title: Case T-155/03: Action brought on 24 April 2003 by Michael Cwik against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 171/36              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         19.7.2003
Action brought on 18 April 2003 by Inex N.V. against the                 Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the applicant’s appeal
      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market                    Appeal:
                        (Case T-153/03)                                  Pleas in law:                 Infringement of the concept of
                                                                                the likelihood of confusion as
                                                                                interpreted by the Court of Justice
                        (2003/C 171/60)                                                                in the light of:
                                                                                —     the identity of the goods;
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                —     the similarity between the
                                                                                mark against which the
                                                                                opposition was directed and
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                               the dominant and distinctive
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before                                                   element of the first mark;
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                                —     the fact that the goods are
18 April 2003 by Inex N.V., represented by Thierry van Innis,
                                                                                targeted at the general public
lawyer.
                                                                                for everyday use
Robert Wiseman & Sons Limited, Glasgow (United Kingdom)
was also a party to the proceedings before the Second Board
of Appeal.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision handed down by the Second Board of
      Appeal of the defendant on 4 February 2003 in Case R               Action brought on 24 April 2003 by Michael Cwik against
      106/2001-2;                                                              the Commission of the European Communities
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Case T-155/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 171/61)
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for Com-           Robert Wiseman & Sons Limited,                                 (Language of the case: French)
munity trade mark            Glasgow (United Kingdom)
Community trade mark         Figurative mark composed of the
sought                       graphic representation of a cow-
                             hide in black and white — appli-            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                             cation no. 132, 134, filed for              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                             goods and services in classes 29,           European Communities on 24 April 2003 by Michael Cwik,
                             32 and 39 (in particular: milk,             residing in Tervuren (Belgium), represented by Nicolas Lhoëst,
                             milk beverages, milk products,              lawyer.
                             dairy products, cream and yogh-
                             urt)
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
Proprietor of mark or        The plaintiff
sign cited in the oppo-
sition proceedings:                                                      —     annul the decision of the Secretary General of 13 June
                                                                               2002 confirming, without amendment, the applicant’s
Proprietor of mark or        Composite Benelux trade mark                      staff report for the period running from 1 July 1995 to
sign                         no 580 538 comprising in part a                   30 June 1997;
                             graphic representation of a cow-
                             hide in black and white registered
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay the applicant EUR 15 000 by
                             for goods in classes 29 and 30
                                                                               way of damages;
Decision of the Oppo-        Rejection of the opposition
sition Division:                                                         —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 19.7.2003              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 171/37
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           the temporary staff. By decision of 14 July 2002, the Selection
                                                                          Board did not enter the applicant’s name on the reserve list.
                                                                          That decision was annulled by the Court of First Instance in
The applicant in these proceedings objects to the two-year                Case T-102/01 Pérez-Díaz v Commission [2002] ECR II-0000.
delay in receiving his staff report in respect of the period              In order to comply with that judgment, the Selection Board
between July 1995 and June 1997 and to the contents thereof,              decided to organise fresh oral tests in which the applicant took
by comparison to the preceding reports.                                   part while nevertheless reserving his position as to its validity.
                                                                          The selection board decided that the applicant’s results in the
                                                                          new tests were not sufficient to enable him to be entered on
In support of his claims, the applicant alleges failure to fulfil         the reserve list.
the obligation to provide a statement of reasons, manifest error
of assessment, misuse of powers and irregular procedures.
                                                                          In support of his application, the applicant puts forward five
                                                                          pleas in law alleging:
                                                                          —     infringement of the second paragraph of Article 25 of the
                                                                                Staff Regulations inasmuch as the contested decision was
                                                                                inadequately reasoned;
Action brought on 30 April 2003 by Orlando Pérez-Díaz                     —     infringement of Article 233 of the EC Treaty and of the
    against Commission of the European Communities                              principles of equal treatment and objectivity in making a
                                                                                choice from among the candidates inasmuch as the
                         (Case T-156/03)                                        applicant’s performance was allegedly assessed under
                                                                                conditions and according to criteria which were different
                                                                                to those employed in respect of the other candidates;
                         (2003/C 171/62)
                                                                          —     breach of the principles of ‘restitutio in integrum’ and of
                   (Language of the case: French)                               equal treatment inasmuch as the applicant was required
                                                                                to re-sit the first and third stages of the oral test and give
                                                                                his views, in the second part of the second stage, on
                                                                                current scientific developments which had taken place
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                       since the original tests;
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 30 April 2003 by Orlando Pérez-                   —     infringement of Article 233 of the EEC Treaty, inasmuch
Díaz, residing in Brussels, represented by Marc-Albert Lucas,                   as the members of the new Selection Board had insuf-
lawyer.                                                                         ficient knowledge of the Spanish language to be able to
                                                                                assess the candidate’s abilities;
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               —     breach of the principle of ‘restitutio in integrum’ inas-
                                                                                much as the composition of the new selection board was
—     annul the decision of the Selection Board in COM/R/A/1/                   not as close as possible to that of the original board.
      1999 not to enter his name in the reserve list for that
      selection, notified to him by letter of 21 January 2003
      from the Head of Personnel in the Research Directorate
      General of the Commission in the name of the Chairman
      of the Selection Board;
—     order the Commission to pay him, by way of compen-                  Action brought on 5 May 2003 by Cascades SA against
      sation for the non-material damage and damage to his                       the Commission of the European Communities
      career suffered by him as a result of the unlawfulness of
      the contested decision damages at a level to be assessed
                                                                                (Case T-161/03)
      by the Court of First Instance;
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                                                         (2003/C 171/63)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
The applicant, an agent for the Centre for the Development of             ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Enterprise, applied to take part in selection procedure COM/R/            European Communities on 5 May 2003 by Cascades SA,
A/01/1999 organised by the defendant with a view to                       established in La Rochette (France), represented by Jacques
establishing a reserve list for the recruitment of members of             Buhart and Pierre-M. Louis, lawyers.


title: Case T-255/14: Order of the General Court of 10 June 2015 — Aalto-korkeakoulusäätiö v OHIM (APPCAMPUS)

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/61

         Order of the General Court of 10 June 2015 — Aalto-korkeakoulusäätiö v OHIM (APPCAMPUS)
   (Case T-255/14) (1)

   (2015/C 311/69)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.


title: Case T-723/15: Action brought on 4 December 2015 — Genossenschaftsverband Bayern v Commission

text:
               15.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 59/40

         Action brought on 4 December 2015 — Genossenschaftsverband Bayern v Commission
   (Case T-723/15)
   (2016/C 059/46)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Genossenschaftsverband Bayern e. V. (Munich, Germany) (represented by: C. Bittner and N. Thies, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in so far as:

                           —

                           in Article 1 it declares that State aid was unlawfully granted in Germany in breach of Article 108(3) TFEU in respect of the milk quality tests carried out in Bavaria in favour of dairy sector undertakings in Bavaria and that that State aid has been incompatible with the internal market since 1 January 2007;

                           —

                           in Articles 2 to 4 it orders the recovery of the aid from the beneficiaries, together with interest;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, the applicant seeks the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 6295 final of 18 September 2015 concerning State aid SA.35484 (2013/C) (ex SA.35484 (2012/NN)) granted by Germany in respect of milk quality tests pursuant to the Milk and Fat Law.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law, which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-722/15 Interessengemeinschaft privater Milchverarbeiter Bayerns v Commission.


title: Case T-452/17: Action brought on 20 July 2017 — TL v EDPS

text:
               16.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/28

         Action brought on 20 July 2017 — TL v EDPS
   (Case T-452/17)
   (2017/C 347/37)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: TL (represented by: T. Léonard and M. Cock, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Data Protection Supervisor

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by rejecting the complaint on the ground that it constituted a request for a review and by failing to respond to the arguments of the claimant, the decision of the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) of 16 May 2017 refusing the request for anonymisation of the judgment in [confidential] (1) and of the website pages containing personal data, breaches:

                           —

                           Article 46(a) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1) and Articles 33 and 34(1) of Decision 2013/504/EU of the European Data Protection Supervisor of 17 December 2012 on the adoption of Rules of Procedure (OJ 2013 L 273, p. 41), adopted pursuant to Article 46(a) of Regulation No 45/2001, which invests the EDPS with the function of examining complaints and informing the data subject of the outcome of its examination;

                           —

                           Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which imposes on EU institutions and bodies a general obligation to give reasons;

               —

               declare that, by finding that the EDPS had no remit to examine the applicant’s complaint, the contested decision infringes Article 46(c) of Regulation No 45/2001, read in the light of Article 8(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

         and consequently:

               —

               declare the contested decision null and void;

               —

               order the EDPS to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the EDPS failed to reply to the complaint submitted to it by the applicant. By rejecting the complaint on the ground that it constituted a request for a review and by failing to reply to the arguments raised by the applicant in support of his request for anonymisation, the contested decision breaches Article 46(a) of Regulation No 45/2001, which invests the EDPS with the function of examining complaints and informing the data subject of the outcome of its examination, and Articles 33 and 34(1) of Decision 2013/504/EU of the European Data Protection Supervisor of 17 December 2012 on the adoption of Rules of Procedure, adopted pursuant to Article 46(a) of Regulation No 45/2001, under which the EDPS is required to deal with complaints and to inform the claimant of the outcome of a complaint and the action taken. According to the applicant, the EDPS did not deal with the complaint in so far as it incorrectly classified it as a request for a review. The contested decision also infringes Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which imposes on EU institutions and bodies a general obligation to give reasons.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 46(c) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001, read in the light of Article 8(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in so far as the EDPS erred in finding that it had no remit to examine the applicant’s complaint.

      (1)  Confidential information omitted.


title: Judgment of the Court of 6 March 2003 in Case C-213/01 P: T Port GmbH & Co. KG v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Bananas — Imports from ACP States and non-member countries — Calculation of annual reference quantity allocated to operators — Imports in accordance with interim measures ordered by a national court in interlocutory proceedings — Action for damages)

text:
26.4.2003                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 101/7
(Rapporteur) and A. Rosas, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;                (Agents: K.-D. Borchardt and M. Niejahr), which contends that
L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given             the Court — composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, (President),
a judgment on 25 February 2003, in which it:                                  J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and
                                                                              C.W.A. Timmermans, (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann,
                                                                              D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann and V. Skouris, F. Macken
1.    Declares that, by introducing and maintaining in force rate-            and N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and
      freezing rules applicable to all contracts of insurance in respect      A. Rosas, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass,
      of third-party liability arising from the use of motor vehicles in
                                                                              Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 March 2003, in which it:
      relation to risks situated within Italian territory, without
      distinguishing between insurance companies having their head
      office in Italy and those conducting their business in Italy            1.    Dismisses the appeal;
      through branch offices or under the freedom to provide services,
      in breach of the principle of freedom to set premiums referred to
      in Articles 6, 29 and 39 of Council Directive 92/49/EEC of              2.    Orders T Port GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.
      18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and
      administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than
      life assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/               (1 ) OJ C 245 of 1 September 2001.
      357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive), the Italian
      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
3.    Orders each party to bear its own costs.
( 1) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.                                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 27 February 2003
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       in Case C-320/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                              the Arbeitsgericht Lübeck): Wiebke Busch v Klinikum
                                                                                Neustadt GmbH & Co. Betriebs-KG (1)
                          of 6 March 2003
                                                                              (Equal treatment for men and women — Article 2(1) of
in Case C-213/01 P: T Port GmbH & Co. KG v Commission
                                                                                Directive 76/207/EEC — Protection of pregnant women)
                of the European Communities ( 1)
(Appeal — Bananas — Imports from ACP States and                                                         (2003/C 101/13)
non-member countries — Calculation of annual reference
quantity allocated to operators — Imports in accordance
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
with interim measures ordered by a national court in
       interlocutory proceedings — Action for damages)
                                                                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                           (2003/C 101/12)                                                       in the European Court Reports)
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                              In Case C-320/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published        EC by the Arbeitsgericht Lübeck (Germany) for a preliminary
                    in the European Court Reports)                            ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
                                                                              Wiebke Busch and Klinikum Neustadt GmbH & Co. Betriebs-
                                                                              KG, on the interpretation of Article 2(1) of Council Directive
                                                                              76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the
In Case C-213/01 P: T Port GmbH & Co. KG, established in                      principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards
Hamburg (Germany) (lawyer: G. Meier) — appeal against the                     access to employment, vocational training and promotion,
judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of                    and working conditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40), the Court (Fifth
20 March 2001 in Case T-52/99 (ECR II-981), seeking to have                   Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), President
that judgment set aside in part, the other party to the                       of the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, P. Jann, S. von Bahr
proceedings being Commission of the European Communities,                     and A. Rosas, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 28 March 1995 in Case C-324/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Queen's Bench Division)): The Queen v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex-parte Evans Medical Ltd and Macfarlan Smith Ltd (Free movement of goods - Importation of a narcotic drug (diamorphine))

text:
13. 5. 95          UËN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No- C 119/1
                                                                 I
                                                          (Information)
                                            COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                       COURT OF JUSTICE
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     provisions necessary to comply fully with Council
                       (Sixth Chamber)                                  Directive 89/48/EEC of21 December 1 988 on a general
                                                                        system for the recognition ofhigher-education diplomas
                     of 23 March 1995                                   award on completion of professional education and
     in Case C-365/93 : Commission of the European                      training of at least three years ' duration, the Hellenic
           Communities v. Hellenic Republic ( : )                       Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
(Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 89/48/EEC —                  EEC Treaty;
Recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on
completion ofprofessional education and training ofatleast          2 , dismisses the remainder of the application;
                    three years ' duration)
                         ( 95/C 119/01 )
                                                                    3 , orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
                (Language of the case: Greek)                       (!) OJ No C 244, 8 . 9 . 1993 .
                                                                    (2) OJ No L 19, 24. 1 . 1989, p. 16 .
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
        published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-365/93 : Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: D. Gouloussis ) v. Hellenic Republic
(Agents: V. Kontolaimos and V. Pelekou) — application for
a declaration that by failing to adopt and by failing to                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
communicate to the Commission within the prescribed                                      of 28 March 1995
period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
needed to comply fully with Council Directive 89/48/EEC of          in Case C-324/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition            the High Court of Justice (Queen's Bench Division)): The
of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of               Queen v. Secretary of State for the Home Department,
professional education and training of at least three years'         ex-parte Evans Medical Ltd and Macfarlan Smith Ltd ( a )
duration (2 ) the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its        (Free movement ofgoods — Importation ofa narcotic drug
obligations under the EEC Treaty — the Court ( Sixth                                         (diamorphine))
Chamber), composed of F. A. Schockweiler, President of the                                    ( 95/C 119/02 )
Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. N. Kakouris, J. L. Murray
(Rapporteur) and G. Hirsch, Judges : C. O. Lenz;
Advocate-General; H. A. Riihl, Principal Administrator, for                       (Language of the case: English)
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 March 1995 , in
which it:
                                                                    In Case C-324/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                    of the EEC Treaty by the High Court of Justice ( Queen's
1 , declares that by failing to adopt within the prescribed         Bench Division) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
    period the laws, regulations and administrative                 pending before that court between The Queen and Secretary
 ---pagebreak--- No C 119/2              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   13 . 5 . 95
 of State for the Home Department, ex-parte Evans Medical                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
 Ltd and Macfarlan Smith Ltd, intervener: Generics (UK ) Ltd                                   of 30 March 1995
— on the interpretation of Articles 30, 36 and 234 of
the EEC Treaty and Council Directive 77/62/EEC of                      in Case C-65/93 : European Parliament v. Council of the
21 December 1976 coordinating procedures for the award                                         European Union (*)
of public supply contracts (2 ), as amended by Council                  (Article 43 of the EEC Treaty — Obligation to consult the
Directive 88/295/EEC of 22 March 1988 ( 3 ) — the Court,                                              Parliament)
composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, F. A.                                             ( 95/C 119/03 )
 Schockweiler and P. J. G. Kapteyn (Presidents of
 Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, C. N. Kakouris, J. L. Murray                                (Language ofthe case: French)
 ( Rapporteur ) and D. A. O. Edward, Judges; C. O. Lenz,
Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 March 1 995 , in which                     published in the European Court Reports)
it ruled as follows :
                                                                       In Case C-65/93 : European Parliament (Agents: Christian
                                                                       Pennera, Kieran Bradley and Jorge Campinos ) against the
                                                                       Council of the European Union (Agents: Jean-Claude Piris
1 . Article 30 of the EEC Treaty applies to a national
      practice prohibiting importation of narcotic drugs               and Yves Crétien), supported by the United Kingdom of
      covered by the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic
                                                                       Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agents : John E. Collins
      Drugs and marketable under that Convention;                      of the Treasury Solicitor's Department and Peter Duffy,
                                                                       Barrister) — application for the annulment of Council
                                                                       Regulation ( EEC ) No 3917/92 of 21 December 1992
                                                                       extending into 1993 the application of Regulations ( EEC )
2. Article 30 of the EEC Treaty is to be interpreted as                No 3831/90, ( EEC ) No 3832/90, ( EEC ) No 3833/90, ( EEC )
      requiring a Member State to ensure that this provision           No 3834/90, ( EEC ) No 3835/90 and ( EEC ) No 3900/91
      is fully effective by disapplying a national practice            applying generalized tariff preferences for 1991 in respect of
      contrary to it unless that practice is necessary in order        certain products originating in developing countries, and
      for the Member State concerned to comply with                    adding to the list of beneficiaries of such preferences (2 ) —
      obligations towards non-member States laid down in an            the Court, composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,
      agreement concluded prior to entry into force of the             F. A. Schockweiler, P. J. G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur) and
      Treaty or to accession by that Member State;                     C. Gulmann ( Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini, C. N.
                                                                       Kakouris, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray, D. A. O.
                                                                       Edward, J.-P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch, Judges; G. Tesauro;
                                                                       Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
3 , a national practice of refusing licences for importation           Administrator, gave a judgment on 30 March 1 995 , the
      of drugs from another Member State is not covered by             operative part of which is as follows :
      the derogation provided for in Article 36 of the EEC
      Treaty if it is based on the need to safeguard an                1 , the application is dismissed;
      undertaking's survival but that derogation may apply to
      it ifprotection ofthe health and life ofhumans requires a        2 . the European Parliament is ordered to pay the costs,
      reliable supply of drugs for essential medical purposes                save for those of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
      to be safeguarded and that objective cannot be                         and Northern Ireland, which is ordered to bear its own
      achieved as effectively by measures less restrictive of                costs .
      intra-Community trade;
                                                                       f 1 ) OJ No C 105 , 16 . 4 . 1993 .
                                                                       (2) OJ No L 396, 31 . 12. 1992, p. 1 .
4. Council Directive 77/62/EEC of 21 December 1976
      coordinating procedures for the award of public
      supply contracts, as amended by Council Directive
      88/295/EEC of 22 March 1988, is to be interpreted as                               ORDER OF THE COURT
      authorizing the bodies covered by that Directive which
                                                                                of 23 March 1995
      wish to obtain diamorphine to award the contract on the
      basis of the tendering undertakings ' ability to provide                in Case C-458/93 : criminal proceedings against
      reliable and continuous supplies to the Member State                                     Mostafa Saddik ( l )
      concerned.
                                                                                (Inadmissibility)
                                                                                ( 95/C 119/04 )
t 1 ) OJ No C 222, 18 . 8 . 1993 .                                                      (Language of the case: Italian)
(2 ) OJ No L 13 , 15 . 1 . 1977, p. 1 .
( 3 ) OJ No L 127, 20 . 5 . 1988 , p . 1 .
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       In Case C-458/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                       of the EC Treaty from the Pretura Circondariale, Rome for a


title: Case T-582/10: Order of the General Court of 18 February 2015 — Acron and Dorogobuzh v Council

text:
               20.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 127/39

         Order of the General Court of 18 February 2015 — Acron and Dorogobuzh v Council
   (Case T-582/10) (1)

   (2015/C 127/52)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 19.2.2011.


title: Case C-432/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Amminstrativo Regionale per la Lombardia by order of that court of 6 October 2000 in the case of Europetrol SpA v Azienda Lombarda Edilizia Residenziale Milano (A.L.E.R.) and Orion SCRL

text:
27.1.2001               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 28/21
Action brought on 22 November 2000 by the Com-                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
mission of the European Communities against the Portu-                 Amminstrativo Regionale per la Lombardia by order of
                           guese Republic                              that court of 6 October 2000 in the case of Europetrol
                                                                       SpA v Azienda Lombarda Edilizia Residenziale Milano
                                                                                (A.L.E.R.) and Orion SCRL
                           (Case C-431/00)
                            (2001/C 28/40)
                                                                                (Case C-432/00)
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
22 November 2000 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by António Caeiros, of its Legal                                      (2001/C 28/41)
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by an order of the Tribunale Amminis-
                                                                       trativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Regional Administrative
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            Court for the Lombardy Region) of 6 October 2000, which
                                                                       was received at the Court Registry on 22 November 2000, for
                                                                       a preliminary ruling in the case of Europetrol SpA v Azienda
                                                                       Lombarda Edilizia Residenziale Milano (A.L.E.R.) and Orion
—     declare that, by failing to bring into force within the          SCRL, on the following question:
      prescribed period the laws, regulations or administrative
      provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
      96/82/EC (1) of 9 December 1996 on the control of
      major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances,
      the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations     May Article 31 — and in particular Article 31(1)(c) — of
      under the first paragraph of Article 10 and the third            Council Directive 92/50 (1) of 18 June 1992 relating to the
      paragraph of 249 of the EC Treaty, as well as the                coordination of procedures for the award of public service
      provisions of Article 24(1) of Directive 96/82/EC;               contracts be interpreted as meaning that the competent
                                                                       national courts are required to protect citizens of the Union
                                                                       adversely affected by measures adopted in breach of Com-
                                                                       munity law by resorting, in particular, to disapplication as
—     in the alternative, declare that, by failing to inform           provided for in Article 5 of Law No 2248 of 20 March 1865
      the Commission immediately of such measures, the                 with respect to clauses of an invitation to tender which are
      Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under       contrary to Community law but were not challenged within
      the above provisions;                                            the short time-limit laid down by national procedural law for
                                                                       the application of Community law by the court of its own
                                                                       motion, whenever it is found, first, that the application of
                                                                       Community law has been seriously impeded or rendered
—     Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.                  difficult in any way, and second, that there is a public
                                                                       interest, of Community or national origin, which justifies such
                                                                       application, and does Article 6(2) of the Treaty which, by
                                                                       providing for respect of the fundamental rights safeguarded by
                                                                       the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                       Freedoms, has adopted the principle of effective judicial
                                                                       protection provided for in Articles 6 and 13 of that Conven-
                                                                       tion, lead to the same conclusion?
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
relied on in Case C-407/00 (2); the time-limit for transposing
the directive expired on 3 February 1999.
                                                                       (1) OJ L 209 of 24.7.1992, p. 1.
(1) OJ 1997 L 10, p. 13.
(2) See p. 13 of this Official Journal.


title: Case C-685/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich — Austria) — Online Games Handels GmbH and Others v Landespolizeidirektion Oberösterreich (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 49 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Article 56 TFEU — Freedom to provide services — Games of chance — Restrictive legislation of a Member State — Penal administrative sanctions — Overriding reasons in the public interest — Proportionality — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Right to effective judicial protection — National legislation laying down the requirement for the court to examine of its own motion the facts of the case before it in the context of the prosecution of administrative offences — Compliance)

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/10

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich — Austria) — Online Games Handels GmbH and Others v Landespolizeidirektion Oberösterreich
   (Case C-685/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 49 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Article 56 TFEU - Freedom to provide services - Games of chance - Restrictive legislation of a Member State - Penal administrative sanctions - Overriding reasons in the public interest - Proportionality - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Right to effective judicial protection - National legislation laying down the requirement for the court to examine of its own motion the facts of the case before it in the context of the prosecution of administrative offences - Compliance))
   (2017/C 277/12)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Online Games Handels GmbH, Frank Breuer, Nicole Enter, Astrid Walden

      Defendant: Landespolizeidirektion Oberösterreich

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 49 and 56 TFEU, as interpreted in particular in the judgment of 30 April 2014, Pfleger and Others (C-390/12, EU:C:2014:281), read in light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding a national procedural system according to which, in administrative offence proceedings, the court called upon to rule on the compliance with EU law of legislation restricting the exercise of a fundamental freedom of the European Union, such as the freedom of establishment or the freedom to provide services within the European Union, is required to examine of its own motion the facts of the case before it in the context of examining whether administrative offences arise, provided that such a system does not have the consequence that that court is required to substitute itself for the competent authorities of the Member State concerned, whose task it is to provide the evidence necessary to enable that court to determine whether that restriction is justified.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.


title: Case T-339/16: Action brought on 26 June 2016 — City of Paris v Commission

text:
               29.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/27

         Action brought on 26 June 2016 — City of Paris v Commission
   (Case T-339/16)
   (2016/C 314/38)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: City of Paris (Paris, France) (represented by: J. Assous, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/646 of 20 April 2016 amending Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 as regards emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 6);

               —

               order the European Commission to pay symbolic damages of one euro as compensation for the harm caused to the City of Paris as a result of the adoption of such a regulation;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay all of the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/646 of 20 April 2016 amending Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 as regards emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 6) (OJ 2016 L 109, p. 1; ‘the contested regulation’) is null and void for lack of competence as a result of the European Commission’s improper use of the regulatory procedure with scrutiny. The Commission lacked substantive competence and infringed essential procedural requirements when adopting the contested regulation.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested regulation is null and void by reason of the infringement of primary law, secondary environmental law and subsidiary rules of EU law as a result of the failure to comply with the general principles of EU environmental law and with the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations.

         Concerning the compensatory aspect of the action, the applicant submits that the conditions giving rise to non-contractual liability on the part of the European Union are satisfied to the extent that, first, the contested regulation contains irregularities both in form and in substance, secondly, the contested regulation occasioned actual and certain harm to the applicant and, thirdly, the direct causal link between the Commission’s conduct and the harm alleged cannot be disputed.


title: Case T-244/08: Action brought on 23 June 2008 — Konsum Nord v Commission

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/51

         Action brought on 23 June 2008 — Konsum Nord v Commission
   (Case T-244/08)
   (2008/C 223/89)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Parties

      Applicant: Konsum Nord ekonomisk förening (Umeå, Sweden) (represented by: U. Öberg, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul in its entirety Commission Decision C(2008) 311 final of 30 January 2008 on the State aid implemented by Sweden for Konsum Jämtland ekonomisk förening;

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By decision of 30 January 2008 on State aid No C 35/2006 (ex NN 37/2006) implemented by Sweden for Konsum Jämtland, which merged with the applicant in 2006, the Commission found that the sale by the municipality of Åre of parts of an unbuilt plot of land for SEK 2 million instead of SEK 6,6 million, which was offered by Konsum Jämtland's competitor, Lidl, constituted State aid contrary to Article 87 EC.
   The applicant submits in support of its action that the Commission has committed a series of incorrect assessments in its legal classification of the disputed sale as State aid since:

               —

               the Commission incorrectly found that the sale was not at the market price and thus constituted an economic advantage for Konsum Jämtland;

               —

               the Commission did not take into consideration the fact that the sale formed part of a series of land transactions undertaken between different parties, the purpose of which was the implementation of detailed plans for the village of Åre;

               —

               the Commission incorrectly assumed that the offer made by the competitor, Lidl, was incompatible with a number of conditions and that it was binding and credible; and

               —

               the Commission wrongly applied the principle of a private investor in a market economy.

         Further, the applicant submits that the Commission disregarded its own guidelines in the Communication on State aid elements in sales of land and buildings by public authorities (1) and failed to fulfil its duty of inquiry since it failed to examine all the factual circumstances.
   Finally, the applicant asserts that the alleged State aid neither distorts competition nor affects trade between the Member States.

      (1)  OJ 1997 C 209, p. 3.


title: Case C-421/99: Action brought on 29 October 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
22.1.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 20/13
Action brought on 29 October 1999 by the Commission                       Giacinto Bisogni, acting as Agents, with an address for service
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic                  in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
                                                                          Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                           (Case C-421/99)
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                            (2000/C 20/26)
                                                                          — declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force or, in
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the                 any event, by failing to communicate the laws, regulations
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 October                    and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,                           Directive 97/51/EC of the European Parliament and of the
represented by Lena Ström, of its Legal Service, and Giacinto                 Council of 6 October 1997 amending Council Directives
Bisogni, an appeal court judge on secondment to its Legal                     90/387/EEC and 92/44/EEC for the purpose of adaptation
Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in                     to a competitive environment in telecommunications (1),
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner                  the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Centre, Kirchberg.                                                            that directive; and
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          — order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
— declare that, by failing to adopt, or at any rate to
     communicate to the Commission, the laws, regulations
     and administrative measures necessary in order to comply
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
     with Council Directive 94/67/EC of 16 December 1994 (1)
     on the incineration of hazardous waste, the Italian Republic
     has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
                                                                          Under Article 249 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
                                                                          directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                          each Member State to which it is addressed, Member States are
                                                                          required to observe the time-limits laid down in directives for
                                                                          their transposition. That time-limit expired on 31 December
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           1997 without the Italian Republic having brought into force
                                                                          the necessary provisions in order to comply with the directive
Article 249 EC (formerly Article 189 of the EC Treaty),                   referred to in the Commission’s application.
according to which a directive is to be binding, as to the result
to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is
addressed, requires Member States to observe the time-limits
laid down in directives for their transposition. The time-limit           (1) OJ 1997 L 295, p. 23.
in the present case expired on 31 December 1996 without the
Italian Republic having adopted the necessary provisions in
order to comply with the directive referred to in the Com-
mission’s application.
(1) OJ L 365 of 31.12.1994, p. 34.
                                                                          Action brought on 29 October 1999 by the Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
Action brought on 29 October 1999 by the Commission                                               (Case C-423/99)
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                                (2000/C 20/28)
                           (Case C-422/99)
                                                                          An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                            (2000/C 20/27)
                                                                          Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 October
                                                                          1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the             represented by Claudia Schmidt, of its Legal Service, and by
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 October                Giacinto Bisogni, acting as Agents, with an address for service
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,                       in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
represented by Claudia Schmidt, of its Legal Service, and by              Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.


title: Case C-384/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by order of that court of  14 October 2005  in Johan Piek v Netherlands State (Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, formerly Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries)

text:
               24.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by order of that court of 14 October 2005 in Johan Piek v Netherlands State (Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, formerly Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries)
   (Case C-384/05)
   (2005/C 330/19)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden of 14 October 2005, received at the Court Registry on 24 October 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Johan Piek and Netherlands State (Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, formerly Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries) on the following question:

               1.

               Does Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 (1) of 31 March 1984 preclude a national rule laid down in implementation of that provision which is framed in such a way that producers who have incurred investment obligations, regardless of whether or not that occurred under a development plan, may obtain a special reference quantity only if they incurred those investment obligations after 1 September 1981 but before 1 March 1984?

               2.

               If Question 1 cannot be answered in the round, which criteria determine whether the temporal limitation referred to in Question 1 is consistent with Regulation No 857/84?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector. OJ 1984 L 90, p. 13.


title: Case F-73/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 18 November 2015 — FH v European Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Application for payment of the daily subsistence allowance — Implied rejection followed by an express rejection — No complaint against the implied rejection — Express rejection confirmatory in nature — Complaint time-barred — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               11.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/36

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 18 November 2015 — FH v European Parliament
   (Case F-73/15) (1)

   ((Civil service - Officials - Application for payment of the daily subsistence allowance - Implied rejection followed by an express rejection - No complaint against the implied rejection - Express rejection confirmatory in nature - Complaint time-barred - Manifest inadmissibility))
   (2016/C 007/48)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: FH (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: O. Caisou-Rousseau and N. Chemaï, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision not to grant the daily subsistence allowance to the applicant following his transfer from the Commission, where he was employed in the EU Delegation to Yemen, to the European Parliament, in Brussels.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               The European Parliament is to bear its own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by FH.

      (1)  OJ C 245, 27/7/2015, p. 50.


title: Case T-374/08: Action brought on 10 September 2008 — Aldi Einkauf v OHIM — Illinois Tools Works (TOP CRAFT)

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/35

         Action brought on 10 September 2008 — Aldi Einkauf v OHIM — Illinois Tools Works (TOP CRAFT)
   (Case T-374/08)
   (2008/C 313/63)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, L. Kolks and C. Fürsen, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Illinois Tools Works, Inc. (Glenview, United States)
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 June 2008 in Case No R 952/2007-2;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG

      Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘TOP CRAFT’ for goods in Classes 1 and 3 (Application No 3 444 767)

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Illinois Tools Works, Inc.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The national figurative marks ‘krafft’ for goods in Classes 1 and 3

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Opposition Division's decision in so far as the opposition in respect of the goods ‘Chemicals used in agriculture, horticulture and forestry’ in Class 1 was upheld

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 43(2) and (3) of Council Regulation No 40/94 and of Rule 22(3) of Commission Regulation No 2868/95 because:

               —

               the documents submitted by the opponent cannot prove use of the opposing marks,

               —

               there are significant graphical differences between the marks at issue,

               —

               the word element ‘TOP’ is not descriptive and of slight distinctive character, and

               —

               owing to the clear graphical differences and the additional word element ‘TOP’ in the mark applied for, a likelihood of confusion may be ruled out even if the goods are identical or similar.


title: Action brought on 10 February 1997 by 'C' against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-27/97)

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


title: Case F-11/16: Action brought on 19 February 2016 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               25.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/41

         Action brought on 19 February 2016 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-11/16)
   (2016/C 145/50)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: N. Lhoest, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the Commission’s decision refusuing to re-grade the applicant on her transfer to the European Parliament and to reconstruct her career and an order that the Commission pay the applicant the difference between the remuneration paid to her and that which ought to be paid to her after the reconstruction of her career, together with interest for late payment.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the European Commission of 17 April 2015 refusing to re-grade the applicant on her transfer and to review her career at the European Commission from 16 June 2001 to 31 December 2010, despite the promotion from grade C4 (now AST 3) to grade C3 (now AST 4) granted to her by the European Parliament on 7 August 2009 with retroactive effect from 1 January 2000;

               —

               Annul the decision of the European Commission of 9 November 2015 rejecting the claim made by the applicant on 17 July 2015;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the applicant the difference between the remuneration which it paid to her and the remuneration which ought to be paid to her following the reconstruction of her career in grade and step, together with interest for late payment;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 22 September 1998 in Case C-185/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Employment Appeal Tribunal, London): Belinda Jane Coote v. Granada Hospitality Ltd (Council Directive 76/207/EEC - Refusal of an employer to provide references for a former employee who was dismissed)

text:
C 340/2               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                      7.11.98
on certain rights related to copyright in the field of             working conditions requires Member States to introduce
intellectual property (OJ L 346 of 27.11.1992, p. 61) Ð            into their national legal systems such measures as are
the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias,                  necessary to ensure judicial protection for workers whose
President, C. Gulmann, M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen                employer, after the employment relationship has ended,
(Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho            refuses to provide references as a reaction to legal
de Almeida, J. L. Murray, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur),           proceedings brought to enforce compliance with the
G. Hirsch, L. Sevón and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; A. La               principle of equal treatment within the meaning of that
Pergola, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy                 directive.
Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
22 September 1998, in which it has ruled:                          (1) OJ C 212 of 12.7.1997.
It is not contrary to Articles 30 and 36 of the Treaty or to
Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on
rental right and lending right and on certain rights related
to copyright in the field of intellectual property for the
holder of an exclusive rental right to prohibit copies of a                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
film from being offered for rental in a Member State even
where the offering of those copies for rental has been                                    (Second Chamber)
authorised in the territory of another Member State.                                    of 24 September 1998
                                                                   in Case C-319/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
(1) OJ C 108 of 5.4.1997.
                                                                   the éstre Landsret): Brinkmann Tabakfabriken GmbH v.
                                                                                Skatteministeriet (1)
                                                                   (Tax on the consumption of manufactured tobacco Ð
                                                                   Directive 79/32/EEC Ð Cigarettes Ð Smoking tobacco Ð
                                                                   Concept Ð Non-contractual liability of a Member State
                                                                                for breach of Community law)
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                    of 22 September 1998                                                    (98/C 340/04)
in Case C-185/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Employment Appeal Tribunal, London): Belinda Jane                              (Language of the case: Danish)
            Coote v. Granada Hospitality Ltd (1)
(Council Directive 76/207/EEC Ð Refusal of an employer               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
to provide references for a former employee who was                          published in the European Court Reports)
                          dismissed)
                        (98/C 340/03)                              In Case C-319/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                   of the EC Treaty from the éstre Landsret (Danish Eastern
                                                                   Regional Court) (Denmark), for a preliminary ruling in
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                   the proceedings pending before that court between
                                                                   Brinkmann Tabakfabriken GmbH and Skatteministeriet Ð
In Case C-185/97: reference to the Court under Article 177         on the interpretation of Articles 3(1) and 4(1) of the
of the EC Treaty from the Employment Appeal Tribunal,              Second Council Directive (79/32/EEC) of 18 December
London, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                1978 on taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the
pending before that tribunal between Belinda Jane Coote            consumption of manufactured tobacco (OJ L 10 of
and Granada Hospitality Ltd Ð on the interpretation of             16.1.1979, p. 8), and of the principle of a State's non-
Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the             contractual liability for damage caused to individuals by a
implementation of the principle of equal treatment for             breach of Community law attributable to that State Ð the
men and women as regards access to employment,                     Court (Second Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen,
vocational training and promotion, and working                     President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini and G. Hirsch
conditions (OJ L 39 of 14.2.1976, p. 40) Ð the Court,              (Rapporteur), Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate General;
composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, H.               H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has
Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers),               given a judgment on 24 September 1998, in which it has
G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur),             ruled:
J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, G.
Hirsch, P. Jann and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; J. Mischo,
                                                                   1. Articles 3(1) and 4(1) of the Second Council Directive
Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
                                                                        (79/32/EEC) of 18 December 1978 on taxes other
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                        than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of
22 September 1998, in which it has ruled:
                                                                        manufactured tobacco, in the version in force in May
                                                                        1990, are to be interpreted as meaning that rolls of
Article 6 of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February                 tobacco wrapped in porous cellulose which have to be
1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal                    inserted into cigarette-paper tubes to be smoked must
treatment for men and women as regards access to                        be deemed to be smoking tobacco within the meaning
employment, vocational training and promotion, and                      of Article 4(1) of that directive.


title: Case T-304/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2007 — Cain Cellars, Inc. v OHIM (Device of a pentagon) (Community trade mark — Application for a figurative Community trade mark consisting of the device of a pentagon — Absolute ground for refusal — Absence of distinctive character — Simplicity of the sign)

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/31

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2007 — Cain Cellars, Inc. v OHIM (Device of a pentagon)
   (Case T-304/05) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for a figurative Community trade mark consisting of the device of a pentagon - Absolute ground for refusal - Absence of distinctive character - Simplicity of the sign)
   (2007/C 247/50)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Cain Cellars, Inc. (St. Helena, California, United States) (represented by: J. Albrecht and W.-W. Wodrich, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Weberndörfer and G. Schneider, Agents)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 May 2005 (Case R 975/2004-1) concerning the registration of the device of a pentagon as a Community trade mark.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Cain Cellars, Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 257 of 15.10.2005.


title: Case C-465/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza (Republic of Poland), lodged on 9 September 2011 — Praxis Sp. z o.o., ABC Direct Contact Sp. z o.o. v Poczta Polska S.A.

text:
               14.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/2

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza (Republic of Poland), lodged on 9 September 2011 — Praxis Sp. z o.o., ABC Direct Contact Sp. z o.o. v Poczta Polska S.A.
   (Case C-465/11)
   2012/C 13/05
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Praxis Sp. z o.o., ABC Direct Contact Sp. z o.o.

      Defendant: Poczta Polska S.A.

      Questions referred

               1.

               Can Article 45(2)(d) of 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, (1) which states that ‘[a]ny economic operator may be excluded from participation in a contract where that economic operator. has been guilty of grave professional misconduct proven by any means which the contracting authorities can demonstrate’, in conjunction with Articles 53(3) and 54(4) of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors, (2) be interpreted as meaning that it is possible to regard as culpable professional misconduct a situation in which the contracting authority concerned annulled, terminated or renounced a public contract with the economic operator concerned owing to circumstances for which that operator is responsible, where the annulment, termination or renouncement occurred in the three-year period before the procedure was initiated and the value of the non-performed part of the contract amounted to at least 5 % of the contract’s value?

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered in the negative — if a Member State is able to introduce grounds, other than those listed in Article 45 of Directive 2004/18/EC, for excluding economic operators from participation in a procedure for the award of a public contract, which it considers to be essential for the protection of the public interest, the legitimate interests of the contracting authorities and the maintenance of fair competition between economic operators, is it possible to consider consistent with that directive and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union a situation involving the exclusion of economic operators with which the contracting authority concerned annulled, terminated or renounced a public contract owing to circumstances for which that economic operator is responsible, where the annulment, termination or renouncement occurred in the three-year period before the procedure was initiated and the value of the non-performed part of the contract amounted to at least 5 % of the contract’s value?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114.

      (2)  OJ 2004 L 134, p. 1.


title: Case T-336/00: Action brought on 7 November 2000 by Anthony Goldstein against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 45/18                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      10.2.2001
                                                         COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Action brought on 7 November 2000 by Anthony Gold-                        Action brought on 13 November 2000 by Leandro Merca-
stein against the Council of the European Union and the                             de Llordachs against European Parliament
         Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-343/00)
                         (Case T-336/00)
                                                                                (2001/C 45/41)
                          (2001/C 45/40)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                   (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Council of the European Union and the               An action against the European Parliament was brought before
Commission of the European Communities was brought                        the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities            13 November 2000 by Leandro Mercade Llordachs, residing
on 7 November 2000 by Anthony Goldstein, represented by                   in Woluwé-Saint-Pierre (Belgium), represented by Jean-Noël
Raymond St John Murphy, Solicitor of Merriman White,                      Louis and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar.
London (UK).
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —     annul the decision of the President of the European
—     declare Directive 93/16 is in breach of Article 218 EC;                   Parliament of 15 March 2000 to transfer the applicant
                                                                                from the European Parliament to the European Com-
—     order the defendant to pay damages in the amount of                       mission;
      EUR 1 000 000 to the applicant;
                                                                          —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
—     order the amount of damages to bear default interest at
      the annual rate of 4,5 % from the date of the judgment
      until the actual payment;                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
—     order the defendant to pay the costs of the applicant.
                                                                          The applicant in the present case objects to the decision of the
                                                                          defendant annulling the decision of 12 February 1998, where-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           by he was transferred from the Commission to the European
                                                                          Parliament. It is precisely on the basis of that transfer decision
                                                                          that he was appointed in the latter institution to the post of
The applicant in the present case claims for damages in respect           Head of Division at Grade A 3. The decision at issue was taken
of the Commission decision allegdly contained in the letter of            in compliance with the judgment delivered by the Court of
30 July 1998, inasmuch as it has considered that the grant to             First Instance on 15 December 1999 in T-144/98 Cantoreggi
him by the British Authorities of a certificate of specialist             v European Parliament (1), which annulled the abovementioned
training, as forseen in Articles 4 and 5 of Regulation 75/363             transfer decision.
(now Articles 26 and 27 of Directive 93/16/EEC, of 5 April
1993 to facilitate the free movement of doctors and the mutual
recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other evidence            In support of his arguments the applicant alleges:
of formal qualifications (1)), was illegal, because contrary to the
Directive.                                                                —     breach of the duty to provide reasons, inasmuch as the
                                                                                contested decision was not notified to him.
The applicant submits as well, on the basis of Article 241 of
the EC Treaty, the illegality of the above mentioned directive.           —     infringement of Article 233 of the Treaty, inasmuch as
It is stated on this point tat the English text of this Directive               the Court of First Instance did not annul the decision of
does not correspond to the French text and that the discrep-                    12 February 1998 in so far as it transferred the applicant
ancies constitute a manifest error and grave attempt by the                     from the Commission to the Parliament. In fact, the
Council to alter the sense of a provision of Community Law                      question of the legality of the transfer decision at issue
and compromise its objectives.                                                  was not raised before the Court in Case T-144/98.
(1) OJ EEC L 165, of 7.7.1993, p. 1.                                      (1) ECR 1999, p. FP-IA-271, II-1325.