title: Case T-409/07: Action brought on 16 November 2007 — Cohausz v OHIM — Izquierdo Faces (acopat)

text:
               12.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 8/23

         Action brought on 16 November 2007 — Cohausz v OHIM — Izquierdo Faces (acopat)
   (Case T-409/07)
   (2008/C 8/41)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Helge B. Cohausz (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: I. Friedhoff, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: José Izquierdo Faces (Bilbao, Spain)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested action [decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 September 2007 in Case R 289/2006-1];

               —

               order intervener and/or [OHIM] to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The figurative mark ‘acopat’ for services in classes 35 and 42 — Community trade mark No 1 643 782

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: José Izquierdo Faces

      Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: The national word mark ‘COPAT’ for goods and services in classes 9, 35, 41 and 42

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Cancellation Division's decision and dismissal of the request for a declaration of invalidity

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 56(2) and (3) of Council Regulation No 40/94 and Rules 22(2) and 40(5) of Commission Regulation No 2868/95, as the Board of Appeal incorrectly found that the national trade mark had not been used in Germany during the period 1996 to 2001.


title: Case T-193/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 October 2006 — Tillack v Commission (Investigation by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) into the publication of confidential information — Suspicions of bribery and breach of professional secrecy — Communication to national judicial authorities of information relating to situations liable to lead to criminal proceedings — Search of the home and office of a journalist — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Action for damages — Causal link — Sufficiently serious breach)

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/33

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 October 2006 — Tillack v Commission
   (Case T-193/04) (1)

   (Investigation by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) into the publication of confidential information - Suspicions of bribery and breach of professional secrecy - Communication to national judicial authorities of information relating to situations liable to lead to criminal proceedings - Search of the home and office of a journalist - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Action for damages - Causal link - Sufficiently serious breach)
   (2006/C 281/56)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Hans-Martin Tillack (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: I. Forrester QC, T. Bosly, C. Arhold, N. Flandin, J. Herrlinger and J. Siaens, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Docksey and C. Ladenburger, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Bartosch and T. Grupp, lawyers)
   Re:
   APPLICATION, first, for the annulment of the act by which, on 11 February 2004, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) forwarded to the German and Belgian judicial authorities information concerning suspicions of breach of professional secrecy and bribery and, second, for damages in compensation for non-material injury suffered by the applicant as a result of the forwarding of that information and of the publication of press releases by OLAF.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Declares it unnecessary to give judgment on the request for the production of documents;

               3.

               Orders the applicant to pay his own costs and the costs incurred by the Commission, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings;

               4.

               Orders the International Federation of Journalists to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 251, 9.10.2004.


title: Case T-525/10: Judgment of the General Court of 29 February 2012 — Azienda Agricola Colsaliz di Faganello Antonio v OHIM — Weinkellerei Lenz Moser (SERVO SUO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark SERVO SUO — Earlier Community word mark SERVUS — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               14.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 109/10

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 February 2012 — Azienda Agricola Colsaliz di Faganello Antonio v OHIM — Weinkellerei Lenz Moser (SERVO SUO)
   (Case T-525/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark SERVO SUO - Earlier Community word mark SERVUS - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 109/22
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Azienda Agricola Colsaliz di Faganello Antonio (Refrontolo, Italy) (represented by: G. Massa and P. Massa, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially G. Mannucci and subsequently P. Bullock, Agents)

      The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Weinkellerei Lenz Moser AG (Linz, Austira) (represented by: C.-R. Haarmann, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 August 2010 (Case R 1571/2009-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Weinkellerei Lenz Moser AG and Azienda Agricola Colsaliz di Faganello Antonio.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Azienda Agricola Colsaliz di Faganello Antonio to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2011.


title: Case C-559/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 3 November 2015 — Onix Asigurari SA v Istituto per la Vigilanza Sulle Assicurazioni (Ivass)

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/22

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 3 November 2015 — Onix Asigurari SA v Istituto per la Vigilanza Sulle Assicurazioni (Ivass)
   (Case C-559/15)
   (2016/C 038/33)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Onix Asigurari SA

      Respondent: Istituto per la Vigilanza Sulle Assicurazioni (Ivass)

      Question referred

   Does Community law, in particular Article 40(6) of Directive 92/49/EEC, (1) Commission Interpretative Communication 2000/C/43/03, paragraph 5, and the Community principle of home country control preclude an interpretative approach (such as that applied to Article 193(4) of the Codice delle Assicurazioni private, the Private Insurance Code) approved by Legislative Decree No 209 of 7 September 2005, endorsed by this Court) in accordance with which the supervisory authority of a State hosting an insurance operator under the freedom to provide services may, in cases of urgency and for the protection of the interests of insured persons and of persons entitled to insurance benefits, issue injunctions specifically prohibiting the conclusion of new contracts within the territory of the host State, on the grounds of the identified failure, whether pre-existing or supervening, assessed discretionarily, to satisfy a subjective precondition laid down for the purpose of the issue of authorisation to engage in insurance business, in particular the requirement of good repute?

      (1)  Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 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 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive) (OJ 1992 L 228, p. 1).


title: Case C-87/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 July 2015 — European Commission v Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2003/88/EC — Organisation of working time — Organisation of working time of doctors in training)

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 July 2015 — European Commission v Ireland
   (Case C-87/14) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2003/88/EC - Organisation of working time - Organisation of working time of doctors in training))
   (2015/C 294/08)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. van Beek and J. Enegren, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Ireland (represented by: E. Creedon and E. Mc Phillips and by A. Joyce and B. Counihan, acting as Agents, assisted by D. Fennelly, Barrister)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.


title: Case C-125/12: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil n °1 de Granada — Spain) — Promociones y Construcciones BJ 200 SL (VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 199(1)(g) — Voluntary insolvency proceedings — Person liable for payment of tax — Liability of the person who is the recipient of certain transactions — Concept of ‘compulsory sale procedure’ )

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/28

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil no 1 de Granada — Spain) — Promociones y Construcciones BJ 200 SL
   (Case C-125/12) (1)

   (VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 199(1)(g) - Voluntary insolvency proceedings - Person liable for payment of tax - Liability of the person who is the recipient of certain transactions - Concept of ‘compulsory sale procedure’)
   2013/C 225/46
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 1 de Granada

      Party to the main proceedings

   Promociones y Construcciones BJ 200 SL

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 1 de Granada — Interpretation of Article 199(1)(g) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Persons liable for payment of tax — Taxable person who is the recipient of certain transactions — Concept of ‘the supply of immovable property sold by a judgment debtor in a compulsory sale procedure’

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 199(1)(g) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that every sale of immovable property by a judgment debtor carried out not only in the course of the liquidation of the debtor’s assets but also in the course of insolvency proceedings occurring before such liquidation comes within the concept of a compulsory sale procedure, provided that such a sale is necessary in order either to settle creditors’ claims or to enable the debtor to re-establish its economic or professional activities.

      (1)  OJ C 174, 16.6.2012.


title: Joined Cases T-225/06, T-255/06, T-257/06 and T-309/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 December 2008 — Budějovický Budvar v OHIM — Anheuser-Busch (BUD) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Applications for Community word and figurative marks BUD — Appellations bud — Relative grounds for refusal — Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/27

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 December 2008 — Budějovický Budvar v OHIM — Anheuser-Busch (BUD)
   (Joined Cases T-225/06, T-255/06, T-257/06 and T-309/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Applications for Community word and figurative marks BUD - Appellations ‘bud’ - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2009/C 32/49)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik (Česke Budějovice, Czech Republic) (represented by: F. Fajgenbaum and C. Petsch, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the Court of First Instance: Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (Saint Louis, Missouri, United States) (represented: initially by V. von Bomhard, A. Renck, B. Goebel and A. Pohlmann, and subsequently by V. von Bomhard, A. Renck and B. Goebel, lawyers)
   Re:
   Actions brought against decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 June 2006 (Case R 234/2005-2), 28 June 2006 (Cases R 241/2005-2 and R 802/2004-2) and 1 September 2006 (Case R 305/2005-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik and Anheuser-Busch, Inc.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Orders the joinder of Cases T-225/06, T-255/06, T-257/06 and T-309/06 for the purposes of the judgment;

               2.

               Annuls the decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs (OHIM) of 14 June (Case R 234/2005-2), 28 June (Cases R 241/2005-2 and R 802/2004-2) and 1 September 2006 (Case R 305/2005-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik and Anheuser-Busch, Inc.;

               3.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay two thirds of the costs of Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik;

               4.

               Orders Anheuser-Busch to bear its own costs and to pay one third of the costs of Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik.

      (1)  OJ C 261, 28.10.2006.


title: Judgment of the Court of 6 December 2013 in Case E-16/13 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2008/122/EC on the protection of consumers in respect of certain aspects of timeshare, long-term holiday product, resale and exchange contracts)

text:
               27.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 88/15

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   of 6 December 2013
   in Case E-16/13
   EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland
   (Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2008/122/EC on the protection of consumers in respect of certain aspects of timeshare, long-term holiday product, resale and exchange contracts)
   2014/C 88/12
   In Case E-16/13, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing to adopt, or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith of, measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 7b of Annex XIX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2008/122/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 January 2009 on the protection of consumers in respect of certain aspects of timeshare, long-term holiday product, resale and exchange contracts), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the Agreement, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 6 December 2013, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               declares that, by failing to correctly implement the Act referred to at point 7b of Annex XIX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2008/122/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 January 2009 on the protection of consumers in respect of certain aspects of timeshare, long-term holiday product, resale and exchange products), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations pursuant to that Act and pursuant to Article 7 of the Agreement;

               2.

               orders Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.


title: Case T-374/12: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Brouwerij Van Honsebrouck v OHIM — Beverage Trademark (KASTEEL) (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — International registration covering the European Community — Figurative mark KASTEEL — Earlier national word mark CASTEL BEER — Relative grounds for refusal — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/32

      Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Brouwerij Van Honsebrouck v OHIM — Beverage Trademark (KASTEEL)
      (Case T-374/12) (1)

      (Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - International registration covering the European Community - Figurative mark KASTEEL - Earlier national word mark CASTEL BEER - Relative grounds for refusal - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)
      (2015/C 016/51)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Brouwerij Van Honsebrouck (Ingelmunster, Belgium) (represented by: P. Maeyaert, lawyer)

         Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Beverage Trademark Co. Ltd BTM (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: R. Dequiré-Portier, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 June 2012 (Case R 2551/2010-2), in opposition proceedings between Beverage Trademark Co. Ltd BTM and Brouwerij Van Honsebrouck.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  (1)

                  Dismisses the action;

                  (2)

                  Orders Brouwerij Van Honsebrouck to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Beverage Trademark Co. Ltd BTM.

         (1)  OJ C 343, 10.11.2012.


title: Case T-438/09: Order of the General Court of 14 December 2009 — Serifo v Commission and Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/48

         Order of the General Court of 14 December 2009 — Serifo v Commission and Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency
   (Case T-438/09) (1)

   2010/C 51/89

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.


title: Case T-83/16: Action brought on 18 February 2016 — Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena and Banca Widiba v EUIPO — ING-DIBa (WIDIBA)

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/52

      Action brought on 18 February 2016 — Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena and Banca Widiba v EUIPO — ING-DIBa (WIDIBA)
      (Case T-83/16)
      (2016/C 211/66)
      Language in which the application was lodged: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena SpA (Siena, Italy), Wise Dialog Bank SpA (Banca Widiba SpA) (Milan, Italy) (represented by: L. Trevisan and D. Contini, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ING-DIBa AG (Frankfurt am Main, Germany)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Applicants of the trade mark at issue: Applicants

         Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘WIDIBA’ — Application for registration No 12 192 308

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 November 2015 in Joined Cases R 112/2015-2 and R 190/2015-2

         Form of order sought

      The applicants claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision as it did not grant the request for restitutio in integrum, and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal;

            In the event of dismissal of conclusion 1) above,

                  —

                  annul the contested decision as it upheld the Opposition Division’s decision rejecting the trade mark application No 12 192 308 for some specific goods and services, and declare that the EU trade mark application No 12 192 308 is eligible for registration for such goods and services or in alternative refer the case back to EUIPO in order for the latter to adopt the consequent measures;

            In any case,

                  —

                  annul the contested decision insofar as it upheld ING-DIBa’s appeal on credit cards, and declare that the EU trade mark application No 12 192 308 is eligible for registration for such goods or in alternative refer the case back to EUIPO in order for the latter to adopt the consequent measures;

            In any case,

                  —

                  order EUIPO to bear, in addition to its own costs, also the costs and legal fees borne by Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena SpA and Wise Dialog Bank SpA with regard to the present proceedings and the proceedings before the EUIPO.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Articles 81(1) and 60 of Regulation No 207/2009;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-291/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2014  — Portovesme v Commission (State aid — Electricity — Preferential tariff — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Concept of State aid — New aid — Equal treatment — Reasonable period)

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2014 — Portovesme v Commission
   (Case T-291/11) (1)

   ((State aid - Electricity - Preferential tariff - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Concept of State aid - New aid - Equal treatment - Reasonable period))
   2014/C 421/39
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Portovesme Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: F. Ciulli, G. Dore, M. Liberati and A. Vinci, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and É. Gippini Fournier, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application, primarily, for the annulment in whole or in part ‘to the extent deemed reasonable’ of Commission Decision 2011/746/EU of 23 February 2011 on State aid granted by Italy to Portovesme Srl, ILA SpA, Eurallumina SpA and Syndial SpA (State aid measures C 38/B/04 (ex NN 58/04) and C 13/06 (ex N 587/05)) (OJ 2011 L 309, p. 1) or, in the alternative, for annulment of that decision in so far as it orders the recovery of the aid in question.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Portovesme Srl to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.


title: Case C-154/12: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles (Belgium) — Isera & Scaldis Sugar SA, Philippe Bedoret and Co SPRL, Jean Rigot, Mathieu Vrancken v Bureau d’intervention et de restitution belge (BIRB) (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure — Agriculture — Common organisation of markets — Sugar — Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 — Article 16 — Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 — Article 51 — Imposition of a charge on production — Validity — Lack of legal basis — Failure to state clear and unequivocal reasons — Infringement of the principle of non-discrimination — Infringement of the principle of proportionality)

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/10

         Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles (Belgium) — Isera & Scaldis Sugar SA, Philippe Bedoret and Co SPRL, Jean Rigot, Mathieu Vrancken v Bureau d’intervention et de restitution belge (BIRB)
   (Case C-154/12) (1)

   (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure - Agriculture - Common organisation of markets - Sugar - Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 - Article 16 - Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 - Article 51 - Imposition of a charge on production - Validity - Lack of legal basis - Failure to state clear and unequivocal reasons - Infringement of the principle of non-discrimination - Infringement of the principle of proportionality)
   2013/C 108/19
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Isera & Scaldis Sugar SA, Philippe Bedoret and Co SPRL, Jean Rigot, Mathieu Vrancken

      Defendant: Bureau d’intervention et de restitution belge (BIRB)

      Other parties to proceedings: Joseph Cockx and Others.

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles — Validity of Article 16 of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (OJ 2006 L 58, p. 1) — Interpretation of Articles 37(2) EC and 253 EC — Imposition of a charge on production in the ‘beet sugar’ sector — Lack of legal basis — Failure to state clear and unequivocal reasons — Discrimination as compared with other industries and as compared with other agricultural and non-agricultural sectors — Infringement of the principle of proportionality

      Operative part of the order

   Consideration of the question referred for a preliminary ruling has disclosed nothing capable of affecting the validity of Article 16 of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector and Article 51 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation).

      (1)  OJ C 174, 16.6.2012.


title: Case T-494/07: Action brought on 28 December 2007 — Italy v Commission

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/47

         Action brought on 28 December 2007 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-494/07)
   (2008/C 64/78)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: P. Gentili, Avvocato dello Stato)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul Memorandum No 011140 of 18 October 2007 of the European Commission, Directorate General for Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning payments made by the Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref: DOCUP Toscana Ob. 2 (No CCI 2000 IT 16 2DO 001);

               —

               annul Memorandum No 011538 of 29 October 2007 of the European Commission, Directorate General for Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning payments made by the Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref: Programma Operativo Regionale ‘Campania’ 2000-2006 (No CCI 1999 IT 16 1PO 007);

               —

               annul Memorandum No 011869 of 8 November 2007 of the European Commission, Directorate General for Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning payments made by the Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref: DOCUP Piemonte 2000-2006 (No CCI 2000 IT 16 2DO 007);

               —

               annul Memorandum No 011871 of 8 November 2007 of the European Commission, Directorate General for Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning payments made by the Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref: DOCUP Ob 2 ‘Lazio’ 2000-2006 (No CCI 2000 IT 16 2DO 009);

               —

               annul Memorandum No 012137 of 15 November 2007 of the European Commission, Directorate General for Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning certification and declaration of intermediate expenses and request for payment. Ref: DOCUP Veneto Ob 2 2000-2006 (No CCI 2000 IT 16 2DO 005);

               —

               annul Memorandum No 012139 of 15 November 2007 of the European Commission, Directorate General for Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning payments made by the Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref: Programma Operativo Regionale ‘Campania’ 2000-2006 (No CCI 1999 IT 16 1PO 007);

               —

               annul Memorandum No 012212 of 16 November 2007 of the European Commission, Directorate General for Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning payments made by the Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref: PON Sviluppo Imprenditoriale Locale 2000-2006 (No CCI 1999 IT 16 1PO 002);

               —

               annul Memorandum No 012567 of 26 November 2007 of the European Commission, Directorate General for Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning payments made by the Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref: Programma Operativo Regionale ‘Sardegna’ 2000-2006 (No CCI 1999 IT 16 1PO 010); and

               —

               annul all related and prior acts and, accordingly, order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are those invoked in Case T-345/04 Italian Republic v Commission
       (1).

      (1)  OJ C 262 of 23.10.2004, p. 55.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 June 2005 in Case T-295/03 Poli Sud Srl v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — No disclosure of a document originating from a Member State without the prior consent of that State)

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/19

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 8 June 2005
   in Case T-295/03 Poli Sud Srl v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Action for annulment - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - No disclosure of a document originating from a Member State without the prior consent of that State)
   (2005/C 229/40)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case T-295/03: Poli Sud Srl, established in Lamezia Terme (Italy), represented by M. Calabrese, lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities (agents: V. Di Bucci and P. Aalto, with A. Abate, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of the Commission's decision refusing the applicant access to certain documents relating to a State aid scheme declared compatible with the common market by Commission decision of 12 July 2000 (SG (2000) D/105754 — State Aid N 715/99) — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President, F. Dehousse and D. Sváby, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 8 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The action is dismissed;

               2.

               Each party is to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 264 of 1.11.2003.


title: Case T-188/02: Action brought on 17 June 2002 by Freiberger Lebensmittel GmbH & Co. Produktions- und Vertriebs KG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
24.8.2002             EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 202/35
Incorrect application of       likelihood of confusion exists              Mark invoked in the           International mark No 516269
Article 8(1)(b) of Regu-       because of the undisputed identity          opposition proceedings:       ‘Roberto’ for goods in Classes 29
lation No 40/94:               or, at least, similarity of the goods,                                    and 30 and the opponent’s trading
                               the visual and phonetic similarity                                        name ‘ROBERTO’
                               of the marks and the inherent
                               distinctiveness of the mark cited           Decision of the oppo-         Dismissal of the opposition
                               in opposition.                              sition division:
                                                                           Decision of the Board of      Annulment of the decision of the
                                                                           Appeal:                       opposition division and remittal
                                                                                of the application
                                                                           Pleas in law relied on:       —     Infringement of Rule 16 of
                                                                                Regulation (EC) No 2868/
                                                                                95 (1);
Action brought on 17 June 2002 by Freiberger Lebensmit-
tel GmbH & Co. Produktions- und Vertriebs KG against                                                     —     Infringement               of
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market                                                            Article 42(1), in conjunction
                  (Trade Marks and Designs)                                                                    with Article 8(2) and (4),
                                                                                of Regulation (EC) No 40/
                                                                                94 (2).
                        (Case T-188/02)
                        (2002/C 202/57)                                    (1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December
                                                                               1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the
                                                                               Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).
(Language of the case to be determined in accordance with                  (2) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure Language in which the                 Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
                  application was made: German)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
17 June 2002 by Freiberger Lebensmittel GmbH & Co.
Produktions- und Vertriebs KG, of Berlin, Germany, represent-              Action brought on 17 June 2002 by Anita Jannice Öster-
ed by K.-D. Rathke. Roberto S.A. of Chevilly, France, was an                holm against Commission of the European Communities
additional party before the Board of Appeal.
                                                                                (Case T-190/02)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (2002/C 202/58)
—     annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the
      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of                                      (Language of the case: French)
      28.2.2002 in Case R 1155/2000-4;
—     order the opponent to pay the costs.
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 17 June 2002 by Anita Jannice
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            Österholm, residing in Stockholm, represented by Juan Ramon
                                                                           Iturriagagoitia Bassas, lawyer.
Applicant for the Com-         The applicant
munity trade mark:                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
Trade mark applied for:        Word mark ‘Alberto’ for goods in            —     annul the decision of the appointing authority of
                               Classes 29 and 30 — Application                   11 March 2002 replying to complaint No 389/01 lodged
                               No 26211                                          by J. Österholm;
Proprietor of the trade        Roberto S.A.                                —     annul in part the decision of the Directorate General for
mark right invoked in                                                            Personnel and Administration of the European Com-
the opposition proceed-                                                          mission of 2 July 2001 concerning the computation of
ings:                                                                            annual leave between 8 and 31 July 2000;


title: Case F-83/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 December 2008 — Schell v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Promotion — Priority points — General implementing provisions for Article 45 of the Staff Regulations)

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/49

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 December 2008 — Schell v Commission
   (Case F-83/06) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Promotion - Priority points - General implementing provisions for Article 45 of the Staff Regulations)
   (2009/C 32/95)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Arno Schell (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and M. Velardo, Agents)
   Re:
   Staff case — Annulment, primarily, of the lists of officials promoted in the 2004 and 2005 promotion years, in so far as those lists do not contain the applicant's name and, in the alternative, of the allocation of promotion points in those years in so far as the applicant is concerned
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 237, 30.9.2006, p. 18.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 July 2004 in Case C-381/01: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 77/388/EEC — VAT — Article 11(A)(1)(a) — Taxable amount — Subsidy directly linked to the price — Regulation (EC) No 603/95 — Aid granted in the dried fodder sector)

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/2

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 15 July 2004
   in Case C-381/01: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 77/388/EEC - VAT - Article 11(A)(1)(a) - Taxable amount - Subsidy directly linked to the price - Regulation (EC) No 603/95 - Aid granted in the dried fodder sector)
   (2004/C 228/04)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-381/01: Commission of the European Communities (Agent: E. Traversa) v Italian Republic (Agent: I. Braguglia, assisted by G. de Bellis) supported by Republic of Finland (Agent: T. Pynnä) and by Kingdom of Sweden (Agent: A. Kruse) — application for a declaration that, by failing to levy value added tax on aid paid under Council Regulation (EC) No 603/95 of 21 February 1995 on the common organisation of the market in dried fodder (OJ 1995 L 63, p. 1), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11 of the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and N. Colneric, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 July 2004 in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs;

               3.

               Orders the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 348 of 8.12.2001.


title: Case C-167/04 P: Appeal brought on 5 April 2004 by JCB Service against the judgment delivered on 13 January 2004 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-67/01 between JCB Service and the Commission of the European Communities.

text:
               12.6.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/3

         Appeal brought on 5 April 2004 by JCB Service against the judgment delivered on 13 January 2004 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-67/01 between JCB Service and the Commission of the European Communities.
   (Case C-167/04 P)
   (2004/C 156/07)
   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 13 January 2004 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-67/01 (1) between JCB Service and the Commission of the European Communities, was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 April 2004 by JCB Service, established in Rocester, Staffordshire (United Kingdom), represented by E. Morgon de Rivery, lawyer.
   The Appellant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul in its entirety the judgment of the Court of First Instance dated 13 January 2004 in case T-67/01, JCB Service against Commission of the European Communities in so far as it infringes EU law by violating the Appellant's rights of defence; or

               2.

               annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance dated 13 January 2004 in case T-67/01, JCB Service against Commission of the European Communities, in so far as (i) it condemns an alleged general restriction on passive sales by authorised distributors in the United Kingdom, Ireland, France and Italy, and an alleged restriction on the sources of supply of distributors located in France and Italy, which prevented cross-supplies between distributors, and in so far as (ii) it imposes a fine on JCB Service for these alleged infringements; and

               3.

               itself give final judgment on case T-67/01 pursuant to Article 61 of the Statute (EC) of the Court and accordingly annul, wholly or in part, the decision of the Commission dated 21 December 2000 in case COMP.F.1/35.918 (2) and, using its full jurisdiction, annul or reduce the fine of EUR 30 million imposed on JCB Service by the judgment of the Court of First Instance dated 13 January 2004 in case T-67/01, JCB Service against Commission of the European Communities; and

               4.

               in all cases, order, in accordance with Article 69 of the Court's Rules of Procedure, the Commission to pay the Appellant's costs incurred both before the Court of First Instance and before this Court;

               5.

               alternatively to 3., in the event that the Court does not itself decide on the case, reserve the costs and remand the case to the Court of First Instance for reconsideration in accordance with the Court's judgment.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   First plea in law
   The Appellant submits that the Court of First Instance (‘CFI’) infringed Community law by refusing to address the claim that the Appellant's rights of defence had been abused. First, the Appellant contends that its rights of defence were breached due to the excessive duration of the procedure before the Commission, which lasted for 27 years (from the date of the notification to the date of the Commission Decision), preventing it from exercising its rights as a notifying party. The CFI erred in law by ignoring the consequences of such violation on the Appellant's ability to effectively defend itself. Second, the Appellant contends that its right to a presumption of innocence was also violated due to the CFI's failure to take into consideration certain exculpatory pieces of evidence, to apply the method of faisceau d'indices (bundle of indicators) in order to assess the relevant pieces of evidence, and to provide adequate and impartial reasoning.
   Second plea in law
   The Appeallant contends that the CFI infringed Article 81 EC by condemning the Appellant (i) for imposing a general prohibition on passive sales on its distributors in the United Kingdom, Ireland, France and Italy, and (ii) for restricting the sources of supply of its distributors in France and Italy, on the basis of an erroneous legal characterisation of the facts, distortion of evidence and erroneous application of applicable EC competition rules. This in turn engendered an application of the prohibition laid down in Article 81 EC that is clearly inconsistent with the letter and the purpose of said provision.
   Third plea in law
   This concerns the computation of the fine. Here, the Appellant contends that the CFI infringed Article 15 of Regulation No 17 by violating major fundamental principles applicable to the ordering of the fine, i.e., the principle of sound administration, the legitimate expectations of private parties and the principle of equal punishment, as well as by incorrectly assessing the gravity and the duration of the alleged infringements and both the attenuating and aggravating circumstances.

      (1)  OJ C 186, 30.06.2001, p. 9.

      (2)  OJ L 69, 12.03.2002, p. 1.


title: Case C-79/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Supremo, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo, Sección Tercera, by order of that court of 14 February 2000 in the case of Telefónica de España, S.A. and Administración del Estado and Retevisión, S.A.

text:
13.5.2000             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 135/9
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Supre-             The Commission of the European Communities claims that
mo, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo, Sección Ter-              the Court should:
cera, by order of that court of 14 February 2000 in the
case of Telefónica de España, S.A. and Administración del          (1) declare that, by failing to adopt or, in the alternative,
                  Estado and Retevisión, S.A.                             to communicate to the Commission, within the period
                                                                           prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative pro-
                         (Case C-79/00)                                    visions necessary to comply with Commission Directive
                                                                           96/86/EC (1)of 13 December 1996 adapting to technical
                        (2000/C 135/15)                                    progress Council Directive 94/55/EC on the approximation
                                                                           of the laws of the Member States with regard to the
                                                                           transport of dangerous goods by road, the Hellenic Repub-
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     lic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty and
European Communities by an order of the Tribunal Supremo,                  that directive.
Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo, Sección Tercera
(Supreme Court, Contentious-Administrative Division, Third
                                                                      (2) order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Chamber), which was received at the Court Registry on
3 March 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Telefónica
de España, S.A. and Administración del Estado and Retevisión,
S.A., on the following question:                                      Pleas in law and main arguments
Does a combined interpretation of Articles 4(2) and 9(2), in          The binding nature of the third paragraph of Articles 249 and
relation to Annex VII (Part 2(c)) of Directive 97/33/EC (1) of        10 EC (formerly Articles 189 and 5 of the EC Treaty) requires
the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997            Member States to take the measures necessary to transpose
on interconnection in telecommunications with regard to               directives into their legal system before the expiry of the period
ensuring universal service and interoperability through appli-        prescribed for that purpose and to notify those measures to
cation of the principles of Open Network Provision (ONP),             the Commission immediately. When the relevant time-limit
allow                                                                 expired on 1 January 1997 the Hellenic Republic had not
                                                                      notified the Commission of measures transposing the directive
a) the national regulatory authorities to impose ex ante on an        in question into national law.
    operator having significant market power the obligation
    to provide other operators with access to the subscriber
    loop and to offer interconnection at local and higher-level       (1) OJ 1996 L 335, p. 43.
    switching centres;
b) or, on the contrary, do those authorities have the power
    — with regard to access and interconnection at those
    specific network points — only ‘to promote’ agreements
    negotiated between the various operators, but not to
    impose such access and interconnection as an ex ante
    obligation on an operator with significant market power?
                                                                      Action brought on 10 March 2000 by the European
(1) OJ L 199 of 26.7.1997, p. 32.                                        Parliament against the Council of the European Union
                                                                                (Case C-93/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 135/17)
Action brought on 7 March 2000 by the Commission of                   An action against the Council of the European Union was
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic                brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                      ties on 10 March 2000 by the European Parliament, represent-
                         (Case C-85/00)                               ed by Christian Pennera, Head of Division in its Legal Service,
                                                                      and Evelyn Waldherr, a Member of its Legal Service, acting as
                                                                      Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                        (2000/C 135/16)
                                                                      Secretariat General of the European Parliament, Mail and
                                                                      Registration Service, Alcide de Gasperi Building, Kirchberg.
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice on 7 March 2000 by the Commission of
the European Communities, represented by Marie Wolfcarius,            The applicant claims that the Court should:
Legal Advisor, and Maria Patakia, both of its Legal Service,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of            — annul Council Regulation (EC) No 2772/99 of 21 Decem-
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, also of the Commission’s Legal                   ber 1999 providing for the general rules for a compulsory
Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                         beef labelling system (1);


title: Case C-452/16: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against Krzystof Marek Poltorak (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 1(1) — Concept of ‘judicial decision’ — Article 6(1) — Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ — European arrest warrant issued by the Rikspolisstyrelsen (National Police Board, Sweden) with a view to executing a custodial sentence)

text:
               16.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 14/16

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against Krzystof Marek Poltorak
   (Case C-452/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Article 1(1) - Concept of ‘judicial decision’ - Article 6(1) - Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ - European arrest warrant issued by the Rikspolisstyrelsen (National Police Board, Sweden) with a view to executing a custodial sentence))
   (2017/C 014/20)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank Amsterdam

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Krzystof Marek Poltorak

      Operative part of the judgment

   The term ‘judicial authority’, within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, is an autonomous concept of EU law and that provision must be interpreted as meaning that a police service, such as the Rikspolisstyrelsen (National Police Board, Sweden), is not covered by the term ‘issuing judicial authority’, within the meaning of the same Article 6(1), meaning that the European arrest warrant issued by that police service with a view to executing a judgment imposing a custodial sentence cannot be regarded as a ‘judicial decision’, within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299.

      (1)  OJ C 383, 17.10.2016.


title: Case C-24/08: Order of the President of the Court of 9 September 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Portugal

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/31

         Order of the President of the Court of 9 September 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Portugal
   (Case C-24/08) (1)

   (2009/C 69/62)

      Language of the case: Portuguese

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

      (1)  OJ C 79, 29.3.2008.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 18 December 1997 in Joined Cases T-159/94 and T-160/94: Ajinomoto Co., Inc. and The NutraSweet Company v. Council of the European Union (Action for annulment - Dumping - Aspartame - Right to a fair hearing - Normal value - Reference country - Patent - Injury)

text:
C 55/24               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    20.2.98
1. The decision of the Committee of the Regions of                   3. The parties shall each bear their own costs.
    20 September 1995, in so far as it refuses to appoint
    the applicant to one of the vacant posts referred to in          (1) OJ C 94, 22.3.1997.
    notice of internal competition A/02/95, is annulled.
2. The decision of the Committee of the Regions of
    20 September 1995, in so far as it appoints to certain
    vacant posts referred to in notice of internal
    competition A/02/95 a number of successful
    candidates classified below the applicant on the list of           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    eligible candidates, is annulled.                                                    of 18 December 1997
                                                                     in Joined Cases T-159/94 and T-160/94: Ajinomoto Co.,
3. The Committee of the Regions is ordered to pay the                Inc. and The NutraSweet Company v. Council of the
    costs.                                                                                European Union (1)
                                                                     (Action for annulment Ð Dumping Ð Aspartame Ð
(1) OJ C 294, 5.10.1996.
                                                                     Right to a fair hearing Ð Normal value Ð Reference
                                                                                country Ð Patent Ð Injury)
                                                                                (98/C 55/50)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                     of 17 December 1997
                                                                     In Joined Cases T-159/94: Ajinomoto Co., Inc., established
in Case T-208/96: Eberhard Eiselt v. Commission of the               in Tokyo, represented by Mario Siragusa, of the Rome
                  European Communities (1)                           Bar, and Till Müller-Ibold, Rechtsanwalt, Frankfurt am
                                                                     Main, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
(Vocational training course Ð Refusal to participate Ð               Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 rue Goethe, and T-160/94:
Infringement of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations and of           The NutraSweet Company, established at Deerfield,
the principle of equal treatment Ð Claim for                         Illinois (United States of America), represented initially by
             compensation for damage suffered)                       Otto Grolig, Peter Bogaert and Koen Vanhaerents, and
                         (98/C 55/49)                                subsequently by Otto Grolig, Jean-FrancËois Bellis and
                                                                     Fabrizio Di Gianni, of the Brussels Bar, with an address
                                                                     for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques
                (Language of the case: Italian)                      Loesch, 11 rue Goethe, against Council of the European
                                                                     Union (Agents: Erik Stein, Guus Houttuin, Hans-Jürgen
In Case T-208/96: Eberhard Eiselt, an official of the                Rabe and Georg M. Berrisch), supported by Commission
Commission of the European Communities, residing in                  of the European Communities (Agents: Eric L. White,
Ispra (Italy), represented by Giuseppe Marchesini, of the            Nicholas Khan, assisted initially by Mark Cran and
Vicenza Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at            subsequently by Fergus Randolph) Ð applications for
the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8Ð10 rue Mathias Hardt,               annulment of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1391/91 of
against Commission of the European Communities (Agent:               27 May 1991 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on
Gianluigi Valsesia) Ð application for, first, the annulment          imports of aspartame originating in Japan and the United
of a decision of the Commission refusing the applicant the           States of America (OJ L 134, 29.5.1991, p. 1) Ð the
further vocational training he requested and, secondly, the          Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended
annulment of the decision of the Commission assigning                Composition), composed of: R. García-Valdecasas,
him to duties which did not correspond to his                        President, V. Tiili, J. Azizi, R. M. Moura Ramos and M.
qualifications, his professional experience or to the duties         Jaeger, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar,
for which he was initially recruited Ð the Court of First            has given a judgment on 18 December 1997, in which it:
Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts,
President, P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; A. Mair,
                                                                     1. dismisses the applications;
Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
17 December 1997, the operative part of which is as
follows:                                                             2. orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to
                                                                          pay the costs of the Council;
1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible inasmuch
    as it seeks a finding that the allocation to the applicant
                                                                     3. orders the Commission to bear its own costs.
    of duties for which he is not trained and for which he
    was not initially employed is unlawful in so far as it is
    not in the interests of the institution.                         (1) OJ C 291, 8.11.1991.
2. The remainder of the application is dismissed.


title: Case C-392/03: Action brought on 16 September 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
C 264/24               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        1.11.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Communities on 15 September 2003 by the Hellenic Republic,
                                                                          represented by I. Khalkias and E. Svolopoulou, Members of the
                                                                          State Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg
Under Article 18 of Directive 96/67/EC the Member States are              at the Greek Embassy, 27 rue Marie-Adelaïde.
entitled to take measures to protect the rights of workers.
However, such measures must be without prejudice to the
application of that directive, and subject to the other provisions
of Community law. Although Council Directive 2001/23/EC                   The applicant asks the Court to:
of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the
Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’                  —     annul Commission Decision C(2003)2587 excluding
rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or                 from Community financing certain expenditure incurred
parts of undertakings or businesses (2) does not apply in cases                 by the Member States under the EAGGF — Guarantee
where only a specific share of the market is ‘transferred’ to                   Section, in so far as concerns financial corrections
another undertaking as part of an opening-up of the market,                     chargeable to the Hellenic Republic in the wine, livestock
Paragraph 8(2) of the Verordnung über Bodenabfertigungs-                        premiums and olive oil sectors for the year 1999-2000.
dienste auf Flugplätzen (BADV) authorises the managing body
of an airport to impose a general obligation on new bidders to
take on airport staff, as part of the standard terms for tender
and selection procedures, irrespective of whether there has
been a transfer for the purposes of Directive 2001/23/EC. The             Pleas in law and main arguments
clear effect of Paragraph 8(2) of the BADV is therefore to deter
new undertakings from entering the market and to impede
their competitiveness, thereby reducing the benefits of liberalis-
ation as regards reduction of prices and improvement in the               1.     Infringement of law and of general principles.
quality of services.
                                                                          2. Infringement of the principle of proportionality —
Furthermore, Paragraph 9(3) of the BADV permits the manag-                misuse of discretion.
ing body of an airport to charge higher fees for access to
airport installations in cases where suppliers and selfhandlers
do not take on any staff from the airport operator upon
entering the market. That provision infringes Article 16(3) of            3. Error as to the facts, misassessment of the factual
Directive 96/67/EC which provides that the fee for access to              circumstances, inadequate statement of reasons for the contest-
airport installations is to be determined according to relevant,          ed decision.
objective, transparent and non-discriminatory criteria. The
failure to take on airport staff is not a criterion which meets
any of those requirements. Rather, that provision even enables
                                                                          4. Misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 5(2)(c) of
the airport operator to charge selfhandlers or suppliers of
                                                                          Regulation No 729/70.
services a higher fee for access to airport installations if they
do not take on its staff, and thereby makes it possible for the
airport to discriminate against its direct competitors.
(1) OJ 1996 L 272, p. 36.
(2) OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16.
                                                                          Action brought on 16 September 2003 by the Com-
                                                                          mission of the European Communities against the Italian
                                                                                Republic
Action brought on 15 September 2003 by the Hellenic
Republic against the Commission of the European Com-                                              (Case C-392/03)
                             munities
                                                                                (2003/C 264/42)
                         (Case C-387/03)
                         (2003/C 264/41)
                                                                          An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                          Court of Justice of the European Communities on 16 Septem-
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 ber 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European              represented by A. Bordes and L. Visaggio, acting as Agents.
 ---pagebreak--- 1.11.2003              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 264/25
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
—     find that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999 laying                Pleas in law and main arguments
      down minimum standards for the protection of laying
      hens (1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate the
      same to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed
      to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(1) of that              (Main application)
      directive;
—     order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                       Infringement of the EC Treaty and/or of Protocol No 9 to the
                                                                         1994 Act of Accession by definitively refusing the request
                                                                         made under the second paragraph of Article 232 EC. The
                                                                         Commission wrongly seeks to deduct from the number of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          transit journeys declared overall for the year 2002 (1 718 622)
                                                                         journeys declared as transit journeys in respect of which there
                                                                         is no information on departure (69 433), journeys declared as
The time-limit for transposing the directive expired on 1 Janu-
                                                                         transit journeys where both entry and departure were effected
ary 2002.
                                                                         at the same border point (52 642) and journeys involving
                                                                         ‘piggyback transportation’ (7 812).
(1) OJ L 203 of 3.8.1999, p. 53.
                                                                         The ecopoint system under Protocol No 9 to the 1994 Act of
                                                                         Accession is based on the principle of declarations. Accord-
                                                                         ingly, if journeys are clearly declared by a driver as transit
                                                                         journeys, they are included within the ecopoint statistics and
                                                                         are relevant to the question whether the 108 % threshold has
                                                                         been exceeded, whereupon the Commission is bound under
Action brought on 18 September 2003 by the Republic                      Article 11(2)(c) of Protocol No 9, in conjunction with para-
of Austria against the Commission of the European                        graph 3 of Annex 5 thereto, to adopt appropriate measures,
                          Communities                                    namely to reduce the number of ecopoints for the following
                                                                         year in accordance with a calculation method laid down in the
                                                                         Annex to the Protocol. It cannot, in the light of the principle
                         (Case C-393/03)
                                                                         of declarations, be for the Republic of Austria, either legally or
                                                                         factually, to provide evidence in each individual case that,
                         (2003/C 264/43)                                 where a journey is clearly declared to be a transit journey, such
                                                                         a transit journey actually took place. The Republic of Austria
                                                                         merely has to deduct journeys declared to be transit journeys
                                                                         where it is beyond doubt that, despite a clear declaration, there
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                cannot have been a transit journey. It clearly follows, therefore,
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European             that the 108 % threshold was exceeded in 2002. In the light of
Communities on 18 September 2003 (fax: 11.9.03) by the                   its decision of 1 July 2003, the Commission consequently
Republic of Austria, represented by Dr Harald Dossi of the               failed to fulfil its obligations under Protocol 9 to the 1994 Act
Constitutional Service of the Federal Chancellor’s Office of the         of Accession, in particular its obligations under Article 11(2)(c)
Republic of Austria, with an address for service in Luxembourg.          in conjunction with Article 16 and paragraph 3 of Annex 5 to
                                                                         that Protocol, thereby creating grounds for annulment on
                                                                         account of infringement of the EC Treaty and/or of Protocol
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              No 9 to the 1994 Act of Accession pursuant to the second
                                                                         paragraph of Article 230 EC.
—     annul the negative opinion of the Commission of 1 July
      2003 definitively refusing the request for action submit-
      ted to the Commission by the Republic of Austria under
      the second paragraph of Article 232 EC;                            (In the alternative)
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         Infringement of the EC Treaty and/or of Protocol No 9 to the
                                                                         1994 Act of Accession. In relation to the grounds, the
In the alternative, the Republic of Austria claims that the Court        applicant refers to its arguments regarding the first plea in law.
should:
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 1 July 2003 ordering            (1) Protocol No 9 on road, rail and combined transport in Austria.
      the non-application of Article 11(2)(c) of Protocol No 9
      to the 1994 Act of Accession (1) and the full award of
      ecopoints for the year 2003;


title: Case C-523/06: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 October 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2000/59/EC — Port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues — Failure to have developed and implemented waste reception and handling plans for all ports)

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/17

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 October 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland
   (Case C-523/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2000/59/EC - Port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues - Failure to have developed and implemented waste reception and handling plans for all ports)
   (2007/C 297/26)
   Language of the case: Finish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Huttunen and K. Simonsson, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 1 and 16(1) of Directive 2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues (OJ 2000 L 332, p. 81) — Failure to have developed and implemented waste reception and handling plans for all ports in Finland
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to develop and implement waste reception and handling plans for all its ports, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 5(1) and 16(1) of Directive 2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues;

               2.

               orders the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.


title: Case F-55/14: Action brought on 17 June 2014  — ZZ v Commission

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/59

         Action brought on 17 June 2014 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-55/14)
   2014/C 421/85
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision not to renew the applicant’s contract, which should have been for an indefinite period.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision of 31 October 2013 not to renew the applicant’s contract as a member of the contract staff, which contract should have been for an indefinite period;

               —

               annul the decision of the AECE of 6 March 2014 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 15 November 2013, in that it took account of additional factors not contained in the contested decision of 31 October 2013;

               —

               award the applicant damages to the sum of EUR 20  000;

               —

               order the Commission to pay all the costs.


               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/42

         Criteria for assigning cases to Chambers
   (2007/C 269/74)
   On 25 September 2007, the Court of First Instance laid down the following criteria for the assignment of cases to the Chambers for the period from 25 September 2007 to 30 September 2008, in accordance with Article 12 of the Rules of Procedure:

               1.

               Appeals against the decisions of the Civil Service Tribunal shall be assigned to the Appeal Chamber as soon as the application has been lodged and without prejudice to any subsequent application of Articles 14 and 51 of the Rules of Procedure.

               2.

               Cases other than those referred to in paragraph 1 above shall be assigned to Chambers of three Judges as soon as the application has been lodged and without prejudice to any subsequent application of Articles 14 and 51 of the Rules of Procedure.
               Cases referred to in this paragraph shall be allocated to the Chambers in turn, in accordance with the date on which they are registered at the Registry, following three separate rotas:

                           —

                           for cases concerning application of the competition rules applicable to undertakings, the rules on State aid and the rules on trade protection measures;

                           —

                           for cases concerning the intellectual property rights referred to in Article 130(1) of the Rules of Procedure;

                           —

                           for all other cases.

                     In applying those rotas, the two Chambers sitting with three Judges which are composed of four Judges shall be taken into consideration twice at each third turn.
               The President of the Court of First Instance may derogate from the rotas on the ground that cases are related or with a view to ensuring an even spread of the workload.


title: Case C-259/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht München by order of that court of 19 April 2000 in the case of Biochem Zusatzstoffe Handels-Produktions GmbH v Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg, Außenstelle München

text:
26.8.2000              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 247/25
—     The Commission confirms the finding made in the                  received at the Court Registry on 29 June 2000, for a
      reasoned opinion, to the effect that the subterranean            preliminary ruling in the case of Gründerzentrum-Betriebs-
      waters of the department of the Oise should have been            GmbH against Land Baden-Württemberg on the following
      identified as affected by pollution within the meaning of        question:
      Article 3(1) of the directive.
                                                                       In the case of operations to which Article 4(3) of Directive
                                                                       69/335/EEC (1) refers, are fees for the recording and certifi-
(1) OJ L 375 of 31.12.1991, p. 1.
                                                                       cation of documents by notaries in the civil service of the Land
(2) [1999] ECR I-2603.
                                                                       Baden-Württemberg in the Higher Regional Court District of
                                                                       Karlsruhe caught by the prohibition under Article 10 of that
                                                                       directive so that the fees may be charged only in accordance
                                                                       with the actual costs incurred by the notaries for the service in
                                                                       question?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht                (1) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412.
München by order of that court of 19 April 2000 in
the case of Biochem Zusatzstoffe Handels-Produktions
GmbH v Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg, Außenstelle
                             München
                         (Case C-259/00)                               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Benelux Court
                                                                       of Justice by judgment of 26 June 2000 in the case of
                                                                            Campina Melkunie B.V. v Benelux-Merkenbureau
                         (2000/C 247/37)
                                                                                (Case C-265/00)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Münch-                                        (2000/C 247/39)
en (Financial Court, Munich) of 19 April 2000, received at the
Court Registry on 28 June 2000, for a preliminary ruling in            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
the case of Biochem Zusatzstoffe Handels- Produktions GmbH             European Communities by judgment of 26 June 2000 by the
v Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg, Außenstelle München, on                Benelux Court of Justice, which was received at the Court
the following question:                                                Registry on 29 June 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case
                                                                       of Campina Melkunie B.V. v Benelux-Merkenbureau (Benelux
Is the combined nomenclature in the version of Annex I to              Trade Marks Office) on the following questions:
Regulation (EC) No 2086/97 (1) (OJ L 312) of 4 November
1997 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC)                      A.   Must Articles 2 and 3(1) of First Council Directive
No 2658/87 (2) on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and               89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the
on the Common Customs Tariff to be interpreted as meaning                   laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (1) be
that immunoglobulin concentrates from dried, defatted and                   construed as meaning that, in determining whether a sign
decaseinated colostrum, standardised by means of lactose, are               consisting of a new word made up of a number of
to be classified as pharmaceutical products in chapter 30?                  component parts has a sufficiently distinctive character
                                                                            to be capable of serving as a mark for the goods in
                                                                            question, one has to proceed on the assumption that this
(1) OJ L 312 of 14.11.1997, p. 1.                                           question is in principle to be answered in the affirmative
(2) OJ L 256 of 7.9.1987, p. 1.                                             even if each of those component parts is in itself devoid
                                                                            of any distinctive character for those goods, and that the
                                                                            position will be different only if there are attendant
                                                                            circumstances, for instance if the new word constitutes
                                                                            an indication, which is obvious and directly comprehen-
                                                                            sible for any person, of a commercially essential combi-
                                                                            nation of properties which cannot be indicated otherwise
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Amtsgericht                       than through use of the new word?
Mülheim/Baden by order of that court of 20 June 2000 in
the case of Gründerzentrum-Betriebs-GmbH against Land                  B.   If Question A is to be answered in the negative: must it
                      Baden-Württemberg                                     then be assumed that a sign consisting of a new word
                                                                            which is made up of different component parts, each of
                                                                            which is in itself devoid of any distinctive character for
                         (Case C-264/00)
                                                                            the goods in question within the meaning of Article 3(1)
                                                                            of the Directive, is itself also devoid of any distinctive
                         (2000/C 247/38)                                    character, and that the situation may be different only if
                                                                            there are attendant circumstances which result in the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      combination of the component parts being greater than
European Communities by order of the Amtsgericht Müllheim/                  the sum of those parts, for instance where the new word
Baden (Local Court, Müllheim/Baden) of 20 June 2000,                        indicates a certain creativity?


title: Case T-281/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Fels-Werke v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/65

         Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Fels-Werke v Commission
   (Case T-281/14) (1)

   ((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))
   (2015/C 294/79)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Fels-Werke GmbH (Goslar, Germany) (represented by: C. Arhold, N. Wimmer, F.-A. Wesche, L. Petersen and T. Woltering lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by C. von Donat and G. Quardt, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.

               3.

               Fels-Werke GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

               4.

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.


title: Case T-376/05: Action brought on  13 October 2005  — Tea-Cegos and STG v Commission

text:
               10.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/18

         Action brought on 13 October 2005 — Tea-Cegos and STG v Commission
   (Case T-376/05)
   (2005/C 315/32)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant(s): TEA-CEGOS (Madrid, Spain) and Services Techniques Globaux (STG) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: G.Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of 12 October 2005 rejecting the candidature and bid of the TEA-CEGOS consortium and withdrawing the decision awarding the framework contract to the TEA-CEGOS consortium under the call for tenders EuropeAid -2/119860/C-LOT No 7;

               —

               annul all the other decisions taken by the defendant under that call for tenders following the decision of 12 October 2005 and, in particular, the award decisions and the contracts concluded by the Commission implementing those decisions;

               —

               order the Commission to pay all the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants in these proceedings are members of the consortium constituted for the purposes of the call for tenders ‘EuropeAid/119860/C/SV/MULTI’ launched by the defendant. It tendered for lot No 7 ‘Culture, Governance and Home Affairs’.
   On 20 May 2004, the consortium was informed by post that its candidature had been accepted. By letter of 18 July 2005, the defendant informed it that it considered it necessary to review its decision awarding it the framework contract, and justified that change by the fact that the decision in question had been taken on the basis of inaccurate information communicated during the procedure. On 12 October 2005, the Commission took a decision confirming rejection of the applicant's candidature and bid on the basis of the exclusion clause provided for in Article 13 of the contract notice (1). To justify its decision, it relied on the fact that one of the members of the consortium was part of another group, one of the members of which was taking part in another candidature for the same contract. That is the contested decision.
   In support of their action for annulment, the applicants rely on several pleas in law.
   By the first, they claim that the defendant was in breach of the contractual documents inasmuch as it misapplied Article 13 of the contract notice and Article 14 of the instructions to tenderers. The applicants claim that Article 13 of the contract notice was not applicable when an award decision had already been taken. They also submit that they did not fail to communicate the documents requested by the defendant or supply false information, so the conditions for applying Article 14 of the instructions to tenderers, which would alone justify the decision awarding the contract being challenged at that stage of the procedure, had not been fulfilled.
   Secondly, the applicants claim that the defendant made a manifest error of assessment of the concept of ‘legal group’ in Article 13 of the contract notice, by taking into account only the structural criterion and excluding application of the test of conflict of interest between candidates in the same call for tenders. In the applicants' opinion, the defendant's assessment is such as to undermine the principles of legal certainty. The applicants also rely on a plea alleging breach of the duty to state reasons.
   The third plea raised by the applicants relates to the alleged breach of the principle of good administration and a failure to take steps. The applicants claim that, where there is uncertainty, the defendant ought to have informed the consortium within a reasonable time, and questioned them during the tendering procedure and not after its decision awarding the contract, which would have made it possible to save the costs associated with their participation in the later stages of the procedure.
   By the final plea, the applicants submit that regard was not had to their legitimate expectations and also rely on the theory of retrait des actes adminstratifs (cancellation of administrative acts). They claim that, in this case, the decision awarding the contract was not unlawful and, accordingly, could not be withdrawn by the defendant.

      (1)  Contract notice for a multiple framework contract ‘Multiple framework contract to recruit technical assistance for short-term expertise for the exclusive benefit of third countries benefiting from the European Commission's external aid’ 2004/S 132-111932, OJ S 132.