2011 in Case T-298/09: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission

text:
               18.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 49/17

         Appeal brought on 8 December 2011 by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 20 September 2011 in Case T-298/09: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission
   (Case C-629/11 P)
   2012/C 49/28
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, M. Dermitzakis, Δικηγόροι)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the Judgment of the General Court.

               —

               Exercise its full Jurisdiction and annul DG EAC's decision to select the bids of the Appellant, filed in response to the open Call for Tenders EAC/01/2008 for external service provision for educational programmes (ESP-ISEP) (OJ 2008/S 158-212752) Lot 1 for the ‘IS Development and Maintenance’ and Lot 2 for ‘IS Studies, Testing, Training & Support’, as second contractor in the cascade mechanism, communicated to the Appellant by two separate letters dated 12 May 2009, as well as the request for damages according to ex Articles 225, 235 and 288 EC (now 256, 268 and 340 TFEU) for the damages suffered on account of the tendering procedure in question for an amount of 9 544 480 Euro (3 945 040 Euro for Lot 1 and 5 599 440 Euro for Lot 2).

               —

               Alternatively, refer back the Case to the General Court in order to rule on the substance of the Case.

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the Appellant's legal and other costs incurred in connection with this Appeal, including those incurred in connection with the initial procedure of the Action for annulment before the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The Appellant founds its Appeal on a single plea concerning the erroneous interpretation of Article 100(2) of the Financial Regulation (1) and Article 149(2) of the Implementing Rules.

               2.

               The Appellant requests the annulment of the Judgment in case T-298/09 since the Commission failed to comply in time with the provisions of Article 100(2) of the FR and 149(2) of the Implementing Rules, that being an essential procedural requirement. In addition, the limited information communicated, with delay, to the Appellant can by no means be considered as sufficient and fulfilling the obligation to state reasons, as provided for by Article 100(2) of the FR, since it did not give any reasons or justification for the respective evaluation and does not contain any information concerning the characteristics and the relative merits of the best-ranked tenderer.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities
   OJ L 248, p. 1


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 December 1999 in Joined Cases T-132/96 and T-143/96: Freistaat Sachsen and Others v Commission of the European Communities (State aids — Compensation for economic disadvantages caused by the division of Germany — Serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State — Regional economic development — Community Framework on State Aid to the Motor Vehicle Industry)

text:
C 79/22                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            18.3.2000
                                                          COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 3. Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and those incurred
                                                                                by the Commission, save for the costs incurred by the Commission
                                                                                in relation to the intervention of the Federal Republic of Germany.
                       of 15 December 1999                                      The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to bear its own costs
                                                                                and those incurred by the Commission as a result of its
                                                                                intervention. The United Kingdom is ordered to bear its own
in Joined Cases T-132/96 and T-143/96: Freistaat Sachsen                        costs.
and Others v Commission of the European Communi-
                                 ties (1)                                  (1) OJ C 336 of 9.11.1996.
(State aids — Compensation for economic disadvantages
caused by the division of Germany — Serious disturbance in
the economy of a Member State — Regional economic
development — Community Framework on State Aid to the
                      Motor Vehicle Industry)
                                                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                           (2000/C 79/48)
                                                                                of 27 January 2000
                                                                           in Case T-256/97: Bureau Européen des Unions de Con-
                    (Language of the case: German)                         sommateurs (BEUC) v Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities (1)
In Joined Cases T-132/96: Freistaat Sachsen, represented by                (Antidumping proceeding — Consumer association —
Karl Pfeiffer and Jochim Sedemund, Rechtsanwälte, Berlin,                  Refusal of recognition as an interested party — Agreement
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers                  on implementation of Article VI of GATT 1994 —
of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, and Volkswagen AG and                               Articles 6(7) and 21 of Regulation (EC) No 384/96)
Volkswagen Sachsen GmbH, with their respective registered
offices at Wolfsburg and Mosel (Germany), represented by                                                (2000/C 79/49)
Michael Schütte, Rechtsanwalt, Berlin, and Martina Maier,
Rechtsanwalt, Düsseldorf, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Messrs Bonn and Schmitt, 62                                       (Language of the case: English)
Avenue Guillaume, supported by the Federal Republic of
Germany (Agents: initially Ernst Röder, and subsequently
Wolf-Dieter Plessing and Thomas Oppermann), against the                    In Case T-256/97: Bureau Européen des Unions de Consomma-
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: initially                  teurs (BEUC), established in Brussels, represented by Bernard
Paul Nemitz and Anders Jessen, and subsequently Paul Nemitz,               O’Connor, Solicitor, and Bonifacio Garcı́a Porras, of the Bar of
Hans-Jürgen Rabe, Georg Berrisch and Marco Nuñez Müller),                 Salamanca, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
supported by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and                       Chambers of Arsène Kronshagen, 22 Rue Marie-Adélaïde,
Northern Ireland (Agents: John Collins and Sarah Moore) —                  supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
application for the partial annulment of Commission Decision               Ireland, represented by Michelle Ewing and David Anderson v
96/666/EC of 26 June 1996 concerning aid granted by                        Commission of the European Communities — application for
Germany to the Volkswagen Group for works in Mosel and                     annulment of the Commission’s decision of 18 July 1997
Chemnitz (OJ 1996 L 308, p. 46) — the Court of First Instance              refusing to recognise the applicant as an interested party,
(Second Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of                        within the meaning of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of
A. Potocki, President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts, C.W. Bella-             22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports
my, J. Azizi and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator,              from countries not members of the European Community (OJ
has given a judgment on 15 December 1999, in which it:                     1996 L 56, p. 1), for the purposes of the antidumping
                                                                           proceeding leading to the adoption of Commission Regulation
                                                                           (EC) No 773/98 of 7 April 1998 imposing a provisional
1. Takes formal note that the applicants in Case T-143/96                  antidumping duty on imports of unbleached cotton fabrics
    withdraw from their action in so far as it seeks the annulment of      originating in the People’s Republic of China, Egypt, India,
    the first indent of Article 2 of Commission Decision 96/666/EC         Indonesia, Pakistan and Turkey (OJ 1998 L 111, p. 19) — the
    of 26 June 1996 concerning aid granted by Germany to the               Court (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed
    Volkswagen Group for works in Mosel and Chemnitz;                      of: J.D. Cooke, President and R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, P. Lindh,
                                                                           J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for
                                                                           the Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 January 2000, in
2. Dismisses the remainder of the actions;                                 which it:


title: Case T-654/11: Action brought on 26 December 2011 — Kaddour v Council

text:
               25.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 58/13

         Action brought on 26 December 2011 — Kaddour v Council
   (Case T-654/11)
   2012/C 58/24
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Khaled Kaddour (Damas, Syria) (represented by: M. Ponsard, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Admit this action to be examined under the accelerated procedure;

               —

               Annul, in so far as those acts refer to the applicant:

                           —

                           Decision 2011/273/CFSP as completed and amended to date, including all decisions cited in Chapter 13 of the application;

                           —

                           Regulation No 442/2011 as completed and amended to date, including all regulations cited in Chapter 14 of the application;

                           —

                           Decision 2011/782/CFSP as completed and amended to date;

               —

               Order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those raised in Case T-653/11 Jaber v Council.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 13 March 1997 in Case C-131/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandse Raad van State): P. J. Huijbrechts v. Commissie voor de Behandeling van Administratieve Geschillen ingevolge Artikel 41 der Algemene Bijstandswet in de Provincie Noord-Brabant (Social security - Wholly unemployed frontier worker - Unemployment benefits in the competent Member State - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71)

text:
10 . 5 . 97            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 142/ 1
                                                                  I
                                                            (Information)
                                              COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                        COURT OF JUSTICE
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons
                         (Fifth Chamber)                              and to members of their families moving within the
                                                                      Community, as amended and updated by Council
                        of 13 March 1997                              Regulation (EEC) No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983 relating to
in Case C-131/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from            unemployment benefit, and in particular Article 71 (1 )
the Nederlandse Raad van State ): P. J. Huijbrechts v.                (a) (ii), read in conjunction with Article 13, are to be
Commissie voor de Behandeling van Administratieve Ge                 interpreted as meaning that where, in the State of last
schillen ingevolge Artikel 41 der Algemene Bijstandswet in            employment, the grant of an allowance following on from
                de Provincie Noord-Brabant (M                         an unemployment benefit is made subject to the condition
                                                                      that the frontier worker concerned has received
(Social security — Wholly unemployed frontier worker —                unemployment benefit for a given period, that State is
 Unemployment benefits in the competent Member State —                required to take into account unemployment benefit
                Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71)                          received by that worker in the State in which he resides in
                          ( 97/C 142/01 )
                                                                      accordance with Article 71 (1 ) (a) (ii), as though that
                                                                      benefit had been received in the former State.
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)                        (') OJ No C 159, 24 . 6 . 1995 .
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C- 13 1 /95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Nederlandse Raad van State                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
( State Council, Netherlands), for a preliminary ruling in                                     ( First Chamber)
the proceedings pending before that court between P. J.
                                                                                of 13 March 1997
Huijbrechts and Commissie voor de Behandeling van Ad
ministratieve Geschillen ingevolge Artikel 41 der Algemene            in Case C-358/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
Bijstandswet in de Provincie Noord-Brabant — on the                   the Pretura di Pordenone ): Tommaso Morellato v. Unità
interpretation of Article 67 of Council Regulation ( EEC )                     Sanitaria Locale (USL) No 11 , Pordenone (')
No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social
security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed                (Articles 30 and 36 of the Treaty — Composition of bread
persons and to members of their families moving within                — Maximum moisture content, minimum ash content and
the Community, as amended and updated by Council                                    prohibition of certain ingredients)
Regulation ( EEC ) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 ( OJ No                                             ( 97/C 142/02 )
L 230, 22 . 8 . 1983 , p. 6 ), and Article 6 of the EC Treaty
— the Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: J. C.
Moitinho de Almeida , President of the Chamber, D. A. O.                               (Language of the case: Italian)
Edward ( Rapporteur), J. -P. Puissochet, P. Jann and M.
Wathelet, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate-General; L.
Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
judgment on 13 March 1997, in which it has ruled:                               published in the European Court Reports)
 The provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71                In Case C-358/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security                 of the EC Treaty from the Pretura di Pordenone ( Italy ) for


title: Case T-211/13: Action brought on 15 April 2013 — Eni v Commission

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/53

         Action brought on 15 April 2013 — Eni v Commission
   (Case T-211/13)
   2013/C 156/99
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Eni SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: G.M. Roberti and I. Perego, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the action admissible;

               —

               annul the contested measures;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action contests the Commission’s decision of 26 February 2013 to reopen the procedure (C(2013) 1200 final) and the statement of objections of 26 February 2013 (C(2013) 1199) relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, adopted in Case AT.40032-BR/ESBR.
   In support of the application, Eni alleges lack of competence, arguing that the Commission cannot reopen the procedure in order to amend the decision adopted in Case BR-ESBR in 2006 and, at the same time, to adopt a decision re-imposing the increase in the fine for repeated infringements.
   Eni submits that in the judgment of 13 July 2011 (Case T-39/07), in addition to annulling in part the 2006 BR-ESBR decision on the basis that the Commission had failed to make a correct assessment of the aggravating circumstance of repeated infringement, the General Court exercised its jurisdiction in relation to the merits — under Article 261 TFEU and Article 31 of Regulation No 1/2003 — by re-determining the amount of the fine and substituting its own assessment for that made by the Commission. In addition to being in breach of those findings, the contested measures are also contrary to Article 266 TFEU, to the principle governing the attribution of powers and ensuring institutional balance, referred to in Article 13 TFEU, as well as to the fundamental right to fair legal process laid down in Article 6 ECHR and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and to the ne bis in idem principle laid down in Article 7 ECHR.
   Eni also claims that, contrary to the assertions made by the Commission, the General Court did not merely find that there had been a procedural defect in the Commission’s application of the concept of repeated infringement in the 2006 BR-ESBR decision; the Commission’s action is therefore based on a wholly erroneous legal and factual premiss and, from that point of view, too, is contrary to Article 7 ECHR.