title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) of 12 November 1998 in Case C-399/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du Travail de Bruxelles): Europièces SA, in liquidation, v. Wilfried Sanders, Automotive Industries Holding Company SA (Social policy - Harmonisation of laws - Transfers of undertakings - Safeguarding of workers' rights - Directive 77/187/EEC - Scope - Transfer of an undertaking in voluntary liquidation)

text:
19.12.98             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 397/15
European Union (Agent: Antonio Tanca) Ð application                  1. Article 1(1) of Council Directive 77/187/EEC of
for the annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1522/                     14 February 1977 on the approximation of the laws
96 of 24 July 1996 opening and providing for the                          of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of
administration of certain tariff quotas for imports of rice               employees' rights in the event of transfers of
and broken rice (OJ L 190, 31.7.1996, p. 1), in particular                undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses is to be
Articles 3, 4 and 9 thereof Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber),                  interpreted as meaning that the directive applies where
composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber,                  a company in voluntary liquidation transfers all or
J. L. Murray (Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm, R. Schintgen                     part of its assets to another company from which the
and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate-General;                   worker then takes his orders which the company in
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 November                  liquidation states are to be carried out.
1998, in which it:
                                                                     2. Article 3(1) of Directive 77/187/EEC does not
1. Dismisses the application;                                             preclude a worker employed by the transferor at the
                                                                          date of the transfer of an undertaking from objecting
                                                                          to the transfer of his contract of employment or
2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                          employment relationship to the transferee, provided he
                                                                          decides to do so of his own accord. It is for the
                                                                          national court to determine whether the contract of
(1) OJ C 388, 21.12.1996.
                                                                          employment proposed by the transferee involves a
                                                                          substantial change in working conditions to the
                                                                          detriment of the worker. If it does, Article 4(2) of the
                                                                          directive requires Member States to provide that the
                                                                          employer is to be considered responsible for the
                                                                          termination.
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                     (1) OJ C 40, 8.2.1997.
                      (Second Chamber)
                    of 12 November 1998
in Case C-399/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Cour du Travail de Bruxelles): EuropieÁces SA, in
liquidation, v. Wilfried Sanders, Automotive Industries
                  Holding Company SA (1)                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Social policy Ð Harmonisation of laws Ð Transfers of                                        (Sixth Chamber)
undertakings Ð Safeguarding of workers' rights Ð
Directive 77/187/EEC Ð Scope Ð Transfer of an                                             of 12 November 1998
            undertaking in voluntary liquidation)                    in Case C-415/96: Kingdom of Spain v. Commission of
                        (98/C 397/24)                                                 the European Communities (1)
                                                                     (State aid for undertakings in the textile sector Ð
                                                                     Consequences of an annulling judgment for acts
               (Language of the case: French)                                       preparatory to the act annulled)
                                                                                (98/C 397/25)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)                                    (Language of the case: Spanish)
In Case C-399/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Cour du Travail de Bruxelles                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before                     published in the European Court Reports)
that court between EuropieÁces SA, in liquidation, and
Wilfried Sanders, Automotive Industries Holding
Company SA Ð on the interpretation of Council Directive              In Case C-415/96: Kingdom of Spain (Agent: Luis PeÂrez
77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the approximation of               de Ayala Becerril) v. Commission of the European
the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding           Communities (Agents: Francisco Santaolalla and Ramón
of employees' rights in the event of transfers of                    Vidal Puig) Ð application for annulment of Commission
undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses (OJ L 61,            Decision 97/242/EC of 18 September 1996 amending
5.3.1977, p. 26) Ð the Court (Second Chamber),                       Decision 92/317/EEC on State aid in favour of Hilaturas y
composed of: G. Hirsch, President of the Chamber, G. F.              Tejidos Andaluces SA, now called MediterraÂneo TeÂcnica
Mancini (Rapporteur) and R. Schintgen, Judges; G.                    Textil SA, and its buyer (OJ L 96, 11.4.1997, p. 30) Ð
Cosmas, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given             the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. Hirsch
a judgment on 12 November 1998, in which it has ruled:               (Rapporteur), J. L. Murray, H. Ragnemalm and K. M.


title: Case T-17/17: Action brought on 11 January 2017 — Constantinescu v Parliament

text:
               6.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 70/24

         Action brought on 11 January 2017 — Constantinescu v Parliament
   (Case T-17/17)
   (2017/C 070/34)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Radu Constantinescu (Kreuzweiler, Germany) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Blot, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the present application admissible and well founded, and

         as a result:

               —

               annul the decision of 27 May 2016 of the Office for Infrastructure and Logistics — Luxembourg, registering the applicant’s child at the childcare facilities in Bertrange Mamer and, accordingly, refusing the child’s registration at the Kirchberg childcare facilities;

               —

               annul the decision of 7 October 2016 of the European Parliament rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 6 June 2016 against that decision;

               —

               grant damages in respect of the material and non-material harm suffered;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging breach of Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and of Article 1d of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, breach of the principle of non-discrimination and infringement of the rules relating to the burden of evidence. In this connection, the applicant alleges that the defendant granted derogations to other families while refusing him such a derogation, without such a difference in treatment being justified by objective circumstances.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by manifest errors of assessment, breach of the principle of sound administration, breach of the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials and infringement of Article 41 of the Charter.


title: Case C-20/07: Order of the President of the Court of 8 October 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/39

         Order of the President of the Court of 8 October 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
   (Case C-20/07) (1)

   (2008/C 22/69)

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 56, 10.3.2007.


title: Case C-609/16 P: Appeal brought on 24 November 2016 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 15 September 2016 in Case T-118/14: LDC Argentina v Council

text:
               30.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/38

         Appeal brought on 24 November 2016 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 15 September 2016 in Case T-118/14: LDC Argentina v Council
   (Case C-609/16 P)
   (2017/C 030/42)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: H. Marcos Fraile, Agent, N. Tuominen, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: LDC Argentina SA, European Commission, European Biodiesel Board (EBB)

      Form of order sought

   The Appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016, notified to the Council on 16 September 2016, in Case T-118/14, LDC Argentina SA v Council of the European Union;

               —

               reject the application at first instance brought by the Applicant for the annulment of the Contested Regulation; and

               —

               order the Applicant to pay the Council's costs both at first instance and on appeal.

         Alternatively,

               —

               refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration;

               —

               reserve costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

                  First, the General Court applied the wrong legal test when assessing whether the Council had evidence to decide that domestic raw materials prices contained in the records of the relevant Argentinian exporters were sufficiently distorted to justify disregarding them and having recourse to the methodology provided by Article 2(5) of the Basic Regulation (1), second paragraph. In doing so, the General Court has imposed too high a burden of proof on the Institution.

               2.

                  Second, the General Court’s finding that the evidence adduced by the Institutions was not sufficient to show that there was an appreciable distortion of the prices of the main raw materials in Argentina as a result of the DET system lacks proper reasoning.

               3.

                  Third, the operative part of the Contested Judgment annulling the anti-dumping duties in so far as it concerns the Applicant is disproportionate to the only ground for annulment considered by the General Court and gives undue effects to the finding of illegality.

               4.

               The Council will demonstrate that the Contested Judgment is vitiated by several errors of law affecting its validity. In addition, the Council submits that the facts underlying the Applicant's first plea are sufficiently established so that the Court of Justice can decide on this plea and dismiss the application.

               5.

               The Council therefore respectfully requests that the Contested Judgment should be set aside and the application for annulment of the Contested Regulation by the Applicant at first instance, dismissed.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009, L 343, p. 51) (‘Basic Regulation’).


title: Case C-399/05: Action brought on  15 November 2005  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
               28.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/7

         Action brought on 15 November 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-399/05)
   (2006/C 22/13)
   Language of the case: Greek
   An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 15 November 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by M. Patakia, Commission Legal Adviser, and A.X.P. Lewis, of the Commission's Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, because the Dimosia Epikhirisi Ilektrismou (Public Power Corporation; 'DEI') admitted to the final stage of the tender procedure which it had opened for the construction and bringing into operation of a thermal power station in Lavrio two companies which did not meet the relevant conditions in the invitation to tender and the tender documents, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(2) of Directive 93/38/EC (1) and under the principles of transparency and of equal treatment of tenderers;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               —

               The Commission received a complaint relating to the carrying out of, and in particular to the failure to observe tender conditions in, a DEI tendering procedure for the construction and bringing into operation of a thermal power station in Lavrio.

               —

               In light of the Court of Justice's case-law, the Commission submits that, for reasons of equality and transparency, DEI was obliged to reject the tenders of companies which did not meet conditions that DEI itself laid down in the invitation to tender and in the specification, that is to say possession of experience in the planning and management of turn-key contracts and the offer of maintenance of the gas turbine exclusively by its manufacturer.

               —

               The Commission considers that the content of those conditions is clear and that they should have been observed by DEI however strict they may be, so as to ensure equal treatment not only of the tenderers but also of interested parties who could have taken part in the tender procedure in question had they known that the contracting authority would adhere to conditions other than those which it itself had laid down by means of the invitation to tender.

               —

               Also, in the Commission's submission, the need for swift award of the contracts in question, which is invoked by the Greek authorities, does not justify the failure to observe during the tender procedure conditions which the contracting authority itself laid down.

               —

               The Commission considers that the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(2) of Directive 93/38/EC and under the principles of transparency and of equal treatment of tenderers.

      (1)  OJ No L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 84.


title: Case F-46/16: Action brought on 26 August 2016 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               10.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/32

         Action brought on 26 August 2016 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-46/16)
   (2016/C 371/37)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the Commission executing a judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal insofar as it refuses to appoint the applicant as an official to the post in which it had already refused to appoint her and which was the subject matter of the decision annulled by that judgment.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 27 October 2015 by which the Human Resources DG of the European Commission adopted implementing measures in respect of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 6 October 2015, F-119/14 FE v Commission;

               —

               Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 19 May 2016 by which the Appointing Authority rejected the claim made by the applicant against the abovementioned decision;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay EUR 25 000 in compensation for the non-pecuniary harm, that amount being set provisionally;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay all the costs.


title: Case T-190/08: Action brought on 14 May 2008 — CHEMK and Kuznetskie ferrosplavy v Council and Commission

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/25

         Action brought on 14 May 2008 — CHEMK and Kuznetskie ferrosplavy v Council and Commission
   (Case T-190/08)
   (2008/C 197/45)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: Chelyabinsk elektrometallurgical integrated plant OAO (CHEMK) (Chelyabinsk, Russia) and Kuznetskie ferrosplavy OAO (Novokuznetsk, Russia) (represented by: P. Vander Schueren, lawyer)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested regulation in so far as it affects the applicants;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs incurred by the applicants in relation to these proceedings; or

               —

               in the alternative, annul the contested decision; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the applicants in relation to these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants put forward five grounds in support of their application for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 172/2008 (1) of 25 February 2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ferro-silicon originating in the People's Republic of China, Egypt, Kazakhstan, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Russia (‘the contested regulation’) in so far as it affects the applicants. In the alternative, the applicants seek annulment of the Commission decision dated 28 February 2008, notified to them on 3 March 2008, by which the Commission rejected their request for a suspension of the anti-dumping measures that were introduced by the contested regulation (‘the contested decision’).
   First, the applicants claim that the Council acted contrary to Article 2(9) of the Basic Regulation (2) (‘the Basic Regulation’) and failed to fulfil the obligation to provide an adequate statement of reasons when it refused to use the actual profit margin of the applicants' related importer for the construction of their export price.
   Second, the applicants submit that the Council infringed the principle of non-discrimination as well as Articles 6(7), 8(4) and 20(1) of the Basic Regulation by granting advanced disclosure to the Macedonian producer SILMAK.
   Third, the applicants contend that the Council acted contrary to Article 3(6) of the Basic Regulation by committing an error of law and a manifest error of assessment in concluding that the Community industry suffered material injury.
   Fourth, the applicants claim that the contested regulation is contrary to Articles 3(6) and 3(7) of the Basic Regulation and is vitiated by an error of law, multiple manifest errors of assessment, the lack of due care and inadequate reasoning inasmuch as the Council allegedly disregarded the effect of other factors on the situation of the Community industry that break the link between the targeted imports and the alleged material injury to the Community industry.
   Fifth, the applicants submit that the Council violated their rights of defence by refusing to provide data on the complaint that justified the initiation of the anti-dumping investigation.
   In the alternative, the applicants put forward one ground of annulment of the contested decision, namely that the Commission committed an error of law, a manifest error of assessment and violated the principle of equal treatment and sound administration by rejecting the applicants' request for the suspension of the measures.

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 55, p. 6.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1).


title: Case T-268/11 P: Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2012 — Commission v Strack (Appeal — Civil Service — Officials — Leave — Sick leave — Annulment at first instance of the Commission’s decision refusing to carry over days of annual leave not taken by the person concerned — Article 4 of Annex V to the Staff Regulations — Article 1e(2) of the Staff Regulations — Directive 2003/88/EC — Appeal well founded — Whether the state of the proceedings permits final judgment to be given — Dismissal of the action)

text:
               22.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2012 — Commission v Strack
   (Case T-268/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil Service - Officials - Leave - Sick leave - Annulment at first instance of the Commission’s decision refusing to carry over days of annual leave not taken by the person concerned - Article 4 of Annex V to the Staff Regulations - Article 1e(2) of the Staff Regulations - Directive 2003/88/EC - Appeal well founded - Whether the state of the proceedings permits final judgment to be given - Dismissal of the action)
   2012/C 399/34
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: B. Eggers and J. Currall, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Guido Strack (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 15 March 2011 in Case F-120/07 Strack v Commission ECR-SC 0000 seeking to have that judgment set aside in part.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal of 15 March 2011 in Case F 120/07 Strack v Commission;

               2.

               Dismisses the action brought by Mr Guido Strack before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-120/07;

               3.

               Orders Mr Strack and the European Commission to bear their own costs, both of the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal and at the present instance.

      (1)  OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.


title: Case C-487/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 1 de Ourense (Spain) lodged on 2 November 2012 — Vueling Airlines, S.A. v Instituto Galego de Consumo de la Xunta de Galicia

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/24

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 1 de Ourense (Spain) lodged on 2 November 2012 — Vueling Airlines, S.A. v Instituto Galego de Consumo de la Xunta de Galicia
   (Case C-487/12)
   2013/C 26/46
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 1 de Ourense

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Vueling Airlines, S.A.

      Defendant: Instituto Galego de Consumo de la Xunta de Galicia

      Question referred

               1.

               Is Article 22(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community to be interpreted as precluding a national rule (Article 97 of Ley 48/1960 de Navegación Aérea) that requires passenger airlines to grant passengers the right always to check in a suitcase without paying a supplement or surcharge on top of the base price of the ticket purchased?

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 293, p. 3.


title: Case C-468/08: Action brought on 30 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/14

         Action brought on 30 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
   (Case C-468/08)
   (2009/C 6/22)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

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

      Defendant: French Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (1) or, in any event, by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;

               —

               order the French Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for the transposition of Directive 2005/36/EC expired on 20 October 2007. At the date of bringing this action, the defendant had not yet taken all the measures necessary to transpose the Directive or, in any event, it had not informed the Commission of them.

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22.


title: Case T-137/13: Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2015 — Saferoad RRS v OHIM (MEGARAIL) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark MEGARAIL — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               15.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 198/34

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2015 — Saferoad RRS v OHIM (MEGARAIL)
   (Case T-137/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark MEGARAIL - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 198/45)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Saferoad RRS GmbH (Weroth, Germany) (represented by: C. Czychowski, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Pohlmann, agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 January 2013 (Case R 2536/2011-4) relating to the application for registration of the word sign MEGARAIL as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Saferoad RRS GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 4.5.2013.


title: Joined Cases C-403/04 P and C-405/04 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 January 2007 — Sumitomo Metal Industries Ltd and Nippon Steel Corp. v Commission of the European Communities (Appeals — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market in seamless steel tubes — Protection of domestic markets — Burden of proof and production of evidence — Duration of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance)

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 January 2007 — Sumitomo Metal Industries Ltd and Nippon Steel Corp. v Commission of the European Communities
   (Joined Cases C-403/04 P and C-405/04 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market in seamless steel tubes - Protection of domestic markets - Burden of proof and production of evidence - Duration of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance)
   (2007/C 56/03)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellants: Sumitomo Metal Industries Ltd (represented by: C. Vajda QC and G. Sproul and S. Szlezinger, Solicitors) and Nippon Steel Corp (represented by: J.-F. Bellis and K. Van Hove, avocats)

      Other parties to the proceedings: JFE Engineering Corp, formerly NKK Corp., JFE Steel Corp., formerly Kawasaki Steel Corp., Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Khan and A. Whelan, Agents), EFTA Surveillance Authority
   Re:
   Appeals against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 8 July 2004 in Joined Cases T-67/00, T-68/00, T-71/00 and T-78/00 JFE Engineering Corp. and Others v Commission partially annulling Commission Decision 2003/382/EC of 8 December 1999 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case IV/E-1/35.860-B seamless steel tubes) (notified under document number C(1999) 4154) and reducing the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeals;

               2.

               Orders Sumitomo Metal Industries Ltd to pay the costs in Case C-403/04 P and Nippon Steel Corp. to pay the costs in Case C-405/04 P.

      (1)  OJ C 284, 20.11.2004.


title: Case C-376/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch by judgment of that Court of 24 July 2003 in the case of D against head of the Private Individuals/Enterprises/Foreign Countries/Heerlen unit

text:
C 289/12               EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                      29.11.2003
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank van                      ‘Split transport’ is to be understood as meaning:
Eerste Aanleg of the Antwerp judicial district by judgment
of that Court of 13 June 2003 in the case of Jean-Claude                     The carriage of persons to or from the territory covered
    De Baeck against Belgian State, Ministry of Finance                      by the embargo by means of a joint operation between
                                                                             an undertaking established in a Member State of the
                                                                             Community and an undertaking established in the terri-
                         (Case C-268/03)                                     tory covered by the embargo, the former providing
                                                                             carriage to the vicinity of the border of the territory
                        (2003/C 289/22)                                      covered by the embargo and the latter carriage from there
                                                                             into the territory covered by the embargo (the passengers
                                                                             changing vehicle).
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  2.   If the Court of Justice finds that split transport was
European Communities by judgment of the Rechtbank van                        permissible: Was there an obligation under Article 10 or
Eerste Aanleg (First-instance court) of the Antwerp judicial                 Article 297 EC or other provisions of Community law to
district of 13 June 2003, received at the Court Registry on                  consult other Member States and/or the Commission
19 June 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Jean-                  before taking national measures based on the unlaw-
Claude De Baeck against Belgian State, Ministry of Finance on                fulness of split transport?
the following question:
                                                                        (1) OJ L 151, p. 4.
Do Articles 43, 46, 48, 56 and 58 EC preclude Belgian
legislation, namely Articles 67(8) and 67ter of the WIB64,
pursuant to which the surplus values realised on the occasion
of the transfer for valuable consideration, otherwise than in
the context of the exercise of a business activity, of shares, or
other proof of entitlement to holdings, in Belgian companies,
associations, establishments or institutions are liable to tax
where the transfer is to a foreign company, association,
establishment or institution, even though in the same circum-           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof te
stances those surplus values are not liable to tax where the            ’s-Hertogenbosch by judgment of that Court of 24 July
transfer is to a Belgian company, association, establishment or         2003 in the case of D against head of the Private
institution?                                                              Individuals/Enterprises/Foreign Countries/Heerlen unit
                                                                                (Case C-376/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 289/24)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesge-
richt Köln by order of that Court of 21 August 2003
in the proceedings between Aulinger and The Federal                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                     Republic of Germany                                European Communities by judgment of the Gerechtshof te ’s-
                                                                        Hertogenbosch (Regional Court of Appeal, ’s-Hertogenbosch)
                                                                        of 24 July 2003, received at the Court Registry on 8 September
                         (Case C-371/03)                                2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of D against head of
                                                                        the Private Individuals/Enterprises/Foreign Countries/Heerlen
                        (2003/C 289/23)                                 unit on the following questions:
                                                                        1.   Does Community law, and in particular Article 56 EC et
                                                                             seq., preclude legislation such as that referred to in the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       main proceedings, under which a domestic taxpayer is
European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht                       always entitled to deduction of a tax allowance in respect
Köln (Higher Regional Court, Cologne) of 21 August 2003,                     of wealth tax, whereas a foreign taxpayer has no such
received at the Court Registry on 1st September 2003, for a                  entitlement in the case where the assets in question are
preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Aulinger and                   situated predominantly in the taxpayer’s State of residence
The Federal Republic of Germany on the following questions:                  (in which no wealth tax is levied)?
1.    Was Article 1(d) of Council Regulation No 1432/92 (1) of          2.   If not, does it make a difference in this case that the
      1 June 1992 (the so-called ‘Embargo Regulation’) to be                 Netherlands has, under a bilateral treaty, granted to
      interpreted as meaning that the commercial carriage of                 residents of Belgium, who in all other respects are
      persons to or from the territory covered by the embargo                in comparable circumstances, entitlement to the tax
      involving so-called ‘split’ transport was permitted or                 allowance (where no wealth tax is levied in Belgium
      prohibited?                                                            either)?
 ---pagebreak--- 29.11.2003             EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 289/13
3.    If either of the previous two questions is answered in the         also prevented from evaluating the measures taken by Ireland
      affirmative, does Community law preclude a legal costs             as part of its overall evaluation with a view to proposing,
      scheme such as that in issue, under which, in principle,           as appropriate, Community measures regarding minimum
      only a limited contribution is made towards legal costs            qualification requirements.
      where a citizen is successful in proceedings brought
      before the national courts for breach of Community law
      by a Member State?
                                                                         With regard to Article 17(2) of the Regulation, the Commission
                                                                         considers that Ireland has equally failed in its obligations. It
                                                                         has not defined the minimum qualification requirements
                                                                         for personnel involved in taking all precautionary measures
                                                                         practicable to prevent and minimise leakages of methyl
                                                                         bromide from fumigation installations and operations in which
                                                                         methyl bromide is used. Nor, for that matter, does the
                                                                         Commission have any information indicating that Ireland has
Action brought on 29 September 2003 by the Com-                          taken the necessary precautionary measures.
   mission of the European Communities against Ireland
                                                                         (1) OJ L 244, 29.9.2000, p. 1.
                          (Case C-406/03)
                         (2003/C 289/25)
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 29 September 2003
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by U. Wölker and M. Shotter, acting as agents, with an address           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht
for service in Luxembourg.                                               Koblenz by order of that Court of 16 September 2003 in
                                                                         the matter concerning the companies register relating to
                                                                                SEVIC Systems Aktiengesellschaft
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
—     declare that, by failing to provide the reports referred to                                 (Case C-411/03)
      in Articles 16(5), 16(6) and 17(1) of Regulation (EC)
      No. 2037/2000 (1) on substances that deplete the ozone
      layer, and by failing, in accordance with Article 17(2) of                                  (2003/C 289/26)
      the said Regulation, to take all precautionary measures
      practicable to prevent and minimise leakages of methyl
      bromide and to define the minimum qualification require-
      ments for the personnel involved, Ireland has failed to
      fulfil its obligations under Articles 16(5), 16(6), 17(1)
      and 17(2) of the said Regulation;                                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Landgericht Koblenz
                                                                         (Regional Court, Koblenz) of 16 September 2003, received at
—     order Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                         the Court Registry on 2 October 2003, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                         in the matter concerning the companies register relating to
                                                                         SEVIC Systems Aktiengesellschaft on the following question:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Are Articles 43 and 48 EC to be interpreted as meaning that it
The Commission did not, by the required date of 31 December              is contrary to freedom of establishment for companies if a
                                                                         foreign European company is refused registration of its
2001, receive from Ireland information on the quantities of
                                                                         proposed merger with a German company in the German
ozone depleting substances recovered, reclaimed, recycled and
destroyed. Nor did it receive by that date any of the other              register of companies under paragraphs 16 et seq. of the
detailed information required to be reported to it by virtue of          Umwandlungsgesetz (Law on transformations), on the ground
                                                                         that paragraph 1 (1)(1) of that law provides only for transform-
Articles 16(5), 16(6) and 17(1) of the Regulation. In the
absence of this information, the Commission is concerned that            ation of legal entities established in Germany?
Ireland’s efforts to curb ozone depleting substances may fall
short of what is required by the Regulation, as the Commission
has been deprived of a means of verifying compliance. It is


title: Case T-54/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 29 April 2008 — Republic of Cyprus v Commission

text:
               21.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 158/22

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 29 April 2008 — Republic of Cyprus v Commission
   (Case T-54/08) (1)

   (2008/C 158/38)

      Language of the case: Greek

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

      (1)  OJ C 79, 29.3.2008.


title: Case F-18/15: Action brought on 2 February 2015  — ZZ and Others v Commission

text:
               23.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/28

         Action brought on 2 February 2015 — ZZ and Others v Commission
   (Case F-18/15)
   (2015/C 096/36)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decisions to change the description of the type of post held by the applicants in the Sysper 2 application and/or not to include them in the list of officials proposed for promotion to grades AD 13 and AD 14 in the context of the promotion round for 2014.

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim, primarily, that the Tribunal should:

               —

               declare Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, Annex I thereto and the corresponding transitional measures to be unlawful;

               —

               annul the decision of the appointing authority of 14 April 2014 to amend the applicants’ promotion files in the ‘Sysper 2’ system in order to block any possibility of their promotion;

               —

               annul the subsequent decision of the appointing authority, notified on 24 June 2014, not to include the applicants in the list of officials proposed for promotion to grades AD 13 and AD 14 in the context of the annual promotion round for 2014 provided for in Article 45 of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         In the alternative, the applicants claim that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision of the appointing authority of 14 April 2014 to amend the applicants’ promotion files in the ‘Sysper 2’ system in order to block any possibility of their promotion;

               —

               annul the subsequent decision of the appointing authority, notified on 24 June 2014, not to include the applicants in the list of officials proposed for promotion to grades AD 13 and AD 14 in the context of the annual promotion round for 2014 provided for in Article 45 of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-553/12: Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2014  — Bateaux mouches v OHIM (Community trade mark — Application for figurative Community trade mark BATEUAX-MOUCHES — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               7.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2014 — Bateaux mouches v OHIM
   (Case T-553/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for figurative Community trade mark BATEUAX-MOUCHES - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   2014/C 212/34
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Compagnie des bateaux mouches SA (Paris, France) (represented by: G. Barbaut, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 October 2012 (Case R 1709/2011-2) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign BATEAUX-MOUCHES as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Compagnie des bateaux mouches SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 23.2.2013.


title: Case T-380/07: Action brought on 25 September 2007 — Kaloudis v OHIM — Fédération Française de Tennis (Roland Garros SPORTSWEAR)

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/39

         Action brought on 25 September 2007 — Kaloudis v OHIM — Fédération Française de Tennis (Roland Garros SPORTSWEAR)
   (Case T-380/07)
   (2007/C 283/70)
   Language in which the application was lodged: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Dimitrios Kaloudis (Dassia-Corfu, Greece) (represented by: G. Kaloudis, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Fédération Française de Tennis
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 July 2007;

               —

               Allow the application for the Community trade mark Roland Garros SPORTSWEAR No 3114477 for Class 25;

               —

               Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant.

      Community trade mark concerned: figurative mark ‘Roland Garros SPORTSWEAR’ for goods in Class 25 — application No 3114477.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Fédération Française de Tennis

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: national mark ‘Roland Garros’ for goods in Classes 3, 16, 18, 22, 25, 28, 32, 41 and 42.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld for all the goods in dispute.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal brought by the applicant deemed not filed by reason of the late payment of the appeal fee.


title: Case C-331/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Consiglio di Stato, in sede giurisdizionale (Sesta Sezione), by order of that court of 6 April 2004 in the case of A.T.I. E.A.C. srl and VIAGGI DI MAIO SNC against A.C.T.V. Venezia spa

text:
               25.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Consiglio di Stato, in sede giurisdizionale (Sesta Sezione), by order of that court of 6 April 2004 in the case of A.T.I. E.A.C. srl and VIAGGI DI MAIO SNC against A.C.T.V. Venezia spa
   (Case C-331/04)
   (2004/C 239/08)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Consiglio di Stato, in sede giurisdizionale, Sesta Sezione (Council of State, Judicial Division, Sixth Chamber), of 6 April 2004, received at the Court Registry on 29 August 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of A.T.I. E.A.C. srl and VIAGGI DI MAIO SNC against A.C.T.V. Venezia spa on the following questions:

      ‘Is it lawful to interpret those provisions as flexible rules allowing the contracting authority, where the award is to be made on the basis of the economically most advantageous tender, to fix the criteria in a general way in the tender notice or the contract documents, leaving it to the jury to specify or supplement those criteria, if need be, provided always that such specifying or supplementing is carried out before the packets containing the tenders have been opened and that such action introduces nothing new in relation to the criteria fixed in the tender notice or, on the contrary, must that provision be interpreted as a rigid rule requiring the contracting authority to determine, analytically, the criteria for the award of the contract in the tender notice or the contract documents, and in any case before the prequalification stage or the invitation to tender, and as meaning that the jury may not subsequently in any way do anything to specify or supplement those criteria or to creating subheadings or sub-marking, since for reasons of transparency every piece of information concerning the criteria for the award must appear in the notice or contract documents.
      In short, is the traditional line of interpretation followed in the past in the Consiglio di Stato's case-law, which permits the jury to take action to supplement the criteria, lawful in the light of Community law?
      Is it lawful, in the light of that provision loosely interpreted having regard to the adverbial phrase “where possible”, for the contracting authority to adopt conditions for participation that provide, with regard to one of the criteria for the award (in this instance, the organisational and support procedures), with reference to a complex series of criteria for which the tender notice did not allocate individual points, so that they were in that sense in part indeterminate, that the points should be allocated at the absolute discretion of the contracting authority, or does not that provision in any case require that the criteria should as a general rule be formulated absolutely definitively, which is not compatible with the fact that those criteria were not allocated separate points in the notice; if it is lawful, because the provision is considered to be flexible and because it is not essential to give points to every item, is it permissible, where the tender notice does not give express power to the jury, for the latter to specify or supplement the criteria (simply by allocating individual importance and relative weight to every single item that the notice intended to be assessed by the overall allocation of a maximum of 25 points ), or is it not on the contrary necessary to apply the conditions of the tender literally, allocating the points on an overall assessment of the various and complex matters taken into consideration by the lex specialis?
      In any case, is it lawful, in the light of that provision, to give the jury which is to assess the tenders, regardless of the manner in which criteria have been formulated in the tender notice, in a procedure for an award on the basis of the economically most advantageous tender, the power, but only in respect of the complexity of the matters to be assessed, to restrict its own actions in a general way, by specifying the parameters for the application of the criteria previously determined in the tender notice, and may such power held by the jury be exercised by creating subheadings, sub-points, or simply by setting more specific criteria for the application of the criteria laid down generally in the notice or the contract documents, before of course the envelopes have been opened?’


3.4.2004              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                     C 85/29
        Removal from the register of Case T-9/02 (1)                            Removal from the register of Case T-51/03 (1)
                         (2004/C 85/57)                                                          (2004/C 85/58)
                   (Language of the Case: Dutch)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: Danish)
By order of 6 January 2004 the President of the Second
Chamber (Extented Composition) of the Court of First Instance            By order of 17 December 2003 the President of the Second
of the European Communities ordered the removal from                     Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
the register of Case T-9/02: Adidas International B.V. v                 Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
Commission of the European Communities.                                  T-51/03: Pi-Design AG v Office for the Harmonisation of the
                                                                         Internal Market (Trade Marks and Design) (OHIM).
(1) OJ C 68 of 16.3.2002.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 101 of 26.4.2003.


24.10.98              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                               C 327/17
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      Removal from the register of Case C-334/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 327/28)
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall
be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each
Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the          By order of 23 July 1998 the President of the Court of
Member States to observe the period for compliance laid            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
down in the directive. That period expired on 1 September          removal from the register of Case C-334/96 (reference
1995 without Ireland having enacted the provisions                 for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht,
necessary to comply with the directive referred to in the          Düsseldorf): Stadt Dormagen v Bezirksregierung
conclusions of the Commission.                                     Düsseldorf.
(1) OJ L 100, 19.4.1994, p. 1.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 370, 7.12.1996.
      Removal from the register of Case C-123/97 (1)
                         (98/C 327/27)                                   Removal from the register of Case C-357/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 327/29)
By order of 17 July 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-123/97 (reference for          By order of 24 August 1998 the President of the Court of
a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di             Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Padova): Tommaso Nalon v Ente Poste Italiane.                      removal from the register of Case C-357/97: Commission
                                                                   of the European Communities v Ireland.
(1) OJ C 166, 31.5.1997.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 370, 6.12.1997.
                                                  COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
   Election of the President of the Court of First Instance            Ð Mr Cooke,
                         (98/C 327/30)
                                                                       Ð Mr Jaeger.
At their meeting on 17 September 1998 the Judges of the
Court of First Instance elected, pursuant to Article 7 of
the Rules of Procedure, Judge Bo Vesterdorf as President           B. to assign the Members of the Court of First Instance
of the Court of First Instance for the period from                     to the Chambers as follows:
17 September 1998 to 31 August 2001.
                                                                       to the First Chamber:
                                                                       Mr Vesterdorf (President), Mr Pirrung and Mr Vilaras,
Designation of the Presidents of Chamber, and the                      Judges;
                composition of the Chambers
                         (98/C 327/31)
                                                                       to the First Chamber, Extended Composition:
At its meeting on 21 September 1998, the Court of First
Instance decided, pursuant to Article 2(4) of the Council
Decision of 24 October 1988 and Articles 10 and 15 of                  Mr Vesterdorf (President), Mr Bellamy, Mr Pirrung,
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, in              Mr Meij and Mr Vilaras, Judges;
respect of the period between 21 September 1998 and
30 September 1999:
                                                                       to the Second Chamber:
A. to designate as Presidents of Chamber:
    Ð Mr Potocki,
                                                                       Mr Potocki (President of Chamber), Mr Bellamy and
    Ð Mr Moura Ramos,                                                  Mr Meij, Judges;


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 November 2002 in Case T-199/01: G v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Social security — Refusal to reimburse medical expenses — Inefficacious treatment)

text:
C 19/32                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     25.1.2003
1.     Dismisses the applications;                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.                                                       of 23 October 2002
                                                                            in Case T-104/01: Claudia Oberhauser v Office for Har-
( 1) OJ C 186 of 30.6.2001.                                                 monisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                                Designs) (OHIM) ( 1)
                                                                            (Community trade mark — Opposition — Earlier figurative
                                                                            mark containing the term ‘miss fifties’ — Application for
                                                                            Community word mark ‘Fifties’ — Relative ground for
                                                                            refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of
                                                                                Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (2003/C 19/60)
                       of 26 November 2002                                                     (Language of the case: German)
in Case T-103/01: Michael Cwik v Commission of the
                                                                            In Case T-104/01, Claudia Oberhauser, established in Munich
                    European Communities ( 1)
                                                                            (Germany), represented by M. Graf, lawyer, v Office for
                                                                            Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
(Officials — Reorganisation of the Commission’s adminis-                    Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: G. Schneider), the other party to the
trative structures — Redeployment — Reasons — Interest                      proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for
       of the service — Misuse of power — Duty of care)                     Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                            Designs) being Petit Liberto, SA, established in Vidreres (Spain):
                                                                            Action brought against the decision of the Second Chamber
                           (2003/C 19/59)                                   Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                            Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 February
                                                                            2001 (Case R 757/1999-2), the Court of First Instance (Fourth
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            Chamber), composed of: M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and
                                                                            P. Mengozzi, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the
                                                                            Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 October 2002, in which
                                                                            it:
In Case T-103/01: Michael Cwik, an official of the Commission
of the European Communities, residing in Tervuren (Belgium),                1.     Dismisses the application;
represented by N. Lhoëst, avocat, with an address for service
in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Com-                      2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
munities (Agents: J. Currall, D. Waelbroeck and J. Waldron) —
application, in the first place, for annulment of the Commission
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 227 of 11.8.2001.
decision transferring the applicant from the ‘Economic Infor-
mation, Publications and Documentation’ Unit, which first
became the ‘Information: EURO, EMU’ Unit and subsequently
became Unit 4 ‘Communications Policy in regard to Monetary
Union’, to the ‘General Coordination, Human Resources and
Administration’ Unit, which became Unit 1 ‘Human Resources
Coordination; Information and Administration’, within the                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
‘Economic and Financial Affairs’ Directorate-General, and,
second, for compensation — the Court of First Instance                                             of 7 November 2002
(Second Chamber), composed of: R.M. Moura Ramos, Presi-
dent, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; D. Christensen,                   in Case T-199/01: G v Commission of the European
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                                             Communities ( 1)
26 November 2002, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                            (Officials — Social security — Refusal to reimburse medical
                                                                                expenses — Inefficacious treatment)
1.     The application is dismissed;
                                                                                (2003/C 19/61)
2.     The parties shall bear their own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
( 1) OJ C 227 of 11.08.2001.
                                                                            In Case T-199/01: G, an official of the Commission of the
                                                                            European Communities, residing in Ispra (Italy), represented by
 ---pagebreak--- 25.1.2003               EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 19/33
O. Slusny, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg,                1.     Dismisses the application.
against Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
J. Currall) — application for the annulment of the implied                   2.     Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
rejection of the complaint lodged by the applicant against the
decision of the office responsible for settling claims of
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.
30 November 2000 refusing to reimburse expenses relating to
medicinal preparations prescribed by the doctor providing
treatment — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),
composed of M. Jaeger, President, K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi,
Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a
judgment on 7 November 2002, in which it:
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
1.     Dismisses the application.
                                                                                of 12 November 2002
2.     Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                             in Case T-271/01: José Manuel López Cejudo v Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities (1)
( 1) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.
                                                                             (Officials — Remuneration — Dependent child and edu-
                                                                             cation allowances paid to the parent awarded custody of the
                                                                             child — Refusal to grant the other parent payment of the
                                                                             allowances for the purpose of calculating tax rebate and
                                                                                expatriation allowance — Default interest)
                                                                                (2003/C 19/63)
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                       (Language of the case: French)
                       of 5 November 2002
                                                                             In Case T-271/01: José Manuel López Cejudo, an official
                                                                             working for the Commission of the European Communities,
in Case T-205/01: André Ronsse v Commission of the                           residing in Brussels, represented by G. Vandersanden and
                   European Communities ( 1)
                                                                             L. Levi, avocats, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
                                                                             against Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
(Officials — Remuneration — Household allowance —                            J. Currall) — First an application for annulment of the decision
                    Recovery of sum overpaid)                                of the Commission refusing to grant to the applicant, in
                                                                             respect of the period running from October 2000 to July
                                                                             2001, the dependent child and education allowances for the
                           (2003/C 19/62)                                    purpose of calculating tax abatement and the expatriation
                                                                             allowance and, second, a claim for default interest on the
                                                                             amounts improperly recovered or not paid — the Court of
                    (Language of the case: French)                           First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of R.M. Moura
                                                                             Ramos, President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Pling-
                                                                             ers, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
                                                                             12 November 2002, in which it:
In Case T-205/01: André Ronsse, an official of the Commission
of the European Communities, residing in Brussels, represented               1.     annuls the decision of the Commission, as evidenced by
by E. Boigelot, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxem-                       the applicant’s salary slip for October 2000, refusing him
bourg, against Commission of the European Communities                               entitlement to dependent child and education allowances to take
(Agents: J. Currall, F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and B. Wägenbaur)                       into account for purposes of tax abatement and expatriation
— application for, first, annulment of the decisions of the                         allowance since July 1999, as amended by the Commission’s
Commission contained in letters of 9 and 23 November 2000                           decision of 16 July 2001, insofar as the latter decision takes
and in so far as necessary in the letter of 15 January 2002 and                     account of the apportionment of the entitlement to the
the implied rejection of his complaint lodged on 8 February                         allowances in issue and of the benefits under them only in
2001, all relating to repayment of EUR 22 443,07 correspond-                        respect of the future.
ing to the household allowance paid to the applicant from
1 January 1994 to 1 November 2000 and, secondly, reim-                       2.     orders the Commission to pay to the applicant:
bursement of the amounts withheld from his pension since
December 2000, together with interest at the statutory rate —                       —     default interest, as from November 2000, on the capital
the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of                                  amount of EUR 1 193,85 and, for each month from
B. Vesterdorf, President, N.J. Forwood and H. Legal, Judges;                              December 2000 and until September 2001,
J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a                             EUR 1 200 each month until those capital amounts are
judgment on 5 November 2002, in which it:                                                 repaid to him;


title: Case T-162/06: Action brought on 26 June 2006 — Kronoply v Commission

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/30

         Action brought on 26 June 2006 — Kronoply v Commission
   (Case T-162/06)
   (2006/C 212/55)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Kronoply GmbH & Co KG (Heiligengrabe, Germany) (represented by: R. Nierer and L. Gordalla, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission's decision of 21 September 2005 regarding State aid No C 5/2004 (ex N 609/2003) by which the Commission declares the aid Germany wishes to grant the applicant to be incompatible with the common market;

               —

               Order the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant is contesting Commission Decision C(2005) 3497 of 21 September 2005 in which the Commission decided that the investment grant which Germany intended to give Kronoply GmbH in the context of the multisectoral framework on regional aid for large investment projects (1) constitutes State aid which is incompatible with the common market.
   The applicant submits four pleas in law in support of its application.
   First, it complains that the Commission clearly erred as regards the findings of fact. In that respect it submits, inter alia, that the defendant did not ascertain the date on which the applicant applied for grants although it is of decisive importance with regard to an examination of the facts. Furthermore, it submits that the Commission overlooked the fact that the national administrative procedure has not yet been brought to an end.
   Secondly, the applicant submits in support of its application the plea that the contested decision is not adequately reasoned.
   Furthermore, the applicant submits that the Commission has infringed Article 87(3)(a) and (c) EC and Article 88 EC, Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (2) and the Guidelines on national regional aid (3).
   Lastly, the applicant complains of manifest errors of assessment and misuse of powers on the part of the defendant.

      (1)  OJ 1998 C 107, p. 7.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty.

      (3)  OJ 1998 C 74, p. 9, amended by OJ 2000 C 258, p. 5.


title: Case T-207/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 June 2007 — Europig v OHIM (EUROPIG) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark EUROPIG — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Absence of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/24

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 June 2007 — Europig v OHIM (EUROPIG)
   (Case T-207/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark EUROPIG - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Absence of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2007/C 170/47)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Europig SA (Josselin, France) (represented by: D. Masson, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 31 May 2006 (Case R 1425/2005-4) concerning an application for registration of the word mark EUROPIG as a Community trade mark.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 261, 28.1.2006.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 1 June 1995 in Case C-40/93: Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic (Failure to fulfil obligations - Directives 78/686/EEC and 78/687/EEC)

text:
No C 189/2              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       22 . 7 . 95
Ascoli Piceno awarded a private contract for the 11th and               right of establishment and freedom to provide services (2),
12th supplementary reports for the completion of the                    the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
section of rapid transit highway 'Ascoli—Mare ' entitled                that Article and under Article 1 of Council Directive
' Stage IV — Project 5134' and failed to publish a notice of            78/687/EEC of 25 July 1978 concerning the coordination of
invitation to tender in the Official Journal of the European            provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative
Communities, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its              action in respect of the activities of dental practitioners ( 3 )
obligations under Council Directive 71/305/EEC of 26 July               — the Court ( Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann,
1971 concerning the coordination of procedures for the                  President of the Chamber, P. Jann, J. C. Moitinho de
award of public works contracts (2 ) — the Court, composed              Almeida, D. A. . O. Edward ( Rapporteur ) and J.-P.
of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias , President, F. A. Schockweiler            Puissochet, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett,
( Rapporteur ), P. J. G. Kapteyn and P. Jann ( Presidents of            Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, C. N. Kakouris, J. C. Moitinho               1 June 1995 , in which it:
de Almeida , J. L. Murray, J. -P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and H.
Ragnemalm, Judges ; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General; L.                   1 , declares that, by deferring, by Law No 471 of
Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment                    31 October 1988, until 1984/85, with regard to
on 18 May 1 995 , the operative part of which is as                           diplomas in medicine and surgery, the final date set in
follows :                                                                     Article 19 of the Council Directive 78/686/EEC of
                                                                              25 July 1978 concerning the mutual recognition of
1 , in so far as the provincial administration of Ascoli                      diplomas, certificates and other evidence of the formal
      Piceno awarded a private contract for the 11th and 12th                 qualifications of practitioners of dentistry, including
      supplementary reports for the completion of the section                 measures to facilitate the effective exercise ofthe right of
      ofrapid transit highway 'Ascoli-Mare ' entitled 'Stage IV               estrablishment and freedom to provide services, the
      — Project 5134 ' and failed to publish a notice of                      Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      invitation to tender in the Official Journal of the                     that Article and under Article 1 of Council Directive
      European Communities, the Italian Republic has failed                   78/6871EEC of 25 July 1978 concerning the
      to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive                       coordination ofprovisions laid down by law, regulation
      71 /305/EEC of 26 July 1971 concerning the                              or administrative action in respect of the activities of
      coordination of procedures for the award of public                      dental practitioners;
      works contracts;
                                                                        2 , orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
2 , the Italian Republic is ordered to pay the costs.
                                                                        (!) OJ No C 70, 12 . 3 . 1993 .
(M OJ No C 90 , 26 . 3 . 1994 .                                         (2 ) OJ No L 233 , 24 . 8 . 1978 , p . 1 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 185 , 16 . 8 . 1971 , p . 5 .                             ( 3 ) OJ No L 233 , 24 . 8 . 1978 , p . 10 .
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                                        ( Third Chamber)
                           of 1 June 1995                                                          of 1 June 1995
        in Case C-40/93 : Commission of the European                    in Case C-459/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
              Communities v. Italian Republic (*)                       the Bundesfinanzhof): Hauptzollamt Hamburg-St. Annen
 (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directives 78/686/EEC and                          v. Thyssen Haniel Logistic GmbH ( x )
                              78/687/EEC)                                (Common Customs Tariff — Council Regulation (EEC)
                             ( 95/C 189/03 )                            No 3618/86 — Tariff headings 21.07 and 30.03 —
                                                                        Mixtures ofamino acids usedfor thepreparation ofinfusion
                                                                                solutions)
                 (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                ( 95/C 189/04 )
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)                                      (Language of the case: German)
In Case C-40/93 : Commission of the European                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Communities ( Agent: Enrico Traversa ) v . Italian Republic                        published in the European Court Reports)
 ( Agent: Umberto Leanza ) — application for a declaration
that, by deferring, by Law No 471 of 31 October 1988 , until            In Case C-459/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
 1984/85 , with regard to diplomas in medicine and surgery,             of the EC Treaty by the Bundesfinanzhof ( German Federal
the final date set in Article 19 of Council Directive                   Finance Court) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
 78/686/EEC of 25 July 1978 concerning the mutual                       pending before that court between Hauptzollamt
recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of             Hamburg-St. Annen and Thyssen Haniel Logistic GmbH on
the formal qualifications of practitioners of dentistry,                the interpretation of tariff headings 21.07 and 30.03 of
including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the          the Common Customs Tariff as amended by Council


title: Action brought on 25 November 1998 by Pascual Juan Cubero Vermurie against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-187/98)

text:
C 20/32             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   23.1.1999
Action brought on 25 November 1998 by CompanÄía                   The applicant considers it proved that those budgetary
Internacional de Pesca y Derivados, S.A. (INPESCA)                headings were left largely unused as a result of repayments
    against Commission of the European Communities                and reductions or a shortage of applications and in
                                                                  addition that, because of the cancellation and repayment
                      (Case T-186/98)
                                                                  of considerable amounts of aid improperly granted for the
                       (1999/C 20/57)                             construction or modernisation of fishing vessels, sufficient
                                                                  credit remains available to cover the project at issue in
                                                                  these proceedings.
              (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                  Nor, in the applicant's view, is it permissible for the
An action against the Commission of the European                  contested decision to refer to Article 37 of Regulation
Communities was brought before the Court of First                 (EEC) No 4028/86 (1), which appears to limit the
Instance on 25 November 1998 by CompanÄía                         reconsideration of projects that have not been financed for
International de Pesca y Derivados, S.A. (INPESCA),               lack of financial resources. In its view, the Commission
whose registered office is in Bermeo (Spain), represented         itself, in Article 6(2) of its Proposal for a Council
by María Iciar Angulo Fuertes and BegonÄa Angulo                  Regulation (EC) on structural measures in the fisheries
Fuertes, of the Bizkaia Bar, with an address for service in       sector (2), stated that sums committed as assistance for
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8-10 Rue             projects by the Commission between 1 January 1989 and
Mathias Hardt.                                                    31 December 1993 for which no final application for
                                                                  payment had been submitted would be released by the
                                                                  Commission on its own initiative, without prejudice to
                                                                  projects which had been suspended on legal grounds: this
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance
                                                                  means that projects which are the subject of an
should:
                                                                  application for judicial review, as in this case, must be
                                                                  taken into consideration. Also, the Court of Auditors of
                                                                  the European Communities, in its Annual Report for
Ð Annul contested decision;                                       1990, found that applications for financial aid of the kind
                                                                  provided for in Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 were
                                                                  considered over a period of more than two financial years.
Ð Hold, in accordance with the second paragraph of
    Article 176 of the EC Treaty, in conjunction with
    Article 178 and the second paragraph of Article 215           The applicant concludes by alleging that the contested
    thereof, that CompanÄía Internacional de Pesca y              decision involves a misuse of powers and breach of the
    Derivados, S.A. (INPESCA) is entitled to receive, as          principle of non-discrimination.
    compensation for the damage caused to it by the issue
    of the contested decision, the sum of ESP 216 886 200,
    together with default interest in respect of the              (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 of 18 December 1986
                                                                      on Community measures to improve and adapt structures in
    withholding of such Community financial aid, from
                                                                      the fisheries and aquaculture sector (OJ L 376, 31.12.1986,
    12 March 1992 until the date on which it is received,             p. 7).
    in accordance with the legal principles common to the         (2) OJ C 176, 9.6.1998, p. 44.
    Member States;
Ð Order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:               Action brought on 25 November 1998 by Pascual Juan
                                                                  Cubero Vermurie against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
In this action the applicant, whose objects include the
                                                                                (Case T-187/98)
building, purchase, management, chartering, repair and
operation of ships, seeks annulment of the Commission's                                    (1999/C 20/58)
decision of 16 September 1998 refusing to grant the
Community financial aid applied for in relation to the
building of a vessel for the catching and freezing of tuna                         (Language of the case: French)
(No ES/0002/90 and ES/0224/91).
                                                                  An action against the Commission of the European
By decisions of 18 December 1990 and 8 November 1991              Communities was brought before the Court of First
the Commission declared that, despite meeting all the             Instance of the European Communities on 25 November
requirements laid down for the grant of aid at issue, the         1998 by Pascual Juan Cubero Vermurie, residing in
abovementioned project could not qualify for such aid             Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar,
because the budgetary resources under the relevant                with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
headings for 1991 and 1992 were insufficient.                     Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2, Rue du Fort Rheinsheim.
 ---pagebreak--- 23.1.1999            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 20/33
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         grade which he deserves. The material damage results
                                                                    from the non-receipt by him of additional remuneration
                                                                    from 1 April 1998, on which date he should have been
Ð annul the decision of the appointing authority of                 promoted.
    6 April 1998, by which it declined to promote the
    applicant to grade A 5 in the context of the 1998
    promotion procedure;
Ð annul the decision of 9 October 1998 rejecting the
    complaint against the contested decision of 6 April
    1998, which was submitted by the applicant on                   Action brought on 4 December 1998 by Comune di
    27 April 1998 and registered in the Secretariat-General         Sassuolo against Commission of the European
    on 6 May 1998 under number R/436/98;                                                    Communities
                                                                                (Case T-189/98)
Ð order the defendant to pay to the applicant                                              (1999/C 20/59)
    compensation for the material and non-material
    damage suffered by him, fixed on an equitable basis in
    the sum of BEF 250 000, subject to increase or                                 (Language of the case: Italian)
    decrease during the course of the proceedings;
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs in any event.                Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    Instance on 4 December 1998 by Comune di Sassuolo,
                                                                    represented by Fabio Dani, of the Ferrara Bar, with an
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                    Alex Schmitt, 71 Rue de AubeÂpines.
The applicant has previously worked     in various capacities
in the European public service (inter   alia as a member of
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance
the defendant's Legal Service, as a     legal secretary to a
                                                                    should:
judge at the Court of Justice and        as assistant to the
Director-General of DG XXIV).
                                                                    Ð Annul the decision of Directorate General V of the
In support of his application, he pleads:                               Commission of the European Communities (D(98) DG
                                                                        V.A.4 DC/MG/se/980511 of 12 May 1998),
                                                                        communicated to the applicant Ð the Municipal
Ð infringement of the Staff Regulations, in particular the              Administration of Sassuolo Ð by the Ministry of
    third and fourth paragraphs of Article 24 and                       Employment and Social Security of the Italian
    Article 45(1) thereof;                                              Republic on 5 October 1998;
Ð disregard of the general principles of law, such as the           Ð Order the defendant to pay the costs.
    principle that all administrative acts must be based on
    grounds which are legally admissible Ð that is to say,
    relevant and not vitiated by any error of law or of fact        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    Ð and the principle precluding an outcome which is
    contrary to justice or equity; and
                                                                    The applicant in this case, in Italian municipality, is
Ð breach of the principles of proportionality, equality of          challenging the refusal to extend a pilot project financed
    treatment between officials and the protection of               by the European Social Fund (Ariane Programme) relating
    legitimate expectations.                                        to the testing and development of employment promotion
                                                                    systems.
The applicant maintains that, in adopting the contested
decisions, the appointing authority applied arbitrary and           It must be borne in mind in that respect, first, that,
inequitable criteria which have caused him serious                  according to the project schedule, the final dates for
damage.                                                             determination of the expenses qualifying for a
                                                                    contribution, for final payments to the ultimate
                                                                    beneficiaries and for the evaluation of financing, were
The non-material damage suffered by the applicant results           fixed as, respectively, 31 December 1996, 31 December
from the fact that, despite having been willing to move             1997 and 30 April 1998. The activation of phase 4 of the
jobs in the course of his career with a view to increasing          project, known as Service Management', consisting inter
his experience and knowledge, he has been refused the               alia in the opening of the counter to the public for the