title: Case C-42/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo, Second Chamber, by judgment of that court of 13 January 1999, in the case of Fábrica de Queijo Eru Portuguesa Lda and Tribunal Técnico de 2a Instância

text:
10.4.1999            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 100/11
Appeal brought on 12 February 1999 by Sadam                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo
Zuccherifici Divisione della SECI SpA, Sadam                         Tribunal Administrativo, Second Chamber, by judgment of
Castiglionese SpA, Sadam Abruzzo SpA, Zuccherificio del              that court of 13 January 1999, in the case of FaÂbrica de
Molise SpA and SocietaÁ Fondiaria Industriale Romagnola              Queijo Eru Portuguesa Lda and Tribunal TeÂcnico de 2a
SpA against the order made on 8 December 1998 by the                                            InstaÃncia
Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of
                                                                                (Case C-42/99)
First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-39/
98 Sadam Zuccherifici Divisione della SECI SpA, Sadam                                       (1999/C 100/19)
Castiglionese SpA, Sadam Abruzzo SpA, Zuccherificio del
Molise SpA and SocietaÁ Fondiaria Industriale Romagnola
            SpA v. Council of the European Union                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                     European Communities by an judgment of the Second
                      (Case C-41/99 P)                               Chamber of the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo
                      (1999/C 100/18)                                (Supreme Administrative Court) of 13 January 1999,
                                                                     which was received at the Court Registry on 12 February
                                                                     1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of FaÂbrica de
                                                                     Queijo Eru Portuguesa Lda and Tribunal TeÂcnico de 2a
An appeal has been brought before the Court of Justice of            InstaÃncia, on the following questions:
the European Communities on 12 February 1999 by
Sadam Zuccherifici Divisione della SECI SpA, Sadam
Castiglionese SpA, Sadam Abruzzo SpA, Zuccherificio del              1. Are the Explanatory Notes to the combined
Molise SpA and SocietaÁ Fondiaria Industriale Romagnola                   nomenclature (1), where they state that caseins
SpA, represented by Vincenzo Cerulli Irelli, Gualtiero                    containing by weight more than 15 % water are
Pittalis and Giancarlo Fanzini, of the Bologna Bar, with an               included under heading 0406 (cheese and curd)
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                      contrary to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3174/
ArseÁne Kronshagen, 22 Rue Marie-AdeÂlaïde, against the                   88 (2) according to which (Chapter IV) they are to
order made on 8 December 1998 by the Fourth Chamber                       classified under heading 0406, as cheese, provided
(Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of                  that:
the European Communities in Case T-39/98 Sadam
Zuccherifici Divisione della SECI SpA, Sadam                              (a) they have a fat content of 5 % or more;
Castiglionese SpA, Sadam Abruzzo SpA, Zuccherificio del
Molise SpA and SocietaÁ Fondiaria Industriale Romagnola                   (b) they have a dry matter content, by weight, of at
SpA v. Council of the European Union.                                          least 70 % but not exceeding 85 %; and
                                                                          (c) they are moulded or capable of being moulded?
The appellants claim that the Court should set aside the
Court of First Instance's order of 8 December 1998 in
Case T-39/98 by declaring the application to be admissible           2. Having regard to Commission Regulation (EEC)
and refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for a              No 3174/88 are the imported goods (which have the
decision on the substance.                                                following composition: 54 % water, 0,9 % fat, 5,7 %
                                                                          phosphorus, 2 % salt and casein) to be classified
                                                                          under customs heading 3501 10 90 0 00 000 as
                                                                          casein Ð other Ð or under customs heading
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support                        0406 90 11 01 0 000 as other cheeses?
                                                                     (1) OJ C 342, 5.12.1994, p. 1.
The contested regulation (1) has direct, not indirect,               (2) OJ L 298, 31.10.1998, p. 1.
detrimental effects on the four plants of the appellant
sugar-producing undertakings operating in southern Italy.
Those four plants are effectively the sole specific
addressees of Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 2613/97
and have individually been adversely affected.
                                                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil
                                                                     SupeÂrieur des Assurances Sociales du Grand-DucheÂ de
It follows     that  the   application    must    be  declared       Luxembourg, by judgment of that body of 10 February
admissible.                                                          1999 in the case of Ghislain Leclere and Alina Deaconescu
                                                                          against Caisse Nationale des Prestations Familiales
(1) Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2613/97 of                                       (Case C-43/99)
    15 December 1997 authorising Portugal to grant aid to sugar                             (1999/C 100/20)
    beet producers and abolishing all State aid from the 2001/
    2002 marketing year (OJ L 353, 24.12.1997, p. 3).
                                                                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                     European Communities by judgment of the Conseil


title: Case C-272/01: Action brought on 10 July 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic

text:
C 245/14              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        1.9.2001
—    Infringement of the principle of equal treatment:                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
     The Court of First Instance failed to draw all the logical         (a)   Declare that,
     consequences from the selection board’s decision to
     delete certain questions and to take no account of the                   —     by failing to adopt all the provisions necessary so
     answers given to them.                                                         that the quality of bathing water conformed to the
                                                                                values limits set down in Article 3 of the directive;
                                                                              —     by failing to take samples at the minimum frequency
                                                                                laid down in the annex to the directive;
Reference for a preliminary ruling, by the Tribunal de                        —     by failing to identify all the inshore bathing areas in
Grande Instance de Dinan, by judgment of that court of                              Portugal,
28 June 2001, in the case of Ministère Public — partie
civile: Comité Région pêches maritimes against Annie
       Pansard, Gérard Bourret and Marc Kermarrec                             the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                              under Directive 76/160/EEC (1) in particular as provided
                                                                              for in Article 4(1), in conjunction with Article 3, the
                       (Case C-265/01)                                        annex to the directive and with Article 1(2) and those
                                                                              provided for in Article 6(1) and (2);
                       (2001/C 245/25)
                                                                        (b) Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communites by judgment of the Tribunal de Grande
Instance de Dinan of 28 June 2001, received at the Court
Registry on 5 July 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case
of Ministère Public — partie civile: Comite Region pêches               Pleas in law and main arguments
maritimes against Annie Pansard, Gérard Bourret and Marc
Kermarrec on the following questions:
                                                                        Although a derogation was granted under Article 395 of and
—    Can scallops caught from vessels registered in France (at          Point II-3 of Annex XXXVI to the Act of Accession of Spain
     Saint-Brieuc and Saint-Malo) in the waters of Jersey (the          and Portugal to the European Economic Community until
     Minkies) under licence issued by the Jersey authorities            31 December 1992, the level of non-conformity with the
     authorising fishing by diving be regarded as imported              mandatory values set down in the directive was, for the 2000
     products, in spite of the French legislation which applies         bathing season, 7.8 % for coastal bathing areas and 31 % for
     to fish catches the law of the flag of the fishing vessel?         inland bathing areas, which was even a decrease in conformity
                                                                        by comparison with the 1999 season.
—    Is the validity of the Order of 19 March 1980, which
     prohibits the unloading of scallops during their close
     season, affected by the provisions of the Treaty of
                                                                        Furthermore, the Portuguese authorities have still not identified
     Maastricht, which prohibit measures having an effect
                                                                        all the inland bathing areas. There is a discrepancy between
     equivalent to quantitative restrictions on imports?
                                                                        the number of inland bathing areas identified (26) and the
                                                                        number of ‘riverside beaches’, as described by the Portuguese
                                                                        authorities, eligible for Community funds (91).
                                                                        Although there has been 100 % sampling in Portugal in both
Action brought on 10 July 2001 by the Commission                        coastal bathing areas and inshore bathing areas, that percentage
of the European Communities against the Portuguese                      is only in respect of the bathing areas which have been
                           Republic                                     identified. Thus, by failing to comply with the minimum
                                                                        frequency of sampling operations because an insufficient
                                                                        number of inshore bathing areas have been identified, the
                       (Case C-272/01)                                  Portuguese Republic has failed to comply with its obligations
                                                                        under Article 6(1) and (2) of the directive.
                       (2001/C 245/26)
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before            (1) Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 10 July                 the quality of bathing water (OJ 1976 L 31, p. 1).
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Teresa Figueira and Gregorio Valero Jordana,
acting as Agents.


title: Case T-502/17: Action brought on 7 August 2017 — SFP Asset Management and Others v SRB

text:
               16.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/36

         Action brought on 7 August 2017 — SFP Asset Management and Others v SRB
   (Case T-502/17)
   (2017/C 347/45)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: SFP Asset management and Others (Geneva, Switzerland), Twenty First Trade Inc. (Panama, Panama), Merlos Infor, S.L. (Badalona, Spain) (represented by: J. Gálvez Pascual, lawyer)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               declare that, by adopting in its executive session of 7 June 2017 Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 establishing the resolution scheme in respect of the financial institution Banco Popular Español S.A., the Single Resolution Board (‘the SRB’) infringed EU law;

               —

               consequently, annul that measure, and any subsequent implementing measures too that the SRB may have adopted, with effect ex tunc.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.


title: Case T-410/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 20 June 2014  — Wilders v Parliament and Council (Interim measures — European Parliament — Act concerning the election of the Members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage — Incompatibility of the office of Member of the European Parliament with that of member of a national parliament (ban on holding a dual mandate) — Application for interim measures — Disregard of formal requirements — Manifest inadmissibility of the main action — Inadmissibility)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/64

         Order of the President of the General Court of 20 June 2014 — Wilders v Parliament and Council
   (Case T-410/14 R)
   ((Interim measures - European Parliament - Act concerning the election of the Members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage - Incompatibility of the office of Member of the European Parliament with that of member of a national parliament (ban on holding a dual mandate) - Application for interim measures - Disregard of formal requirements - Manifest inadmissibility of the main action - Inadmissibility))
   2014/C 315/107
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Geert Wilders (represented by: G. Knoops and C. Hamburger, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Parliament and Council of the European Union

      Re:

   Application for interim measures, essentially to permit the applicant to be officially sworn in as a member of the European Parliament, while continuing to hold the office of Member of the Netherlands Parliament

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 September 2002 in Case C-104/00 P: DKV Deutsche Krankenversicherung AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Word "Companyline" — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive character)

text:
9.11.2002                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 274/7
5.    The first paragraph of Article 95 of the Treaty precludes the                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      levying of a tax such as that at issue in the main proceedings,
      which is payable on car tax, in so far as the amount charged as
      such a tax on a used car imported from another Member State
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
      exceeds the amount of the residual tax incorporated in the value
      of a similar used car already registered in the national territory.
                                                                                of 19 September 2002
( 1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
                                                                             in Case C-113/00: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities ( 1)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      (State aid — Agriculture — Aid for horticultural products
                                                                             intended for industrial processing in Extremadura —
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                   Article 87(1) and (3)(a) and (c) EC — Small amount of aid
                                                                             — No comments from parties concerned — Operating aid
                                                                             — Aid relating to products subject to a common organisation
                      of 19 September 2002                                   of the market — Restrictions on the free movement of goods
                                                                                — Statement of reasons)
in Case C-104/00 P: DKV Deutsche Krankenversicherung
AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
             (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)                                                      (2002/C 274/10)
(Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 — Word ‘Companyline’ — Absolute ground for
                 refusal — Distinctive character)                                               (Language of the case: Spanish)
                           (2002/C 274/09)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                   (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             In Case C-113/00, Kingdom of Spain (Agent: S. Ortiz Vaamon-
                                                                             de) v Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
In Case C-104/00 P, DKV Deutsche Krankenversicherung AG                      D. Triantafyllou): Application for annulment of Commission
(represented by: S. von Petersdorff-Campen): Appeal against                  Decision 2000/237/EC of 22 December 1999 concerning an
the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European                  aid scheme implemented by Spain in favour of horticultural
Communities (Fourth Chamber) of 12 January 2000 in Case                      products intended for industrial processing in Extremadura in
T-19/99 DKV v OHIM (COMPANYLINE) [2000] ECR II-1,                            the 1997/98 marketing year (OJ 2000 L 75, p. 54), the Court
seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party to the              (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the
proceedings being: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                  Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet and
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von                      C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advo-
Mühlendahl and D. Schennen), the Court (Fifth Chamber),                      cate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on
composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,                 19 September 2002, in which it:
S. von Bahr, M. Wathelet, C.W.A. Timmermans and A. Rosas,
Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
on 19 September 2002, in which it:                                           1.    Dismisses the application;
1.    Dismisses the appeal;                                                  2.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
2.    Orders DKV Deutsche Krankenversicherung AG to pay the
      costs.
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
( 1) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.


title: Action brought on 12 August 1997 by Nicolaos Progoulis against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-237/97)

text:
C 7/20               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   10. 1. 98
Action brought on 8 August 1997 by Lars Bo Rasmussen               Ð the defendant could not take into consideration the
  against the Commission of the European Communities                   merits of the applicant because throughout the
                       (Case T-234/97)                                 promotions exercise the relevant authorities did not
                                                                       have access to his file, which was lodged at the Court
                          (98/C 7/59)                                  of First Instance. The file was thus unavailable to the
                                                                       Director-General of DG V, the Restricted Group, and
               (Language of the case: French)                          the Promotions Committee, during the period in
                                                                       question,
An action against the Commission of the European                   Ð contrary to the principle of non-discrimination and to
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      the requirements laid down in Article 45 of the Staff
Instance of the European Communities on 8 August 1997                  Regulations, the appointing authority compared his
by Lars Bo Rasmussen, residing at Dalheim                              merits only with officials in DG V who were eligible
(Luxembourg), represented by Carlo Revoldini, of the                   for promotion, and
Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at his Chambers at 180, route de Longwy.
                                                                   Ð within the meaning of Article 45 of the Staff
                                                                       Regulations, consideration of the merits of officials
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            constitutes the determining criterion in matters of
                                                                       promotion. It is only by way of an alternative that the
                                                                       appointing authority may take into consideration the
Ð annul the decision of the Commission not to promote
                                                                       age of candidates, or their seniority in grade, or length
    him to grade A 4 in the 1996 promotions procedure,
                                                                       of service. Accordingly, the MoeÈl' method, applied by
                                                                       the Commission in order to establish the list of most
Ð annul the decision of the Commission to promote the                  eligible officials, is unlawful on the ground that it does
    85 persons chosen from the list of officials most                  not give sufficient weight to the merits of officials
    deserving of promotion to grade A 4,                               eligible for promotion.
Ð order the defendant to pay monetary compensation in
    respect of non-material damage suffered in the order
    of Lfrs 500 000 or any other amount which the Court
    may deem fair and equitable,
                                                                   Action brought on 12 August 1997 by Nicolaos Progoulis
                                                                     against the Commission of the European Communities
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.                                                     (Case T-237/97)
                                                                                (98/C 7/60)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The applicant, an official at grade A 5, objects to the
appointing authority's refusal to promote him to the next          An action against the Commission of the European
grade in the 1996 promotions procedure.                            Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                   Instance of the European Communities on 12 August
                                                                   1997 by Nicolaos Progoulis, residing in Brussels,
In support of his claims he relies on breach of Article 45
                                                                   represented by Vassilios Akritidis and Konstantinos
of the Staff Regulations and of the general legal principle
                                                                   Adamantopoulos, of the Athens Bar, with an address for
of equal treatment.
                                                                   service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of ArseÁne
                                                                   Kronshagen, 12, boulevard de la Foire.
In that regard, the applicant claims in particular that:
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
Ð the defendant's decision to authorize the taking into
    account of seniority in grade previously acquired as a         Ð annul the decision of the defendant of 13 May 1997
    temporary agent in respect of the promotions                       rejecting his application to be regraded in step 2 of
    procedure and its extension by analogy to officials                grade B 1 with retroactive effect from 1 March 1983
    who have transferred to another category is contrary               and for the financial consequences of the regrading
    to the applicable Staff Regulations provisions and that,           applied for to be taken into account and calculated
    on that ground, the promotions exercise in question as             retroactively from 1 March 1983, together with
    a whole is unlawful. In his opinion, there is no                   compound legal interest at the annual rate of 10 %,
    legislative provision in the Staff Regulations
    concerning the taking into account of the length of            Ð order the defendant to pay to the applicant the
    service of an official as a temporary member of staff in           amount corresponding to the financial consequences of
    order to determine his seniority. To claim otherwise               the regrading applied for, calculated retroactively from
    would amount to treating other servants as officials to            1 March 1983, together with compound legal interest
    the extent that there would no longer be any sense in              at the annual rate of 10 %, and
    having provisions of the Staff Regulations which
    distinguish between other servants and officials,              Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 10. 1. 98              EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 7/21
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                arguments are essentially the same in both applications,
                                                                   whose purpose, even though they relate to two different
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those           administrative procedures, is to determine whether or not
relied on in Case T-16/97 (1).                                     the Commission is incorrect in not regarding consumers'
                                                                   associations as interested parties in an anti-dumping
                                                                   proceeding concerning products not commonly sold at
(1) OJ C 74, 8. 3. 1997, p. 27.
                                                                   retail level.
Action brought on 19 September 1997 by the European
                                                                   Action brought on 20 October 1997 by GueÂrin
Office of Consumer Unions (BEUC) against the
                                                                   Automobiles against the Commission of the European
         Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                Communities
                        (Case T-256/97)
                                                                                (Case T-275/97)
                           (98/C 7/61)
                                                                                (98/C 7/62)
                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                   An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 19 September
                                                                   Instance on 20 October 1997 by GueÂrin Automobiles,
1997 by the European Office of Consumer Unions
                                                                   represented      by    Xavier     LemeÂe,   court-appointed
(BEUC), represented by Bernard O'Connor, Member of
                                                                   administrator, instructing Jean Claude Fourgoux, of the
the Law Society of Ireland, and assisted by Bonifacio
                                                                   Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
Garcia Porras, member of the Colegio de Abogados de
                                                                   the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4, rue BeÂatrix de
Salamanca, of O'Connor and Company, with an address
                                                                   Bourbon.
for service in Luxembourg at the offices of ArseÁne
Kronshagen, 2, rue Marie AdeÂlaïde.
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance
                                                                   should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   Ð annul the Commission decision of 25 April 1997,
Ð declare void, pursuant to Articles 173 and 174 of the
     EC Treaty, the decision of the Commission, addressed
     to the applicant and set out in the letter of 18 July         Ð formally take note that Mr LemeÂe reserves the right to
     1997 (see Annex I), refusing to regard the applicant as           bring an action for compensation pursuant to
     an interested party' in relation to all aspects of an            Article 215 of the Treaty,
     anti-dumping proceeding, opened by the Commission
     on the 11 July 1997, concerning imports of                    Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
     unbleached cotton fabrics, originating in the People's
     Republic of China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Pakistan
     and Turkey, and refusing the applicant's request for          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     transmission of the complaint and for access to the
     non-confidential files and information made available         The applicant contests the definitive rejection of the
     by all parties in that proceeding,                            complaint which it lodged against the company Nissan
                                                                   France on the basis of Article 85 of the EC Treaty and
Ð declare void, pursuant to Articles 173 and 174 of the            Commission Regulation (EEC) No 123/85 (1) concerning
     EC Treaty, the decision contained in the same letter, in      the imposition by that company of concession conditions
     so far as that decision refuses to allow the applicant        which the applicant considers incompatible with that
     and other consumer organizations to have access to            Regulation.
     the non-confidential information made available in an
     anti-dumping proceeding dealing with products not             The applicant states that, in its letter rejecting the
     commonly sold at retail level,                                complaint, the defendant relies essentially on the more
                                                                   protective provisions of the new Regulation, Regulation
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.                           (EC) No 1475/95 (2), which requires Nissan, in its
                                                                   relations with its concessionaires, to make changes as
                                                                   regards the future both to the contract at issue and in its
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                conduct, eliminating any infringements relating to the
                                                                   past'. The applicant emphasizes in that regard that its
The applicant in the present case is the same                      interest relates only to a situation prior to the entry into
representative consumers' organization as in Case T-84/97          force of that Regulation and that the Commission was
BEUC v. Commission. The pleas in law and main                      asked to deal only with that situation.


title: Judgment of the Court of First instance of 3 December 2003 in Case T-305/02: Nestlé Waters France v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Three-dimensional mark — Shape of a bottle — Absolute grounds for refusal — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
20.3.2004               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 71/25
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  (France), represented by N. Lhoëst, lawyer, with an address for
                                                                             service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European
                      of 17 December 2003                                    Communities (Agents: J. Currall and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart)
                                                                             — application for annulment of the Commission’s decision
                                                                             rejecting the applicant’s application for regrading in the higher
in Case T-133/02: Pravir Kumar Chawdhry v Commission                         grade of his career bracket of recruitment — the Court of First
                of the European Communities (1)                              Instance (Single Judge: H. Legal); I. Natsinas, Administrator,
                                                                             acting for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 December
(Member of the temporary staff — Post paid from appropri-                    2003, in which it:
            ations to the research budget — Grading)
                           (2004/C 71/44)                                    1.    annuls the Commission’s decision of 27 July 2001 rejecting
                                                                                the applicant’s application for regrading in the higher grade of
                                                                                his career bracket of recruitment;
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             2.    orders the Commission to pay all the costs.
In Case T-133/02: Pravir Kumar Chawdhry, a member of
the temporary staff of the Commission of the European                        (1) OJ C 219 of 14.9.2002.
Communities, residing in Sangiano (Italy), represented by
G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers, with an address for
service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: J. Currall and V. Joris) — application
for, first, annulment of the Commission’s decision grading the
applicant in Grade A 6, Step 3, and, secondly, compensation
in respect of harm suffered – the Court of First Instance (Single
Judge: J. Pirrung); J. Plingers, Administrator, acting for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 December 2003, in
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
which it:
1.    dismisses the application;                                                                    of 3 December 2003
2.    orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay a
      quarter of the applicant’s costs;                                      in Case T-305/02: Nestlé Waters France v Office for
                                                                             Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
3.    orders the applicant to bear three quarters of his own costs.                                  Designs) (OHIM) (1)
(1) OJ C 156 of 29.6.2002.                                                   (Community trade mark — Three-dimensional mark —
                                                                             Shape of a bottle — Absolute grounds for refusal —
                                                                             Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
                                                                                No 40/94)
                                                                                (2004/C 71/46)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                      of 10 December 2003
in Case T-173/02: Pierre Tomarchio v Commission of the
                    European Communities (1)
                                                                             In Case T-305/02, Nestlé Waters France, established in Issy-
                                                                             les-Moulineaux (France), represented by A. Cléry, avocat, v
(Officials – Grading — Rejection of an application for                       Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
   regrading under Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations)                   and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. Rassat and O. Waelbroeck):
                                                                             Application for annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board
                           (2004/C 71/45)                                    of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                             Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 July 2002 (Case
                    (Language of the case: French)                           R 719/2000-4) refusing to register a three-dimensional trade
                                                                             mark consisting of the shape of a transparent bottle, the Court
                                                                             of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili,
                                                                             President, P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges; B. Pastor,
In Case T-173/02: Pierre Tomarchio, a former official of the                 Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 December 2003,
Commission of the European Communities, residing in Nancy                    in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- C 71/26                  EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            20.3.2004
1.     Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
       for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
       Designs) of 12 July 2002 (Case R 719/2000-4);
                                                                                of 17 December 2003
2.     Orders the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                            in Case T-324/02: Hans McAuley v Council of the Euro-
(1 ) OJ C 305 of 7.12.2002.                                                                            pean Union (1)
                                                                            (Compliance with a judgment of the Court of First Instance
                                                                            — Appointment of a Language Adviser in the English and
                                                                            Irish Language — Division of the Council Termination of
                                                                            the procedure for filling the post under Article 29(1)(a) of
                                                                            the Staff Regulations — Misuse of powers — Action for
                                                                                compensation)
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (2004/C 71/48)
                        of 11 December 2003
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
in Case T-323/02: Monique Breton v Court of Justice of
                  the European Communities (1)
(Officials — Promotion — Award of promotion points —
                             Admissibility)                                 In Case T-324/02: Hans McAuley, an official of the Council of
                                                                            the European Union, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represent-
                                                                            ed by J.-N. Louis and S. Orlandi, lawyers, with an address for
                            (2004/C 71/47)                                  service in Luxembourg, against the Council of the European
                                                                            Union (Agent: F. Anton) — application for, first, annulment of
                                                                            the decision contained in the letter of 30 January 2002 of the
                     (Language of the case: French)                         Director General of Directorate General A of the Council to
                                                                            terminate the procedure under Article 29(1)(a) of the Staff
                                                                            Regulations for filling the post of Language Adviser in the
                                                                            English and Irish Language Division and to proceed to the next
In Case T-323/02: Monique Breton, an official of the Court of               stage, namely the organisation of an internal competition
Justice of the European Communities, residing at Howald                     under Article 29(1)(b) of the Staff Regulations, and, second,
(Luxembourg), represented by A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Mar-                for compensation — the Court of First Instance (Fourth
chal and S. Orlandi, lawyers, with an address for service                   Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, President, P. Mengozzi and
in Luxembourg, against Court of Justice of the European                     M. Vilaras, Judges; I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar,
Communities (Agent: M. Schauss) — application for annul-                    gave a judgment on 17 December 2003, in which it:
ment of the decision of the Court of Justice concerning the
award to the applicant of promotion points for the years
1998, 1999 and 2000 pursuant to the Court’s decision of                     1.    Annuls the decision contained in the letter of 30 January 2002
18 October 2000 on promotions and the decision of the                             of the Director General of Directorate General A of the Council
Registrar of the Court of 3 December 2001 establishing a                          to terminate the procedure under Article 29(1)(a) of the Staff
transitional system for promotions — the Court of First                           Regulations for filling the post of Language Adviser in the
Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: J. Azizi, President,                       English and Irish Language Division and to proceed to the next
and M. Jaeger and F. Dehousse, Judges; J. Plingers, Adminis-                      stage, namely the organisation of an internal competition under
trator, acting for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                         Article 29(1)(b) of the Staff Regulations.
11 December 2003, in which it:
                                                                            2.    Dismisses the applicant’s application for compensation.
1.     dismisses the application;
                                                                            3.    Orders the Council to pay the costs.
2.     orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ No C 7 of 11.1.2003.
(1) OJ C 7 of 11.1.2003.


               28.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 163/10

         Action brought on 13 January 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
   (Case E-5/14)
   (2014/C 163/09)
   An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 13 January 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis, Auður Ýr Steinarsdóttir and Catherine Howdle, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Rue Belliard 35, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               Declare that by failing (i) to adopt, or (ii) to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith of, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 32ff of Chapter V of Annex XX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 40 of that Act and Article 7 of the EEA Agreement.

               2.

               Order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.

      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than on 26 August 2013, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 26 June 2013 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives (‘the Act’), as referred to at point 32ff of Chapter V of Annex XX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 40 of the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to adopt, or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority of, the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.


title: Case F-24/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 17 December 2015 — Di Marzio v Council (Civil service — Contractual agent — Function group I — Reclassification of a contract into a contract as a member of the temporary staff for an indefinite term at Grade AST 3, AST 4 or AST 5 or into a contract as a member of the contract staff for an indefinite term in function group III — Articles 2, 3a, 3b, 80 and 88 of the Conditions of Employment of other servants — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Principle of sound administration — Duty of care — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure)

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/100

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 17 December 2015 — Di Marzio v Council
   (Case F-24/15) (1)

   ((Civil service - Contractual agent - Function group I - Reclassification of a contract into a contract as a member of the temporary staff for an indefinite term at Grade AST 3, AST 4 or AST 5 or into a contract as a member of the contract staff for an indefinite term in function group III - Articles 2, 3a, 3b, 80 and 88 of the Conditions of Employment of other servants - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Principle of sound administration - Duty of care - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law - Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure))
   (2016/C 048/116)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Antony Di Marzio (Limelette, Belgium) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and M. Veiga, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s request for reclassification of his contract as a member of the contract staff in function group I into a contract as a member of the temporary staff or, alternatively, into a contract as a member of the contract staff in function group III, and the claim for compensation for the non-material and material damage allegedly suffered.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded.

               2.

               Mr Di Marzio shall bear his own costs and is ordered to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 127 of 20/4/2015, p. 43.


title: Case C-281/04 P: Appeal brought on 25 June 2004 by Michael Leighton, Graham French and John Neiger against the order made on 3 May 2004 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-24/04 between Michael Leighton, Graham French and John Neiger and the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities.

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/25

         Appeal brought on 25 June 2004 by Michael Leighton, Graham French and John Neiger against the order made on 3 May 2004 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-24/04 between Michael Leighton, Graham French and John Neiger and the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities.
   (Case C-281/04 P)
   (2004/C 228/52)
   An appeal against the order made on 3 May 2004 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-24/04 between Michael Leighton, Graham French and John Neiger and the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities, was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 June 2004 by Michael Leighton, Graham French and John Neiger, represented by J.S. Barnett, Solicitor-Advocate.
   The Appellants claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the order

               —

               grant the relief sought by the Appellants in the form of the draft order annexed to the Application; alternatively

               —

               remit the case to the Court of First Instance; and in any event

               —

               order the Defendants to pay the Appellants' costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicants contend that the order of the Court of First Instance should be set aside on the grounds that the Court of First Instance has committed a breach of procedure by treating their application as an application made under Article 226 EC when, in fact, it was an application under Article 232 EC.


title: Case T-180/15: Action brought on 14 April 2015 — Icap a.o. v Commission

text:
               27.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/30

         Action brought on 14 April 2015 — Icap a.o. v Commission
   (Case T-180/15)
   (2015/C 245/37)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Icap plc (London, United Kingdom), Icap Management Services Ltd (London) and Icap New Zealand Ltd (Wellington, New Zealand) (represented by: C. Riis-Madsen and S. Frank, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul, in whole or in part, Commission decision of 4 February 2015, in Case AT.39861 — Yen Interest Rate Derivatives — C(2015) 432 final;

               —

               in the alternative, annul or reduce the level of the fine imposed;

               —

               in any event, order the defendant to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter;

               —

               take any other measures that this Court considers appropriate.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on six pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging errors in fact and in law by the Commission in finding that the banks engaged in conduct restricting and/or distorting competition ‘by object’

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging errors in fact and in law by the defendant in finding that the alleged facilitation by the applicants of the banks’ conduct constituted an infringement of competition law within the meaning of Article 101 TFUE

                           —

                           According to the applicants, Article 101 TFUE does not cover conduct by an accomplice which does not take part in an agreement which restricts/distorts competition. The test applied by the Commission was, in any event, incorrect and covers too broad a spectrum of conduct that is not sufficiently closely connected to the infringing conduct. The conduct of the applicants falls outside the test for facilitation adopted by the defendant. In particular, the applicants put forward that the finding that the applicants facilitated the exchange of information between the banks lacks any basis in fact, and that the defendant does not point out a single instance of the applicants facilitating such exchanges. According to the applicants, the same applies to the exploration of alignment trades. With respect to the manipulation of the Yen LIBPR submissions, the Commission has acknowledged that only one of two banks knew of ICAP’s involvement. As such, so the applicants claim, ICAP had no facilitating role as far as the conduct of the banks is concerned. Moreover, for those infringements, the infringing conduct started well before ICAP allegedly commenced the facilitation.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging errors in fact and in law by the Commission in setting duration of the applicant’s alleged involvement in the infringements.

                           —

                           The applicants put forward that the banks were trading parties in Yen Interest rate Derivatives and therefore had knowledge of each other’s trading positions and interests. As such, according to the applicants, the evidence put forward by the Commission in support of the argument that ICAP had knowledge of the bilateral infringement is inconsequential, vague and misleading. Furthermore, so the applicants claim, the Commission’s approach assumes knowledge and conduct on part of the applicants through to the end of the bilateral infringement of the banks without providing any evidence of the applicant’s ongoing knowledge about the bank’s infringements.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a breach by the Commission of the principle of the presumption of innocence and the principle of good administration.

                           —

                           According to the applicants, the Commission conducted a hybrid settlement procedure, in which the settlement decision adopted in December 2013 implicated ICAP by extensively describing its role as a facilitator. From that point on, the Commission could no longer pretend to have no bias in dealing with ICAP’s case.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging an infringement by the Commission of the Fining Guidelines, a breach of the principle of equal treatment, a breach of the principle of proportionality and a breach of the principle of legal certainty.

                           —

                           The applicants put forward that the Commission breached the principle of legal certainty by imposing fines that go beyond mere nominal fines. This allegedly also constitutes a departure from its decisional practice. In addition, so the applicants claim, the Commission breached its Fining Guidelines by declining to use the value of the applicant’s sales as a basis for the fine, by failing to adequately specify its method in calculating the fine and by failing to justify these departures from its previous decisional practice. In addition, it’s the applicants’ opinion that the Commission breached the principle of equal treatment by treating the applicants differently from another broker accused of facilitation in similar circumstances and within the same infringement as well as by ultimately treating the applicants like the banks who perpetrated the infringement despite the applicants being accused only of facilitation. The applicants claim that as a result of this, the fines imposed are wholly disproportionate and the Commission has thus breached the principle of proportionality.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging a breach by the Commission of the principle of ‘ne bis in idem’.


title: Case T-289/15: Action brought on 2 June 2015 — Hamas v Council

text:
               27.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/43

         Action brought on 2 June 2015 — Hamas v Council
   (Case T-289/15)
   (2015/C 245/52)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Hamas (Doha, Qatar) (represented by: L. Glock, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/521 of 26 March 2015 updating and amending the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism, and repealing Decision 2014/483/CFSP in so far as it concerns Hamas (including Hamas-Izz-al-Din-al-Quassem);

               —

               annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/513 of 26 March 2015 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) No 790/2014 in so far as it concerns Hamas (including Hamas-Izz-al-Din-al-Quassem);

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: infringement of Article 1(4) of Common Position No 2001/93 (1) in so far as the national decisions relied on by the Council do not satisfy the conditions laid down by that article for a decision to be considered as taken by a competent authority.

               2.

               Second plea in law: incorrect statement of the facts, since the main facts cited by the Council are not substantiated by any evidence.

               3.

               Third plea in law: mistaken characterisation of Hamas as a terrorist group.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: infringement of the principle of non-interference which prevents Hamas, a lawful political movement that won the Palestinian elections and forms the core of the Palestinian government, from being characterised as a terrorist group.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law: infringement of the duty to state reasons by the Council.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law: infringement of the applicant’s right of defence and its right to effective judicial protection in the course of the national proceedings.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law: infringement of the right to property in so far as the freezing of the applicant’s funds unjustifiably infringes its right to property.

      (1)  Council Common Position of 27 December 2001 on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism (OJ 2001 L 344, p. 93).


title: Case C-1/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Hamburg Finance Court) by order of that court of  15 December 2005  in Bonn Fleisch Ex-und Import GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

text:
               25.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 74/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Hamburg Finance Court) by order of that court of 15 December 2005 in Bonn Fleisch Ex-und Import GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
   (Case C-1/06)
   (2006/C 74/09)
   Language of the case German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Hamburg Finance Court) of 15 December 2005, received at the Court Registry on 4 January 2006, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Bonn Fleisch Ex-und Import GmbH and Hauptzollamt Hamburt-Jonas on the following question:

               1.

               Is the competent authority entitled and obliged of its own motion to regard other documents as equivalent under Article 47(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87? (1)

               2.

               Alternatively, can a request that other documents be regarded as equivalent under Article 47(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 also be made by implication?

      (1)  OJ L 351, p. 1.


title: Case C-333/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil de Prud’hommes de Caen (France) lodged on 20 August 2009 — Sophie Noël v SCP Brouard Daude as liquidator in the judicial liquidation of Pronuptia Boutiques Province SA, and Centre de Gestion et d’Étude AGS (C.G.E.A.) IDF Est

text:
               24.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil de Prud’hommes de Caen (France) lodged on 20 August 2009 — Sophie Noël v SCP Brouard Daude as liquidator in the judicial liquidation of Pronuptia Boutiques Province SA, and Centre de Gestion et d’Étude AGS (C.G.E.A.) IDF Est
   (Case C-333/09)
   2009/C 256/28
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil de Prud’hommes de Caen (France)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sophie Noël

      Defendants: SCP Brouard Daude as liquidator in the judicial liquidation of Pronuptia Boutiques Province SA, and Centre de Gestion et d’Étude AGS (C.G.E.A.) IDF Est

      Questions referred

               1.

               Article 14 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, entitled ‘Prohibition of discrimination’, provides: ‘The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.’
               Is there discrimination in that there is different treatment of employees dismissed for economic reasons who have accepted a personal redeployment agreement, whose right to contest the breach of their contract remains subject to the five-year limitation period, and those who have refused it, who are subject to the one-year limitation period referred to in Article L.1235-7 of the Code du travail (Labour Code)?

               2.

               Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966 — which is merely the basis of Article 14 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms — provides: ‘All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.’
               Must a French court thus, pursuant to Article 55 of the French Constitution of 4 October 1958, apply the provisions of Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966 and disregard the discriminatory provisions of Article L.1235-7 of the Code du travail which derive from an ordinary law, No 2005-35 of 18 January 2005, subsequent to 4 February 1981, the date on which the International Covenant entered into force in national territory?


title: Case T-351/15: Order of the General Court of 20 January 2017 — Papapanagiotou v Parliament (Public supply contracts — Tendering procedure — Office furniture — Rejection of the tender submitted by a tenderer — Award criteria — Decision to cancel the tendering procedure — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               13.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/31

         Order of the General Court of 20 January 2017 — Papapanagiotou v Parliament
   (Case T-351/15) (1)

   ((Public supply contracts - Tendering procedure - Office furniture - Rejection of the tender submitted by a tenderer - Award criteria - Decision to cancel the tendering procedure - No need to adjudicate))
   (2017/C 078/42)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Papapanagiotou AVEEA (Serres, Greece) (represented by: S. Pappas and I. Ioannidis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: P. Biström and S. Toliušis, Agents)

      Re:

   Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Decision D(2015)12887 of the Parliament of 27 April 2015, adopted in the context of tendering procedure INLO.AO-2012-017-LUX-UAGBI-02 regarding the supply of office furniture (OJ 2013/S 138-239094) and rejecting the tender submitted by Papapanagiotou.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.

               2.

               The European Parliament shall bear its own costs and shall pay those incurred by Papapanagiotou AVEEA.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.


title: Case T-195/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 September 2005 — Thommes v Commission (Temporary agents — Installation allowance — Change in place of employment — Refusal to acknowledge installation of the family — Recovery of sum not due)

text:
               12.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/21

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 September 2005 — Thommes v Commission
   (Case T-195/03) (1)

   (Temporary agents - Installation allowance - Change in place of employment - Refusal to acknowledge installation of the family - Recovery of sum not due)
   (2005/C 281/38)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Gustav Thommes (Wezembeek-Oppem, Belgium) (represented by: M. Thewes and V. Wiot, lawyers)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall, Agent, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)
   Application for
   Application for annulment of the Commission's decisions relating to the recovery of a part of the installation allowance paid to the applicant in the context of a change in his place of employment and the refusal to grant him an installation allowance in connection with a further re-assignment.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action.

               2)

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 200, 23.8.2003.


title: Case T-36/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2007 — Coats Holdings and Coats v Commission (Competition — Cartels — European haberdashery market (needles) — Product market sharing — Geographic market sharing — Assessment of evidence — Participation in meetings — Tripartite agreement — Fine — Gravity and duration of the infringement — Attenuating circumstances)

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/30

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2007 — Coats Holdings and Coats v Commission
   (Case T-36/05) (1)

   (Competition - Cartels - European haberdashery market (needles) - Product market sharing - Geographic market sharing - Assessment of evidence - Participation in meetings - Tripartite agreement - Fine - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Attenuating circumstances)
   (2007/C 247/47)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: Coats Holdings Ltd (Uxbridge, Middlesex, United Kingdom) and J & P Coats Ltd (Uxbridge) (represented by: W. Sibree and C. Jeffs, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and K. Mojzesowicz, Agents)
   Re:
   Application, principally, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 4221 final of 26 October 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F-1/38.338 — PO/Needles) and, in the alternative, for annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision C(2004) 4221 final of 26 October 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F-1/38.338 — PO/Needles) in so far as the Decision finds that the applicants infringed Article 81(1) EC after 13 March 1997;

               2.

               Sets the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants under Article 2 of the Decision at EUR 20 million;

               3.

               Dismisses the remainder of the application;

               4.

                  Orders the applicants to bear two thirds of their own costs and to pay two thirds of the costs incurred by the Commission, and the Commission to bear one third of its own costs and to pay one third of the costs incurred by the applicants.

      (1)  OJ C 93, 16.4.2005.


title: Case F-30/09: Action brought on 31 March 2009 — Chaouch v Commission

text:
               6.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/21

         Action brought on 31 March 2009 — Chaouch v Commission
   (Case F-30/09)
   2009/C 129/37
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Dhikra Chaouch (Oetrange, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Moyse and A. Salerno, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the appointing authority not to grant the applicant the installation allowance.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Find that there was an infringement of Article 5 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations in relation to Article 20 and, consequently, annul the decisions of the appointing authority of 2 July 2008 and 8 December 2008;

               —

               Declare that the applicant has a right to the installation allowance laid down in Article 5(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations plus default interest from the date at which the indemnity was due until the date of actual payment at the interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations during the period concerned plus two percentage points;

               —

               Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.


title: Case C-329/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof by decision of that court of 28 June 2005 in Finanzamt Dinslaken v Gerold Meindl, third party: Christine Meindl-Berger

text:
               29.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 271/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof by decision of that court of 28 June 2005 in Finanzamt Dinslaken v Gerold Meindl, third party: Christine Meindl-Berger
   (Case C-329/05)
   (2005/C 271/30)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by decision of the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) of 28 June 2005, received at the Court Registry on 2 September 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Finanzamt Dinslaken and Gerold Meindl, third party: Christine Meindl-Berger, on the following question:
   Is there an infringement of Article 43 of the Treaty establishing the European Communities when a resident taxpayer is refused joint assessment to income tax with his spouse who lives in Austria, from whom he is not separated, on the ground that that spouse obtained both more than 10 % of joint income and more than DEM 24 000, when that income is tax-free in Austria?


title: Case T-346/10: Order of the General Court of 21 September 2011 — Borax Europe v ECHA (Action for annulment — REACH — Identification of boric acid and disodium tetraborate, anhydrous as substances of very high concern — No direct concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/23

         Order of the General Court of 21 September 2011 — Borax Europe v ECHA
   (Case T-346/10) (1)

   (Action for annulment - REACH - Identification of boric acid and disodium tetraborate, anhydrous as substances of very high concern - No direct concern - Inadmissibility)
   2011/C 340/48
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Borax Europe Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: K. Nordlander, lawyer, and H. Pearson, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä and W. Broere, Agents and by J. Stuyck and A.-M. Vandromme, lawyers)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver and E. Manhaeve, Agents, and by K. Sawyer, Barrister)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of the ECHA, published on 18 June 2010, identifying boric acid (EC No 233-139-2) and disodium tetraborate, anhydrous (EC No 215-540-4) as substances meeting the criteria referred to in Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1), and including those substances in the candidate list for eventual inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation No 1907/2006, in accordance with Article 59 of that regulation.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Borax Europe Ltd shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA).

               3.

               The European Commission shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.


title: Case F-44/07: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 8 October 2008 — Barbin v European Parliament (Staff cases — Officials — Promotion — Procedure for the allocation of merit points in the European Parliament — Illegality of the instructions governing that procedure — Examination of comparative merits)

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/56

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 8 October 2008 — Barbin v European Parliament
   (Case F-44/07) (1)

   (Staff cases - Officials - Promotion - Procedure for the allocation of merit points in the European Parliament - Illegality of the instructions governing that procedure - Examination of comparative merits)
   (2008/C 313/101)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Florence Barbin (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė and R. Ignătescu, later by C. Burgos, A. Lukošiūtė and R. Ignătescu, agents)
   Re:
   First, annulment of the decision of 16 September 2006 to allocate one merit point to the applicant under the 2005 promotion procedure and, secondly, for a declaration that paragraph I.2(c) of the ‘Implementing measures relating to the allocation of merit and promotion points’ of the European Parliament of 10 May 2006 is illegal.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               dismisses the application;

               2.

               orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 155 of 7.7.2007, p. 45.


title: Case C-217/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany) lodged on 24 April 2013 — Oberbank AG v Deutscher Sparkassen- und Giroverband e.V.

text:
               29.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 189/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany) lodged on 24 April 2013 — Oberbank AG v Deutscher Sparkassen- und Giroverband e.V.
   (Case C-217/13)
   2013/C 189/17
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundespatentgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Oberbank AG

      Respondent: Deutscher Sparkassen- und Giroverband e.V.

      Interested party: Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 3(1) and (3) of the directive (1) preclude an interpretation of national law according to which, for an abstract colour mark (in this case: red HKS 13) which is claimed for services in the financial affairs sector, a consumer survey must indicate an adjusted degree of association of at least 70 % in order to form a basis for the assumption that the trade mark has acquired a distinctive character following the use which has been made of it?

               2.

               Is the first sentence of Article 3(3) of the directive to be interpreted to the effect that the time at which the application for the trade mark was filed — and not the time at which it was registered — is also relevant in the case where the trade mark proprietor claims, in his defence against an application for a declaration invalidating the trade mark, that the trade mark acquired a distinctive character, following the use made of it, in any event more than three years after the application, but prior to registration?

               3.

               In the event that, under the abovementioned conditions, the time at which the application was filed is also relevant:
               Is the trade mark to be declared invalid if it is not clarified, and can no longer be clarified, whether it had acquired a distinctive character, following the use made of it, at the time when the application was filed? Or does the declaration of invalidity require the applicant seeking that declaration to prove that the trade mark had not acquired a distinctive character, following the use made of it, at the time when the application was filed?

      (1)  Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25).


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 September 2003 In Case T-221/02 Giorgio Lebedef and Others against the Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Pay — Travelling expenses — Method of calculation)

text:
C 289/22                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                      29.11.2003
3.    Dismisses the remainder of the application.                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
4.    Orders the Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay half of                              of 17 September 2003
      the costs incurred by the applicant.
                                                                            in Case T-233/02: Charis Alexandratos and Maria Pana-
5.    Orders the applicant to bear one half of her own costs.                        giotou v Council of the European Union (1)
                                                                            (Officials — Action for annulment — Open competition —
(1) OJ 2002 C 219 of 14.09.02.                                              Decision of the selection board refusing admission to the
                                                                            oral tests — Scope of the obligation to state reasons —
                                                                            Scope of judicial review — Compliance with the rules
                                                                                governing the deliberations of the selection board)
                                                                                (2003/C 289/47)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                            In Case T-233/02, Charis Alexandratos and Maria Panagiotou,
                      of 18 September 2003                                  residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by C. Tagaras,
                                                                            lawyer, v Council of the European Union, (Agents: F. Anton
                                                                            and D. Zahariou) — application for annulment of the decision
In Case T-221/02 Giorgio Lebedef and Others against the                     of the selection board in the Council’s open competition A/
       Commission of the European Communities (1)                           393 (2000/C98 A/02) refusing to admit the applicants to the
                                                                            oral tests for that competition, — the Court of First Instance
                                                                            (Fourth Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, President of the
(Officials — Pay — Travelling expenses — Method of                          Chamber, P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges; Registrar:
                             calculation)                                   I. Natsinas, Administrator, delivered a judgment on 17 Septem-
                                                                            ber 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:
                          (2003/C 289/46)
                                                                            1.    The action is dismissed.
                    (Language of the case: French)                          2.    Each party shall bear its own costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ 2002 C 233 of 28.9.02.
In Case T-221/02: Giorgio Lebedef, an official of the Com-
mission of the European Communities, resident in Senningen-
berg (Luxembourg), and 63 other officials, represented by
G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers, with an address for
service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: J. Currall and V. Joris) — application                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
for annulment of the Commission’s decision changing, with
effect from 1996 or 1997, the procedure for calculating the                                       of 30 September 2003
annual expense of travelling to Greece in respect of the journey
via Brindisi and annulment of the applicants’ reimbursement
statements implementing that decision — the Court of First                  in Case T-302/02 Michael Kenny v Court of Justice of the
Instance (Third Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President,                                  European Communities (1)
J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, has
given a judgment on 18 September 2003 in which it:                          (Officials — Appointment — Discretion of the appointing
                                                                                authority — Interests of the service)
1.    Dismisses the action;
                                                                                (2003/C 289/48)
2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                                               (Language of the case: French)
(1) OJ C 247 of 12 October 2002.
                                                                            In Case T-302/02 Michael Kenny, an official of the Court of
                                                                            Justice of the European Communities, residing at Roodt-sur-
                                                                            Syre (Luxembourg), represented by G. Vandersanden and


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 February 2001 in Case T-3/00: Athanasios N. Pitsiorlas v Council of the European Union and European Central Bank (Inadmissibility — Access to institution documents)

text:
19.5.2001              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 150/27
—     in Case T-74/94: J.J.H. van den Broek, G.J.E. van Laar,                    ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      J.T. Salden, J.A.M. Wouters
                                                                                of 14 February 2001
—     in Case T-75/94: J.M.F.M. Flamand                                   in Case T-3/00: Athanasios N. Pitsiorlas v Council of the
                                                                                European Union and European Central Bank (1)
—     in Case T-86/94: J. Bakker, E. Hardeman, G.J. Prins, G. van              (Inadmissibility — Access to institution documents)
      Putten
                                                                                (2001/C 150/53)
—     in Case T-87/94:Th. H. Clemens, N.J.G.M. Costongs,
      W.A.J. Derks, R.P. Geertsema, W. Hermsen, P. Hogenk-                                     (Language of the case: Greek)
      amp, J.H. Kelder, G.M. Kuijs, E.J. Liefting, J.H. Nieuwenhu-
      izen, D.J. Preuter, A.J.M. Sturkenboom, J.J. de Wit                 In Case T-3/00: Athanasios Pitsiorlas, residing in Thessaloniki
                                                                          (Greece), Dimitris Papafilippou, Barrister, against Council of
                                                                          the European Union (Agents: M. Bauer, S. Kyriakopoulou and
—     in Case T-91/94: D. Vellema, J. and K. Visser                       D. Zachariou) and European Central Bank (Agents: C. Zilioli,
                                                                          P. Vospernik and C. Kroppenstedt) — application for annul-
                                                                          ment of the decision of the Council of 30 July 1999 and of the
—     in Case T-94/94: J.W. Esselink                                      decision of the European Central Bank of 8 November 1999,
                                                                          refusing the applicant access to a document — the Court of
                                                                          First Instance (First Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf,
—     in Case T-96/94: J.P. Groot                                         President, M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung,
                                                                          Registrar, made an order on 14 February 2001, the operative
                                                                          part of which is as follows:
—     in Case T-101/94: A.J. Dubbelhuis, A. Harkema, W. Knol
                                                                          1.    The action is dismissed as inadmissible to the extent that it is
                                                                                directed against the Council decision of 30 July 1999;
—     in Case T-104/94: H. Rozema, B.L. van der Wijk
                                                                          2.    The applicant shall bear his own expenses corresponding to the
                                                                                objection of inadmissibility as well as pay for the costs incurred
—     in Case T-105/94: W. Talsma                                               by the Council.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 122 29.4.00
—     in Case T-106/94: R. and F. Visser, L.H. Hiddema
—     in Case T-118/94: J. Hoedjes, J.K. Veenstra
—     in Case T-119/94: A.J.M. and F.J.M. Baack, A.B. ten                        ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      Broeke, O. Dallinga, L.A. Looman, J.H. Hoogendoorn
                                                                                of 2 February 2001
—     in Case T-122/94: A.G.J. van Boxtel
                                                                          in Case T-97/00: Anastassia Vakalopoulou v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities (1)
—     in Case T-124/94: K.A. Schutter
                                                                          (Temporary agent — Fixed-term contract — Extension —
                                                                          Action for annulment and damages — Decision adversely
—     in Case T-130/94: R. van Dijk, H.J. Hiermstra,                             affecting an official — Manifestly inadmissible)
      A.W.J. Reijers.
                                                                                (2001/C 150/54)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(1) OJ C 334 of 9.12.93, C 27 of 28.1.94, C 43 of 12.2.94, C 59 of
    26.2.94, C 90 of 26.3.94, C 103 of 11.4.94, C 120 of 30.4.94,         In Case T-97/00: Anastassia Vakalopoulou, member of the
    C 132 of 14.5.94, C 233 of 20.8.94 and C 370 of 24.12.94              temporary staff of the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties, residing at Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis and
                                                                          Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
                                                                          service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities (Agents: G. Valsesia and J. Currall) — application
                                                                          for annulment of the alleged decision of the Commission not


title: Case C-278/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania) lodged on 6 June 2014  — SC Enterprise Focused Solutions SRL v Spitalul Județean de Urgență Alba Iulia

text:
               8.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania) lodged on 6 June 2014 — SC Enterprise Focused Solutions SRL v Spitalul Județean de Urgență Alba Iulia
   (Case C-278/14)
   2014/C 303/22
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: SC Enterprise Focused Solutions SRL

      Respondent: Spitalul Județean de Urgență Alba Iulia

      Question referred

   May Article 23(8) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 (1) be interpreted as meaning that, when a contracting authority defines the technical specifications of the product which is the subject of a procurement contract by reference to a particular brand, the characteristics of the ‘equivalent’ product offered must be established solely by reference to the technical specifications of products still in production, or may they be established by reference to products which are on the market but no longer in production?

      (1)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).