C 317/36               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    10.11.2001
According to the applicant, the company managing the store               23 September 1999, the contract in respect of Lot No 5 for
did not properly carry out its loading obligations, and as the           the transport of 6 500 tonnes of skimmed-milk powder from
Polish police found overloading, they levied fines on the                Ireland to Russia.
applicant. Also, the managing company required prior pay-
ment of the additional charges for those loading operations.             According to the applicant the intervention agency, the
                                                                         Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development
In support of its claims, the applicant relies on the contractual        (D.A.F.) sent it the goods with substantial delay, which forced
and non-contractual liability of the Commission.                         it to pay demurrage to the owner of the ship which it had
                                                                         chartered.
The applicant relies on the same arguments as in Case                    In support of its claims seeking compensation for the losses
T-215/01, taking account of the fact that in the present case            suffered, the applicant pleads contractual liability and, alterna-
the additional charges were caused by the actions of the                 tively, non-contractual liability of the Commission by putting
warehouse of the intervention agency, which required prior               forward pleas and arguments similar to those presented in
payment of an additional sum for releasing and loading the               Case T-215/01.
goods and carried out the relevant operations badly, exposing
the applicant to the fines.
                                                                         (1) Commission Regulation (CE) No 1815/1999 of 18 August 1999
                                                                             on the supply of skimmed-milk powder to Russia (OJ 1999 L 220,
                                                                             p. 13).
Action brought on 24 September 2001 by Calberson G.E.
  against the Commission of the European Communities                             Removal from the Register of Case T-42/00 (1)
                         (Case T-221/01)                                                          (2001/C 317/71)
                         (2001/C 317/70)                                                    (Language of the case: German)
                   (Language of the case: French)                        By order of 5 June 2001, the President of the Second Chamber
                                                                         of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                         has ordered the removal from the Register of Case
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                T-42/00, City-Broker Deutschland GmbH v the Office for
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
European Communities on 24 September 2001 by Calberson                   Designs).
G.E., a company established in Paris, represented by Thierry
Gallois, lawyer.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.00.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     order the Commission to pay to the applicant compen-
      sation equal to the totals of invoices BRU 114 4316
      (USD 25 761,11) and BRU 413 1828 (23 115,49 Euros);                       Removal from the Register of Case T-359/00 (1)
—     order interest at the legal rate to be added to the                                         (2001/C 317/72)
      compensation from the 8th day following each unpaid
      invoice;                                                                              (Language of the case: Spanish)
—     order that all the costs be paid by the Commission.                By order of 21 June 2001, the President of the Fourth Chamber
                                                                         of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                         has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-359/00,
                                                                         Organización de Productores Asociados de Grandes Atuneros
Pleas in law and principal arguments                                     Congeladores (OPAGAC) y Empresarios Asociados v Com-
                                                                         mission of the European Communities.
The applicant states that, in the context of Regulation
No 1815/1999 (1), the Commission awarded it, by decision of              (1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.01.


title: Case F-19/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 August 2016 — Boyd v Commission

text:
               10.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/35

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 August 2016 — Boyd v Commission
   (Case F-19/13) (1)

   (2016/C 371/42)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 123, 27/4/2013, p. 30.


title: Case F-14/12 RENV: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 30 September 2015 — Schönberger v Court of Auditors (Civil Service — Officials — Referral back to the Tribunal after setting aside — Promotion — 2011 promotion year — Refusal of promotion — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               9.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/46

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 30 September 2015 — Schönberger v Court of Auditors
   (Case F-14/12 RENV)
   ((Civil Service - Officials - Referral back to the Tribunal after setting aside - Promotion - 2011 promotion year - Refusal of promotion - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded))
   (2015/C 371/47)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Peter Schönberger (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: O. Mader, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Court of Auditors (represented by: B. Schäfer and Í. Ní Riagáin Düro, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the defendant’s decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 13 in the 2011 promotion year.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded.

               2.

               In Cases F-14/12 and F-14/12 RENV, Mr Schönberger shall bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Court of Auditors.

               3.

               In Case T-26/14 P, the European Court of Auditors shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by Mr Schönberger.


title: Case T-414/10: Action brought on 15 September 2010 — Companhia Previdente v Commission

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/35

         Action brought on 15 September 2010 — Companhia Previdente v Commission
   (Case T-414/10)
   ()
   2010/C 317/63
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Companhia Previdente — Sociedade De Controle de Participações Financeiras, SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: D. Proença de Carvalho and J. Caimoto Duarte, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul in part Article 1 and Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.344 — Pre-stressing steel) in so far as they relate to the applicant;

               —

               Declare that any reduction in the fine imposed on Socitrel, in the context of other actions concerning infringements for which Companhia Previdente may be jointly and severally liable, automatically gives rise to an equivalent reduction in the fine for which Companhia Previdente is jointly and severally liable.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The decision contested by the applicant is the same as that contested in Case T-385/10 ArcelorMittal Wire France and Others v Commission.
   The applicant alleges:

               (i)

               Infringement of Article 101 TFEU and of the principle of individual responsibility for infringements, in relation to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and of Article 23(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty. (1) A manifest error of assessment was made in the Decision, in determining that COMPANHIA PREVIDENTE was jointly and severally liable for the infringements committed by SOCITREL, and exceeding the maximum amount of fine under Article 23(2) of Regulation 1/2003.

               (ii)

               Infringement of Article 296 TFEU, since the applicant’s arguments were not refuted and the presumption that COMPANHIA PREVIDENTE exercised decisive influence over SOCITREL, for the purposes of attributing joint and several liability and calculating the fine during the period between 1998 and 2002, was not rebutted in a reasoned manner, and the grounds on which it was concluded that there was a decisive influence during the previous period, between 1994 and 1998, in which the presumption did not appear to apply, were not properly set out.

         Alternatively,

               (iii)

               Infringement of Article 101(1) TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and of the principle of proportionality, since the maximum amount of fine that could have been imposed on COMPANHIA PREVIDENTE was exceeded.

               (iv)

               Infringement of the principles of proportionality and of non-discrimination, since no account was taken of the economic context of the current crisis and the inability of COMPANHIA PREVIDENTE to pay.

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Højesteret by order of 18 February 1998 in the case of Skatteministeriet v. Bent Vestergaard (Case C-55/98)

text:
C 137/10             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                      2.5.98
1. Are Articles 48, 59 and 60 of the EC Treaty to be                   provision of services (2) to be interpreted as in any
   interpreted as infringed by a provision of national law,            event, having regard to the correct interpretation of
   the first sentence of paragraph 1(3) of the Arbeitneh-              Articles 48, 59 and 60 of the EC Treaty, neither
   merentsendegesetz (Law on the Posting of Workers),                  requiring nor permitting the rules at issue in
   which extends the application of provisions of                      questions 1, 2 and 3?
   collective agreements which have been declared
   generally binding concerning the collection of                 (1) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993, p. 18.
   contributions and the grant of benefits in connection          (2) OJ L 18, 21.1.1997, p. 1.
   with workers' holiday entitlements by joint bodies of
   parties to collective agreements, and thus the
   provisions of those agreements concerning the scheme
   to be complied with in that regard, to employers
   resident abroad and their workers who have been
   posted to the area within which those collective               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hùjesteret by
   agreements apply?                                              order of 18 February 1998 in the case of Skatteministeriet
                                                                                v. Bent Vestergaard
2. Are Articles 48, 59 and 60 of the EC Treaty to be                                       (Case C-55/98)
   interpreted as infringed by the second sentence of                                       (98/C 137/20)
   paragraph 1(1) and the first sentence of paragraph 1(3)
   of the Arbeitnehmerentsendegesetz which result in the
   application of provisions of collective agreements             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
   declared to be generally binding which:                        European Communities by order of 18 February 1998
                                                                  from the Hùjesteret (Danish Supreme Court), which was
   (a) provide for a length of leave which exceeds the            received at the Court Registry on 24 February 1998, for a
       minimum length of annual leave laid down in                preliminary ruling in the case of Skatteministeriet
       Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November                 (Ministry of Fiscal Affairs) v. Bent Vestergaard on the
       1993 (1) concerning certain aspects of the                 following questions.
       organisation of working time, and/or
                                                                  1. Is it in accordance with Articles 6 and 59 of the EC
   (b) allow employers resident in Germany to claim the                Treaty for Danish case-law (see the judgment of the
       reimbursement of expenditure on holiday pay and                 Hùjesteret of 19 October 1994, reproduced in
       holiday allowances from joint bodies of the parties             Ugeskrift for Retsvñsen 1994, p. 970) to apply a
       to the collective agreements whereas, in the case of            presumption that, in cases in which a course is held in
       employers resident abroad, they do not provide for              an ordinary tourist resort outside Denmark and the
       such a claim but instead for a direct claim by the              course location cannot, as such, be justified on
       posted workers against the joint bodies of the                  professional grounds, the course involves such a
       parties to the collective agreements, and/or                    significant tourism element that the costs of the course
                                                                       cannot be treated as constituting deductible operating
   (c) in connection with the social fund scheme to be                 costs?
       complied with under those collective agreements,
       impose on employers resident abroad obligations            2. If the answer is no: can the national legal position in
       to provide information to the joint bodies of the               the area of taxation be justified by reference to the
       parties to the collective agreements whereby the                case-law of the Court of Justice, in particular Case
       amount of information to be given exceeds the                   C-204/90 Bachmann v. Belgium (1) and Case C-250/95
       amount required from employers resident in                      Futura Participations and Singer v. Administration des
       Germany?                                                        Contributions (2)?
3. Are Articles 48, 59 and 60 of the EC Treaty to be              (1) Judgment of 28.1.1992, [1992] ECR I-249
   interpreted as infringed by paragraph 1(4) of the              (2) Judgment of 15.5.1997, [1997] ECR I-2471.
   Arbeitnehmerentsendegesetz under which, for the
   purposes of classifying businesses as covered by a
   collective agreement which has been declared generally
   binding and which, under the first sentence of
   paragraph 1(3) of that Law, also applies to employers
   resident abroad and their workers who have been                Appeal brought on 26 February 1998 by Associación
   posted to the area within which that collective                Telefónica de Mutualistas (ATM) against the judgment
   agreement applies, all workers posted to Germany, but          delivered on 18 December 1997 by the First Chamber,
   only those workers, are treated as a business, while a         Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of
   different definition of a business applies to employers        the European Communities in Case T-178/94 between
   resident in Germany which in certain cases results in          Associación Telefónica de Mutualistas (ATM) and
   different businesses falling within the field of                        Commission of the European Communities
   application of the generally binding collective                                       (Case C-57/98 P)
   agreement?
                                                                                (98/C 137/21)
4. Is Article 3(1)(b) of European Parliament and Council
   Directive 96/71/EC of 16 December 1996 concerning              An appeal against the judgment delivered on 18 December
   the posting of workers in the framework of the                 1997 by the First Chamber, Extended Composition, of the


title: Case C-559/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 30 October 2013 — Finanzamt Dortmund-Unna v Josef Grünewald

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 30 October 2013 — Finanzamt Dortmund-Unna v Josef Grünewald
   (Case C-559/13)
   2014/C 45/31
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Finanzamt Dortmund-Unna

      Defendant: Josef Grünewald

      Question referred

   Does Article 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) preclude legislation of a Member State under which private support payments by non-resident taxable persons which are connected with a transfer of revenue-producing domestic assets in the course of a so-called anticipated succession are not tax deductible, whereas such payments are deductible in the case of full liability to taxation, but the deduction results in a corresponding tax liability for a (fully taxable) recipient of the payments?


title: Case F-91/13: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 1 October 2014 — DF v Commission (Civil service — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance — Travel expenses — Secondment of the applicant in a country of which he is a national — Condition set out in Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations)

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/63

      Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 1 October 2014 — DF v Commission
      (Case F-91/13) (1)

      ((Civil service - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Travel expenses - Secondment of the applicant in a country of which he is a national - Condition set out in Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations))
      (2014/C 395/76)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

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

         Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by J. Currall and V. Joris, acting as Agents, and subsequently by J. Currall, acting as Agent)

         Re:

      An application for annulment of the decision to request from the applicant the reimbursement of the expatriation allowance and the travel expenses which he received during his posting in Germany, between 1 September 2009 and 31 August 2012, and an application for reimbursement of the sums already deducted and for the grant of damages.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Tribunal:

                  1.

                  Orders the European Commission to pay DF the sum of EUR 1 500 in compensation for non-material harm suffered by him;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  3.

                  Declares that the European Commission is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay one quarter of the costs incurred by DF;

                  4.

                  Declares that DF is to bear three quarters of his own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 367, 14/12/2013, p. 40.


title: Case C-412/04: Action brought on 24 September 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/27

         Action brought on 24 September 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
   (Case C-412/04)
   (2004/C 300/54)
   An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 September 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Klaus Wiedner and Giuseppe Bambara, acting as Agents.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by adopting Articles 2(1), 17(12), 27(2), 30(6a), 37b and 37c(1) of Law No 109 of 11 February 1994, as most recently amended by Article 7 of Law No 166 of 1 August 2002; Article 2(5) of Law No 109/94, as most recently amended by Law No 166/2002, to be read in conjunction with Law No 1150 of 1942 and Law No 10 of 1977, as amended and supplemented; Article 28(4) of Law No 109/94, to be read in conjunction with Article 188 of Presidential Decree No 554 of 21 December 1999 and Article 7 of Law No 166/2002, and Article 3(3) of Legislative Decree No 157 of 17 March 1995, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directives 93/37/EEC (1), 93/36/EEC (2), 92/50/EEC (3) and 93/38/EEC (4), Articles 43 and 49 EC and the principles of transparency and equal treatment to which they give expression;

               —

               Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The Commission notes that, by making those contracts in which the works component is prevalent from the economic point of view but is clearly ancillary to other services subject to the rules on public works contracts, Article 2(1) of Law No 109/94 and Article 3(3) of Legislative Decree No 157 of 17 March 1995 have the effect of removing numerous public service and supply contracts from the purview of the relevant Community legislation, specifically Directives 92/50/EEC and 93/36/EEC.
   Since the thresholds for the application of those directives are appreciably lower than those for the application of Directive 93/37/EEC, the effect of the provisions in question is to enable mixed service and works contracts, supply and works contracts or supply, works and service contracts to be awarded in breach of the procedures laid down by Directives 92/50/EEC and 93/36/EEC where the value exceeds the threshold for application of those directives but does not exceed that for public works contracts under Directive 93/37/EEC on the sole ground that, although ancillary, the works component is prevalent from the economic point of view. From that perspective, the provisions in question constitute an infringement of Directives 92/50/EEC and 93/36/EEC.

      Rules governing works carried out by private persons which are deductible from urbanisation taxes

   The Commission considers that, in so far as it excludes the duty to comply with the procedures laid down by Directive 93/37/EEC in cases of contracts between private persons and the State relating to a number of works, each of which falls below the threshold for the application of that directive, but whose aggregate value exceeds that threshold, Article 2(5) of Law No 109/94 infringes Directive 93/37/EEC, read in conjunction with Laws No 1150 of 1942 and No 10 of 1977, as subsequently amended and supplemented, which allows contracts for urbanisation works to be awarded directly to the holder of a building permission or development plan.

      Rules governing the award of contracts for the design and supervision of works the value of which is below the Community thresholds

   The Commission notes that Articles 17 and 30 of Law No 109/94, which permit the awarding authorities to award such contracts on the basis of trust without complying with any requirement concerning advertising, must be regarded as infringing the principle of transparency set out in Article 49 EC. Furthermore, reliance upon a procedure to ascertain the experience and capacity of suppliers is, in the absence of minimum advertising requirements intended to ensure a level playing field of competition between all persons potentially interested in supplying the services, insufficient in itself to ensure compliance with the principle of transparency.

      Rules governing the award of contracts for the supervision of works

   The Commission submits that, in so far as it allows the direct award, without any form of competition, of contracts for services for the supervision of works to the professional practitioner responsible for their design, Article 27(2) of Law No 109/94, having regard to the value of the services awarded and the rules applicable, infringes Directives 92/50/EEC and 93/38/EEC and Articles 43 and 49 EC.

      Rules governing the award of contracts for inspection services

   The Commission considers that the mechanism laid down by Article 28 of Law No 109/94, which permits the direct selection of inspectors by the awarding authorities otherwise than in accordance with their own rules, without provision either for the publication of a tender notice or other forms of direct advertising such as to enable all potential interested suppliers to compete for the award of contracts for inspection services, infringes Directives 92/50/EEC and 93/38/EEC and the principle of transparency as set out in Articles 43 and 49 EC, having regard to the value of those services and the rules applicable.

      Rules governing project finance

   Article 37a et seq. of Law No 109/94 govern so called ‘project finance’, which is intended to enable public works to be carried out on the basis of proposals submitted by persons independent of the State, referred to as ‘promoters’, by the award of a works concession.
   The Commission notes that those rules governing the competitive procedure for the award of the concession give the promoter two advantages over all other potential competitors. First, from the procedural point of view, the promoter is automatically invited to participate in the negotiated procedure for the award of the concession, without any comparison being made between his offer and that of other participants in the earlier tendering procedure. Therefore, even if in that tendering procedure there were more than two offers better than that submitted by the original promoter, the negotiated procedure will nevertheless proceed only as between the two best offers and the promoter. Second, from the substantive point of view, the provision enabling the promoter to amend his offer in the course of the negotiated procedure so as to match that found to be the most suitable by the awarding authority amounts in substance to the promoter being accorded a right of pre-emption for the award of the concession.
   The Commission submits that the grant of those advantages to the promoter and not to other potential concessionaires infringes the principle of equal treatment.

      (1)  OJ L 199 of 9. 8.1993, p. 54.

      (2)  OJ L 199 of 9. 8.1993, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ L 209 of 24. 7.1992, p. 1.

      (4)  OJ L 199 of 9. 8.1993, p. 84.


title: Case C-180/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 18 April 2011 — Bericap Záródástechnikai Bt. v Plastinnova 2000 Kft.

text:
               6.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 18 April 2011 — Bericap Záródástechnikai Bt. v Plastinnova 2000 Kft.
   (Case C-180/11)
   2011/C 232/20
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bericap Záródástechnikai Bt.

      Defendant: Plastinnova 2000 Kft.

      Intervener: Szellemi Tulajdon Nemzeti Hivatala (Hungarian Intellectual Property Office) (formerly Magyar Szabadalmi Hivatal (Hungarian Patent Office))

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is it consistent with European Union law if, during proceedings to amend a decision relating to an application for invalidation of a utility model, the measures, procedures and legal remedies are applied in such a way that: the national court is not bound by the claims or statements with legal effect made by the parties, and the court is entitled to order of its own motion any evidence that it may deem necessary?

               2.

               Is it consistent with European Union law if, during proceedings to amend a decision relating to an application for invalidation of a utility model, the measures, procedures and legal remedies are applied in such a way that: the national court, when making its decision, is not bound by the administrative decision made in relation to the application for invalidation, or by the findings established therein, nor, specifically, by the grounds for invalidation indicated during the administrative procedure, or by the declarations, assertions or evidence submitted during the administrative procedure?

               3.

               Is it consistent with European Union law if, during proceedings to amend a decision relating to a further application aimed at invalidating a utility model, the measures, procedures and legal remedies are applied in such a way that: the national court excludes any evidence submitted with the further application, including evidence relating to the state of the art, to which reference was already made in connection with the previous application for invalidation of a utility model?


title: Case F-57/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 21 October 2015 — AQ v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Regulation No 45/2001 — Processing of personal data acquired for private purposes — Administrative enquiry — Disciplinary procedure — Rights of the defence — Duty to state reasons — Disciplinary penalty — Proportionality)

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/78

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 21 October 2015 — AQ v Commission
   (Case F-57/14) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Officials - Regulation No 45/2001 - Processing of personal data acquired for private purposes - Administrative enquiry - Disciplinary procedure - Rights of the defence - Duty to state reasons - Disciplinary penalty - Proportionality))
   (2015/C 398/92)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: AQ (represented initially by: L. Massaux, lawyer, and subsequently by: H. Mignard, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Ehrbar, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application to annul the decision to impose a disciplinary penalty consisting of a reprimand following a disciplinary enquiry and application for damages

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders AQ to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 421, 24.11.2014, p. 60.


title: Case C-174/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 12 April 2012 — Alfred Hirmann v Immofinanz AG

text:
               14.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/2

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 12 April 2012 — Alfred Hirmann v Immofinanz AG
   (Case C-174/12)
   2012/C 209/03
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Handelsgericht Wien

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Alfred Hirmann

      Defendant: Immofinanz AG

      Intervener: Aviso Zeta AG

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is a national rule which provides for the liability of a public limited liability company, as issuer, towards a purchaser of shares for infringement of obligations relating to the provision of information laid down in legislation governing securities, in particular the following:

                           —

                           Articles 6 and 25 of Directive 2003/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003, as amended by Directive 2008/11/EC of 11 March 2008; (1)

                           —

                           Articles 7, 17 and 28 of Directive 2004/109/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2004; and

                           —

                           Article 14 of Directive 2003/6/EC (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003,

                     compatible with Articles 12, 15, 16, 19 and 42 of Directive 77/91/EEC (4) of the Council of [13 December 1976], as amended?

               2.

               Are the provisions of Articles 12, 15, 16 and in particular 18, 19 and 42 of Directive 77/91/EEC, as amended, to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which states that, as part of the liability referred to in Question 1, a public limited liability company must refund the purchase price to the purchaser and redeem the shares purchased?

               3.

               Are the provisions of Articles 12, 15, 16, 18, 19 and 42 of Directive 77/91/EEC of the Council, as amended, to be interpreted as meaning that the liability of a public limited liability company as referred to in Question 1

                           —

                           may also include the company’s net assets (subscribed capital plus reserves within the meaning of Article 15(1)(a) of the aforementioned directive), and

                           —

                           may arise even if it is capable of rendering the company insolvent?

               4.

               Are the provisions of Articles 12 and 13 of Directive 2009/101/EC (5) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides for the retroactive cancellation of a share acquisition in the sense that cancellation of the share purchase contract is to be regarded as producing ex nunc effects (see Case C-215/08 E. Friz GmbH v Carsten von der Heyden [2010] ECR I-02947)?

               5.

               Are the provisions of Articles 12, 15, 16, 18, 19 and 42 of Directive 77/91/EEC of the Council, as amended, and Articles 12 and 13 of Directive 2009/101/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council to be interpreted as meaning that liability is limited to the value of the shares — thus, in the case of a listed company, the price of those shares on the stock exchange — at the time when the claim is brought, with the result that the refund which the shareholder receives may be less than the price he originally paid for his shares?

      (1)  Directive 2008/11/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008 amending Directive 2003/71/EC on the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading, as regards the implementing powers conferred on the Commission (Text with EEA relevance), OJ 2008 L 76, p. 37.

      (2)  Directive 2004/109/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2004 on the harmonisation of transparency requirements in relation to information about issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market and amending Directive 2001/34/EC, OJ 2004 L 390, p. 38.

      (3)  Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse), OJ 2003 L 96, p. 16.

      (4)  Second Council Directive 77/91/EEC of 13 December 1976 on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, in respect of the formation of public limited liability companies and the maintenance and alteration of their capital, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent, OJ 1977 L 26, p. 1.

      (5)  Directive 2009/101/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and third parties, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 48 of the Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent (Text with EEA relevance), OJ 2009 L 258, p. 11.


title: Case T-258/04 RENV: Order of the President of the General Court of 6 December 2012 — Poland v Commission

text:
               2.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/26

         Order of the President of the General Court of 6 December 2012 — Poland v Commission
   (Case T-258/04 RENV) (1)

   2013/C 32/42
   Language of the case: Polish
   The President of General Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 251, 9.10.2004.


title: Case T-216/17: Action brought on 7 April 2017 — Mabrouk v Council

text:
               19.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/34

         Action brought on 7 April 2017 — Mabrouk v Council
   (Case T-216/17)
   (2017/C 195/47)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Mohamed Marouen Ben Ali Ben Mohamed Mabrouk (Tunis, Tunisia) (represented by: J-R. Farthouat, N. Boulay, lawyers, and S. Crosby, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/153 of 27 January 2017 amending Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2017 L 23, p. 19) insofar as it applies to the applicant; and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the freeze of the applicant’s assets infringes the reasonable time rule of Articles 6 and 47 of the ECHR and the EU fundamental Rights charter respectively.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that there is an insufficient basis for the freeze:

                           —

                           Contrary to the evidence presented by the applicant, the Council considers the applicant’s assets to be illegitimate, but fails to state reasons.

                           —

                           In holding the applicant’s assets to be illegitimate the Council makes an error of factual assessment, in so far as it has made any assessment;

                           —

                           The freeze is devoid of purpose, because it is designed to assist Tunisia to recover misappropriated assets. However, none of the applicant’s assets were misappropriated.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that, by freezing his assets after the fall of President Ben Ali, the freeze infringes the applicant’s right to work.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the freeze is in any event disproportionate and infringes the applicant’s property rights.


title: Case F-5/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 25 March 2015 — Necci v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Pensions — Transfer of pension rights acquired in a national pension scheme — Proposal to add years of pensionable service — Late claim — Failure to follow the pre-litigation procedure — Manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               26.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/36

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 25 March 2015 — Necci v Commission
   (Case F-5/15) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Officials - Pensions - Transfer of pension rights acquired in a national pension scheme - Proposal to add years of pensionable service - Late claim - Failure to follow the pre-litigation procedure - Manifestly inadmissible))
   (2015/C 171/44)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Claudio Necci (Auderghem, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for a declaration of the illegality of Article 9 of the general implementing provisions (GIPs) of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations and annulment of the decision relating to transfer of the applicant’s pension rights into the European Union pension scheme, a decision which applies the new GIPs relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Mr Necci shall bear his own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 96, 23.3.15, p. 26.


title: Case C-275/08: Action brought on 24 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/28

         Action brought on 24 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-275/08)
   (2008/C 223/44)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Wilms and D. Kukovec, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6, in conjunction with Article 9, of Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 (1), by reason of the fact that the Datenzentrale Baden-Württemberg (Central Data Office of Baden-Württemberg) awarded a public contract for the transfer and maintenance of a software application without implementing the award procedures including Europe-wide tendering;

               —

               order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The object of the present action is the conclusion of a contract for a software application designed for motor vehicle registration between the Datenzentrale Baden-Württemberg (Central Data Office of Baden-Württemberg) and the Anstalt für Kommunale Datenverarbeitung in Bayern (Institute for local-authority data-processing in Bavaria) (AKDB). The contested award decision was made by way of a negotiated procedure without a contract notice, in which negotiations took place exclusively with the AKDB.
   In the opinion of the Commission, the fact that the contract in Germany had already been the object of a review procedure within the meaning of Directive 89/665/EEC is not relevant for the declaration of a failure to fulfil an obligation under the Treaty. This is due to the fact that there are fundamental differences in nature between a review procedure before the national courts and Treaty-infringement proceedings under Article 226 EC, both with regard to the objective and to the parties and the course of the proceedings.
   The contested contract in the present case consists of a public supply contract within the meaning of Article 1(a) of Directive 93/36/EEC. According to the Commission's findings, the value of the contract amounts to approximately EUR 1 million, and thus considerably exceeds the threshold in the directive. The Central Data Office has legal personality under public law, and was established with the particular purpose to coordinate and promote electronic data-processing in public administration in the interests of the general public. It is, moreover, under the predominant control of the State of Baden-Württemberg, which appoints more than half the members of the administrative council. It is, therefore, a contracting authority within the meaning of Article 1(b) of Directive 93/36/EEC, which is obliged to comply with the procedures laid down therein when awarding public contracts within the scope of that directive. The fact that both the Central Data Office and the AKDB have legal personality under public law is not relevant for the purposes of the application of Directive 93/36/EEC.
   According to the Commission's findings, there are no apparent facts that could justify an open market award of the contract, such as in the form of a negotiated procedure without a prior contract notice. According to the case-law of the Court of Justice, the negotiated procedure is exceptional in nature, and may be applied only in ‘cases which are set out in an exhaustive list’. The burden of proof with respect to the exceptional circumstances lies with the Member State wishing to rely on them. As, however, the defendant in the present case has not satisfied this burden of proof, the Commission was forced to conclude that, by concluding the contested contract without implementing the award procedures including Europe-wide tendering, the Federal Republic of Germany had breached Article 6, in conjunction with Article 9, of Directive 93/36/EEC coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts.

      (1)  OJ 1993 L 199, p. 1.


title: Case T-160/10: Action brought on 19 April 2011 — J v Parliament

text:
               13.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/18

         Action brought on 19 April 2011 — J v Parliament
   (Case T-160/10)
   2011/C 238/31
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: J (Marchtrenk, Austria) (represented by: A. Auer, Rechtsanwalt)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Petitions Committee of the European Parliament of 2 March 2010, whereby the applicant’s Petition No 1673/2009 of 19 November 2009 was dismissed;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Petitions Committee of the European Parliament of 2 March 2010, whereby his petition concerning the alleged confiscation of various documents and works by Austrian officials was dismissed.
   In support of his action, the applicant claims that his right to the admission of his petition has been infringed. The confiscation of the works by the Austrian authorities constituted an infringement of the right to property under Article 6(1) TFEU and Articles 17(1) and 51(1) of the The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.


title: Case F-47/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 25 January 2016 — Darchy v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Family allowances — Dependent child allowance — Children of the applicant’s spouse — Payment with retroactive effect)

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/62

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 25 January 2016 — Darchy v Commission
   (Case F-47/15) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Officials - Family allowances - Dependent child allowance - Children of the applicant’s spouse - Payment with retroactive effect))
   (2016/C 098/80)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Marie-Pierre Darchy (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T.S. Bohr and A.-C. Simon, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the decision not to uphold the application for the retroactive grant of the dependent child allowance in respect of the two children of the applicant’s spouse, who live at her home every second week, with effect from the date of their marriage and payment of compensation.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ms Darchy to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 190, 8.6.2015, p. 35.


title: Case T-310/00: Action brought on 27 September 2000 by WorldCom Inc. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
9.12.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 355/35
—     infringement of Article 24(2) of Regulation (EEC)                   Action brought on 27 September 2000 by WorldCom Inc.
      No 4235/88 of 19 December 1988 laying down pro-                     against the Commission of the European Communities
      visions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88
      as regards coordination of the activities of the different
      Structural Funds between themselves and with the oper-                                      (Case T-310/00)
      ations of the European Investment Bank and the other
      existing financial instruments (1). It claims in this respect                               (2000/C 355/75)
      that the irregularities discovered have not affected the
      functioning of the project or the conditions for action,
      that the project has been fully implemented and no
      objection has been made by the Commission in that                                      (Language of the case: English)
      connection and that the defendant has withdrawn the
      aid, when it has the power only to suspend or reduce aid;           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
—     breach of the principle of proportionality.                         European Communities on 27 September 2000 by WorldCom
                                                                          Inc., Mississippi (USA), represented by K.P.E. Lasok QC, Brian
                                                                          Hartnett and Jean-Yves Art of Squire Sanders & Dempsey,
(1) OJ L 374 of 31. 12. 1988, p. 1.                                       Brussels.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —     annul Article 1 of the Commission Decision C(2000)
                                                                                1693 final of 28 June 2000 in Case No COMP/M.1741
                                                                                — MCI WorldCom/Sprint; and
Action brought on 21 September 2000 by Società Italia
Soc. Coop. a.r.l. against Commission of the European                      —     order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.
                          Communities
                         (Case T-306/00)                                  Pleas in law and main arguments
                         (2000/C 355/74)                                  By Article 1 of the contested decision, the Commission
                                                                          declared incompatible with the common market and the
                                                                          functioning of the EEA agreement a proposed concentration
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                        between WorldCom and Sprint Corporation.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 The applicant seeks the annulment of the contested decision
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                on the following grounds:
European Communities on 21 September 2000 by Società
Italia Soc. Coop. a.r.l., established at S. Lazzaro di Savena,
represented by Maria Averani, Andrea Pisaneschi and Stefano               —     The proposed concentration fell outside the scope of the
Zunarelli, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg                   merger regulation, because the merger thresholds were
at the Chambers of Charles Turk, 13b Avenue Guillaume.                          not satisfied when the contested decision was adopted;
                                                                          —     The Commission lacked competence to adopt the contest-
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                ed decision because, prior to its adoption, the parties had
                                                                                withdrawn their notification and their proposed remedies;
—     annul, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 230
      EC, the Commission’s decision of 11 July 2000 (C (2000)
      1752);                                                              —     The Commission erred in defining the relevant service
                                                                                market;
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                          —     The Commission erred in finding that the proposed
                                                                                concentration would create a dominant position;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          —     The Commission committed a series of procedural errors
                                                                                in the course of its investigation of the notified concen-
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put
                                                                                tration.
forward in Case C-305/00 Conserve Italia v Commission.


title: Case T-392/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2006 — Gagliardi v OHIM — Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb (MANŪ MANU MANU) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative trade mark MANŪ MANU MANU — Earlier national word mark MANOU — Refusal to register — Scope and correction of the decision of the Board of Appeal — Restriction of the application for registration — Partial withdrawal of the opposition — Legal interest in bringing opposition proceedings — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Scope of the proof of use — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/37

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2006 — Gagliardi v OHIM — Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb (MANŪ MANU MANU)
   (Case T-392/04) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative trade mark MANŪ MANU MANU - Earlier national word mark MANOU - Refusal to register - Scope and correction of the decision of the Board of Appeal - Restriction of the application for registration - Partial withdrawal of the opposition - Legal interest in bringing opposition proceedings - Proof of use of the earlier mark - Scope of the proof of use - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2006/C 331/81)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Salvatore Gagliardi (Monsummano Terme, Italy) (represented by: A. Schmitt, P. Biavati, S. Corona, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the Court of First Instance: Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb GmbH & Co. KG (Nuremburg, Germany) (represented by: S. Rojahn, lawyer)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 June 2004 (Case R 154/2002-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb GmbH & Co. KG and Salvatore Gagliardi.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 15 June 2004 (Case R 154/2002-4) in so far as it refuses the application for registration of the mark MANŪ MANU MANU, first, for ‘footwear’ and ‘headgear’ in Class 25 and second, for goods in Classes 18 and 24;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and a third of those incurred by the applicant;

               4.

               Orders the applicant, Salvatore Gagliardi, to bear two thirds of its own costs;

               5.

               Orders the intervener, Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb GmbH & Co. KG, to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 284, 20.11.2004.


title: Case T-238/01: Action brought on 28 September 2001 by the Centre Européen pour la statistique et le développement A.s.b.l. (CESD — Communautaire, Asbl) against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
24.11.2001             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 331/33
Action brought on 21 September 2001 by Georgios                          Action brought on 28 September 2001 by the Centre
          Karavelis against the European Parliament                      Européen pour la statistique et le développement A.s.b.l.
                                                                         (CESD — Communautaire, Asbl) against the Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities
                         (Case T-235/01)
                                                                                (Case T-238/01)
                         (2001/C 331/54)
                                                                                (2001/C 331/55)
                    (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
21 September 2001 by Georgios Karavelis, an official of the              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
European Parliament, resident in Brussels, represented by                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
K. Tagaras.                                                              European Communities on 28 September 2001 by the Centre
                                                                         Européen pour la statistique et le développement Asbl (CESD
                                                                         — Communautaire, Asbl) established in Luxembourg, rep-
                                                                         resented by Dominique Grisay and Barbara Koops, lawyers,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              with an address for service in Luxembourg.
—     allow the application in its entirety and in respect of all
      the forms of order sought,                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the notification concerning the filling of vacancy           —     appoint a legal expert,
      No 9186 and the implied rejection by the defendant of
      the applicant’s administrative complaint of 11 May 2001,
                                                                         —     state, on the basis of the legal expert’s report, which
                                                                               expenses incurred by the applicant should be considered
—     order the defendant to bear the entire legal costs of both               ineligible, and accordingly what amount, if any, should
      parties irrespective of the outcome of the case.                         be repaid to the Commission by the applicant,
                                                                         —     alternatively, authorise the applicant to determine, on the
                                                                               basis of the audit carried out by its auditor, which
                                                                               amounts could properly be considered as ineligible by
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                the Commission’s internal audit services and, after hearing
                                                                               the parties, to revise the debit note sent by the Com-
                                                                               mission’s services on 16 August 2001, determining which
                                                                               ineligible amounts should be repaid to the Commission
The applicant, an official of the European Parliament promoted
                                                                               by the applicant,
to Grade A 4 from 1 January 2000, challenges the decisions
by which the defendant rejected his candidature for vacancy
No 9186 (the post of director of the Information Office in               —     order the Commission to pay the costs, including the
Athens, at Grade A 3) on the ground that, at the time of                       costs of the expert’s report.
submission of his candidature, he had not completed the
required two years’ service at the Grade of A 4. The applicant
submits that, since an application by him contesting the
decision not to promote him to Grade A 4 during the 1998
promotion procedure was pending before the Court of First
Instance, which, by judgment of 8 May 2001, found in his                 Pleas in law and main arguments
favour and annulled the relevant decision by the defendant,
the latter was obliged to demonstrate reasonable care and
extend the period for submission of candidatures and thus
take account of his candidature.                                         The applicant is a non-profit-making organisation the object
                                                                         of which is to implement technical cooperation projects in the
                                                                         field of statistics for the benefit of third countries. To that end,
                                                                         the applicant receives subsidies on the basis of an agreement
                                                                         concluded with the Commission.
 ---pagebreak--- C 331/34             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   24.11.2001
During an audit of the subsidies granted to the applicant, the          Pleas in law and main arguments
Eurostat internal audit unit found that subsidies had been paid
but not used and some expenditure that was not eligible. The            In support of his action, the applicant invokes an infringement
Commission subsequently decided to take steps to recover the            of the terms of the vacancy notice, an error in the assessment
amount in question.                                                     of those terms, and infringement of the principle of the
                                                                        protection of legitimate expectations. The applicant further
The applicant claims that the audit carried out by the                  pleads infringement of the principle of equal treatment as
Commission does not correctly evaluate certain information              between internal candidates and candidates external to the
and data and does not apply the principles in force concerning          institution inasmuch as the internal candidates had the benefit
internal Commission audits. The applicant also alleges that the         of being known by the appointing authority.
audit was one-sided and carried out by a service dependent on
one of the Contracting Parties. The applicant finally submits
that not all of the documents available were taken into
consideration in the audit.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-53/01 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 331/57)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
Action brought on 2 October 2001 by Jean-Louis Cou-
gnon against the Court of Justice of the European Com-
                            munities                                    By order of 11 September 2001, the President of the Fifth
                                                                        Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                        (Case T-240/01)                                 Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
                                                                        Case T-53/01, Poste Italiane SpA v Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities.
                       (2001/C 331/56)
                                                                        (1) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.
                  (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Court of Justice of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 2 October 2001 by Jean-                          Removal from the register of Case T-98/01 (1)
Louis Cougnon, residing in Capellen, Luxembourg, represented
by Joëlle Choucron, avocat, with an address for service in                                      (2001/C 331/58)
Luxembourg.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—    annul the procedure for filling the post of Director of            By order of 30 July 2001, the President of the Fifth Chamber
     Personnel and Finances — career bracket A 2 — referred             of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
     to in Vacancy Notice CJ 78/00 received and published on            has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-98/01,
     17 October 2000,                                                   Filippos Pierros v Commission of the European Communities.
—    order the defendant to pay the costs.                              (1) OJ C 186 of 30.6.2001.


title: Case T-25/09: Order of the Court of First Instance of 24 September 2009 — Johnson & Johnson v OHIM — Simca (YourCare)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/62

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 24 September 2009 — Johnson & Johnson v OHIM — Simca (YourCare)
   (Case T-25/09) (1)

   2009/C 282/117

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 69, 21.3.2009.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT of 9 December 1997 in Case C-257/97: E-Quattro Snc v. Commission of the European Communities (Lack of jurisdiction of the Court - Referral to the Court of First Instance)

text:
C 209/12              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       4.7.98
                  ORDER OF THE COURT                                 in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8-10
                     of 4 December 1997                              Rue Mathias Hardt, against the Commission of the
                                                                     European Communities (Agents: JoseÂ Luis Iglesias
in Case C-60/97 P: X v. Commission of the European                   Buhigues and Barry Doherty, assisted by Alberto Dal
                        Communities (1)                              Ferro, Avvocato) Ð application under Article 153 of the
                                                                     Euratom Treaty for compensation for damage caused by
             (Officials Ð Promotion Ð Appeal)
                                                                     failure to pay for services provided under a contract
                         (98/C 209/23)                               concluded with the Commission Ð the Court, composed
                                                                     of G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann,
                                                                     H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen (Presidents of
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
                                                                     P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward
                                                                     (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann, L. Sevón
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                     and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; Advocate General, A. M. La
         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     Pergola; Registrar, R. Grass, made an order on 9 December
                                                                     1997, the operative part of which is as follows:
In Case C-60/97 P: X, an official of the Commission of
the European Communities, residing at Luxembourg,                    1. The case is referred to the Court of First Instance.
represented by Carlo Revoldini, of the Luxembourg Bar,
180 Route de Longwy, Luxembourg Ð appeal against the
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European              2. The Court of First Instance shall make an order as to
Communities, Third Chamber, of 12 December 1996 in                        costs relating to the proceedings before both courts.
Case T-130/95 X v. Commission [1996] ECR-SC II-1609,
seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party to          (1) OJ C 271 of 6.9.1997.
the proceedings being Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: Christine Berardis-Kayser, assisted
by Alberto Dal Ferro) Ð the Court (First Chamber),
composed of M. Wathelet (President of Chamber), P. Jann
(Rapporteur), and L. Sevón, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo
Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an
order on 4 December 1997, the operative part of which is                                ORDER OF THE COURT
as follows:                                                                                (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                of 25 March 1998
1. The appeal is dismissed.
                                                                     in Case C-174/97 P: FeÂdeÂration FrancËaise des SocieÂteÂs
                                                                     d'Assurances (FFSA) and Others v. Commission of the
2. The appellant is ordered to pay the costs.                        European Communities, supported by the French Republic
                                                                                and La Poste (1)
(1) OJ C 108 of 5.4.1997.                                            (State aid Ð Appeal Ð Fiscal advantages in favour of La
                                                                                Poste Ð Insurance products)
                                                                                (98/C 209/25)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                  ORDER OF THE COURT
                     of 9 December 1997                                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
in Case C-257/97: E-Quattro Snc v. Commission of the                           published in the European Court Reports)
                  European Communities (1)
(Lack of jurisdiction of the Court Ð Referral to the Court           In Case C-174/97 P: FeÂdeÂration FrancËaise des SocieÂteÂs
                       of First Instance)                            d'Assurances (FFSA), an association governed by French
                                                                     law, established in Paris, Union des SocieÂteÂs EÂtrangeÁres
                         (98/C 209/24)                               d'Assurances (USEA), an association governed by French
                                                                     law, established in Paris, Groupe des Assurances Mutuelles
                (Language of the case: Italian)                      Agricoles (Groupama), an association governed by French
                                                                     law, established in Noisy-le-Grand (France), FeÂdeÂration
                                                                     Nationale des Syndicats d'Agents GeÂneÂraux d'Assurances
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       (FNSAGA), an association governed by French law,
         published in the European Court Reports)                    established in Paris, FeÂdeÂration FrancËaise des Courtiers
                                                                     d'Assurances et de ReÂassurances (FCA), an association
                                                                     governed by French law, established in Paris, Bureau
In Case C-257/97: E-Quattro Snc, established in Laveno-              International des Producteurs d'Assurances et de
Mombello (Varese, Italy), represented by Giuseppe                    ReÂassurances (BIPAR), an association governed by French
Marchesini, of the Vicenza Bar, with an address for service          law, established in Paris, represented by Xavier de Roux


title: Case C-432/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Namur (Belgium) lodged on 22 August 2011 — Cartiaux Service Plus SA v Belgian State

text:
               14.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/2

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Namur (Belgium) lodged on 22 August 2011 — Cartiaux Service Plus SA v Belgian State
   (Case C-432/11)
   2012/C 13/04
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de première instance de Namur

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Cartiaux Service Plus SA

      Defendant: Belgian State
   By order of 9 November 2011, the President of the Court ordered that the case be removed from the Register.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura Circondariale di Udine, Sezione Distaccata di Cividale del Friuli, by order of that court of 16 July 1998 in criminal proceedings against Giancarlo Fornasar and others (Case C-318/98)

text:
C 327/10              EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                     24.10.98
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   waste in the production area which, under the
                                                                      national legislation in force, may extend for one year,
                                                                      constitute temporary storage under the Community
By virtue of Article 189 of the EC Treaty, pursuant                   directives?
to which a directive is binding, as to the result to be
achieved, upon each Member State to which it is
addressed, the Member States are under an obligation to           (1) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 32.
comply with time-limits for transposition laid down
directives. In the case of the abovementioned directive, the
prescribed period expired on 30 June 1996 without the
Italian Republic having adopted the provisions needed to
comply with it.
(1) OJ L 157, 7.7.1995, p. 1.
                                                                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
                                                                  Circondariale di Udine, Sezione Distaccata di Cividale del
                                                                  Friuli, by order of that court of 16 July 1998 in criminal
                                                                       proceedings against Giancarlo Fornasar and others
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura                                       (Case C-318/98)
Circondariale, Udine (Sezione distaccata di Cividale del
Friuli), by order of that court of 21 July 1998 in the                                     (98/C 327/15)
criminal proceedings pending before it against Claudio
                Chiarotti and Antonio Chillemi
                       (Case C-317/98)
                        (98/C 327/14)                             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
                                                                  the European Communities by order of the Pretura
                                                                  Circondariale di Udine, Sezione Distaccata di Cividale
                                                                  del Friuli (Udine District Magistrate's Court, Separate
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                  Chamber for Cividale del Friuli) of 16 July 1998,
European Communities by an order of the Pretura
                                                                  received at the Court Registry on 18 August 1998, for
Circondariale (District Magistrates Court), Udine, by
                                                                  a preliminary ruling in criminal proceedings against
order of that court of 21 July 1998, which was received at
                                                                  Giancarlo Fornasar and others on the following questions:
the Court Registry on 18 August 1998, for a preliminary
ruling in the criminal proceedings pending before it
against Claudio Chiarotti and Antonio Chillemi on the
following questions:
                                                                  Ð For the purposes of classifying waste as hazardous
                                                                      within the meaning of Article 1(4) of Council
Ð What is the difference (if any) between temporary                   Directive 91/689/EEC (1) and Council Decision 904/94/
     storage and storage of waste pending further                     EC (2), is it necessary in each particular case to identify
     operations (or storage of materials) within the                  the origin of the waste, referred to for purposes of
     producer's premises, and what are the criteria for               classification by the list of hazardous waste adopted in
     determining in a given case which of those forms of              that decision, or is it sufficient for such purposes that,
     storage is involved?                                             by reason of its composition, the substance can only
                                                                      be used in theory in a given production process, or is
                                                                      derived as a final product from that process?
Ð Is temporary storage excluded from waste
     management' in the sense contemplated in Article 1(d)
     of Council Directive 91/156/EEC (1) and from all the
     obligations in relation thereto, including the
     notification of temporary storage to the supervisory         Ð Is the list adopted by Council Decision 904/94
     authorities?                                                     exhaustive, so that waste which is not referred to
                                                                      in the list, but which nevertheless displays the
                                                                      characteristics referred to in Annexes I, II and III to
Ð Is temporary storage subject to supervision and, if                 Directive 91/689/EEC, is excluded?
     so, to what type of measures; in that regard do
     the principles contained in the first and second
     subparagraphs of Article 4 of Directive 91/156/EEC
     apply and to what extent?
                                                                  Ð If the Court finds that the list of hazardous waste is
                                                                      not exhaustive, must automatic addition of hazardous
Ð Does the offence with which the defendants are                      waste to the list be deemed to operate on the basis of
     charged, namely the storage of 2 985 kg of dangerous             Annexes I, II and III to Directive 91/689/EEC?
 ---pagebreak--- 24.10.98              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 327/11
Ð For the purposes of Article 1(4), second indent, of                Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes-
     Directive 91/689/EEC, what procedure must an                    vergabeamt by order of that tribunal of 23 April 1998
     individual Member State follow in classifying as                in the case of Telaustria Verlags Gesellschaft m.b.H. and
     hazardous waste other than that on the list adopted by          Telefonadress GmbH v Post & Telekom Austria AG, third
     Council Decision 904/94/EC which exhibits one of the                           party: Herold Business Data AG
     characteristics set out in Annex III to the directive?
     What body is competent to make the assessment and                                      (Case C-324/98)
     subsequently notify the Commission?                                                     (98/C 327/17)
Ð Can the judicial authorities of an individual Member
     State also be required to notify the Commission?                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                     European Communities by an order of the Eighth Senate
                                                                     of the Bundesvergabeamt (Federal Procurement Office) of
                                                                     23 April 1998, which was received at the Court Registry
Ð Under Community legislation, is diphenylmethane                    on 26 August 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
     diisocyanate (MDI) to be classified as hazardous waste          Telaustria Verlags Gesellschaft m.b.H. and Telefonadress
     or not?                                                         GmbH v Post & Telekom Austria AG, third party: Herold
                                                                     Business Data AG, on the following questions:
(1) OJ L 377, 31.12.1991, p. 20.
(2) OJ L 356, 31.12.1994, p. 14.
                                                                     Principal question:
                                                                     1. Can it be inferred from the legislative history of
                                                                          Directive 92/50/EEC (1), in particular the proposal of
                                                                          the Commission (COM (90) 372 final, OJ C 23,
                                                                          31.1.1991, p. 1), or from the definition of the term
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Civile                public service contract' in Article 1(a) of Directive 92/
e Penale di Verona by order of 19 August 1998 in the case                 50/EEC, that certain categories of contracts concluded
of Idropi SpA against MTMD-Lydis Megatherm Magneta                        by contracting authorities subject to that directive with
                              SA                                          undertakings which provide services are to be
                       (Case C-323/98)                                    excluded a priori from the scope of the directive,
                                                                          solely on the basis of certain common characteristics
                         (98/C 327/16)                                    as specified in that proposal of the Commission,
                                                                          without the need to rely on Article 1(a)(i) to (viii) or
                                                                          Articles 4 to 6 of Directive 92/50/EEC?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunale Civile e              If the principal question is answered in the affirmative:
Penale di Verona (Civil and Criminal District Court,
Verona) of 19 August 1998, received at the Court Registry
on 25 August 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Idropi SpA against MTMD-Lydis Megatherm Magneta SA                   2. Do such categories of contracts also exist, having
on the following question:                                                regard in particular to the 24th recital in the preamble
                                                                          to Council Directive 93/38/EEC (2), within the scope of
                                                                          Directive 93/38/EEC?
Is the rule of national law contained in the last paragraph
of Article 633 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by virtue of
which an Italian creditor seeking to enforce a claim                 If the second question is answered in the affirmative:
against a foreign debtor is denied protection under the
summary order procedure provided for by Article 633 et
seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure, where the order has
to be served abroad, incompatible with and precluded by              3. May those categories of contracts excluded from the
application of the principles of freedom of movement of                   scope of Directive 93/38/EEC be adequately described,
goods and capital and freedom to provide services                         by analogy with Commission proposal COM (90) 372,
enshrined in Articles 34, 59 and 73b of the Treaty of                     as having as their essential feature that a contracting
Rome?'                                                                    entity which falls within the scope ratione personae of
                                                                          Directive 93/38/EEC cedes a service for which it is
                                                                          responsible to an undertaking of its choice in return
                                                                          for the right to operate the service concerned for
                                                                          financial gain?


title: Case C-103/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 4 March 2014  — Bronius Jakutis and Kretingalės kooperatinė ŽŪB v Nacionalinė mokėjimo agentūra prie Žemės ūkio ministerijos and Lietuvos valstybė

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/26

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 4 March 2014 — Bronius Jakutis and Kretingalės kooperatinė ŽŪB v Nacionalinė mokėjimo agentūra prie Žemės ūkio ministerijos and Lietuvos valstybė
   (Case C-103/14)
   2014/C 142/34
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Bronius Jakutis, Kretingalės kooperatinė ŽŪB

      Defendants: Nacionalinė mokėjimo agentūra prie Žemės ūkio ministerijos, Lietuvos valstybė

      Third parties: Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybė, Lietuvos Respublikos žemės ūkio ministerija

      Questions referred

               1.

               Regarding appraisal, under Article 10(1) of Regulation No 73/2009, (1) applied in conjunction with Articles 7 and 121, of the level of direct payments in the old and new EU Member States:

                           a.

                           Must Article 7(1) of Regulation No 73/2009, applied in conjunction with Article 10(1) and Article 121, be interpreted as meaning that in 2012 the level of direct payments of the old EU Member States that are in excess of EUR 5 000 is 90%?

                           b.

                           If the first question is answered in the affirmative, does that mean that in 2012 the level of direct payments in the new and old EU Member States has not equalised, on the basis of the content and objectives of Article 10(1) and Article 121 of Regulation No 73/2009?

                           c.

                           Are the end of Article 10(1) of Regulation No 73/2009 (‘… taking into account any reductions applied under Article 7(1)’) and Commission working document DS/2011/14/REV 2, in which for the purposes of comparison a different basis for direct payments is laid down — in the new EU Member States the level of direct payments is appraised without modulation having been applied (90% in accordance with Article 121), whilst in the old EU Member States modulation has been applied (100% minus 10% in accordance with Article 7(1)) — contrary to the Act of Accession and to principles of EU law, inter alia the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations, of sound administration, of fair competition and of non-discrimination, as well as to the objectives of the common agricultural policy, which are laid down in Article 39 TFEU?

               2.

               Regarding the incompatibility of Article 10(1) and the end of the final subparagraph of Article 132(2) of Regulation No 73/2009, and the measures of EU law adopted on their basis, with the Act of Accession and European Union principles:

                           a.

                           Are the end of Article 10(1) of Regulation No 73/2009 (‘… taking into account any reductions applied under Article 7(1)’) and the end of the final subparagraph of Article 132(2) (‘… taking into account, from 2012, the application of Article 7 in conjunction with Article 10’), as well as Commission working document DS/2011/14/REV 2 and Commission Implementing Decision C(2012) 4391 final which were adopted on their basis, contrary to the Act of Accession, which does not prescribe the modulation of direct payments and the reduction of complementary national direct payments in the new EU Member States and/or the year in which equalisation of direct payments in the new and old EU Member States is presumed?

                           b.

                           Are Article 10(1) and the final subparagraph of Article 132(2) of Regulation No 73/2009, as well as Commission working document DS/2011/14/REV 2 and Commission Implementing Decision C(2012) 4391 final, inasmuch as, in accordance with their content and objectives, the modulation of direct payments and the reduction of complementary national direct payments are applied in 2012 in the new EU Member States, which receive considerably less support than the old EU Member States, contrary to principles of EU law, inter alia the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations, of fair competition and of non-discrimination, and to the objectives of the common agricultural policy, which are laid down in Article 39 TFEU, in particular the objective of increasing agricultural productivity?

                           c.

                           Does the amendment of the final subparagraph of Article 132(2) of Regulation No 73/2009 (‘taking into account, from 2012, the application of Article 7 in conjunction with Article 10’), which was carried out under the corrigendum procedure (OJ 2010 L 43, p. 7) (an amendment by which an alteration of a nontechnical nature was made, and the content of the provision was fundamentally amended as it was laid down that equalisation of direct payments in the new and old EU Member States was presumed in 2012), infringe principles of EU law, inter alia the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations, of legal certainty, of sound administration and of non-discrimination?

                           d.

                           Does the word ‘dydis’ [‘level’] used in Article 1c set out in point 27(b) of Chapter 6.A (‘Agriculture’) of Annex II to the Act of Accession have the same meaning as the word ‘lygis’ [‘level’] in the final subparagraph of Article 132(2) of Regulation No 73/2009?

               3.

               Are the Commission implementing decision and Commission working document DS/2011/14/REV 2, which were not published in the Official Journal of the European Union and do not state adequate reasons (they were adopted in reliance solely upon the presumption that in 2012 the level of direct payments in the new and old EU Member States equalised), contrary to the Act of Accession and in breach of principles of EU law, inter alia the principles of legal certainty, of the protection of legitimate expectations and of sound administration? If so, must Article 1(4) of the Commission implementing decision be annulled as contrary to Regulation No 73/2009 and the Act of Accession?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16).


title: Case T-203/17: Action brought on 3 April 2017 — GY v Commission

text:
               19.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/32

         Action brought on 3 April 2017 — GY v Commission
   (Case T-203/17)
   (2017/C 195/45)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: GY (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   Declare and rule that

               —

               The decision of the selection board for competition EPSO/AD/293/14 of 23 December 2016 not to admit the applicant to the assessment centre is annulled;

               —

               The European Commission is ordered to pay a sum assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 5 000 in respect of the non-pecuniary harm suffered;

               —

               The European Commission is, in any event, ordered to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement by the selection board of the obligation to state reasons insofar as it did not disclose to the applicant the marking criteria which it adopted in execution of the judgment of 20 July 2016, GY v Commission, F-123/15, EU:F:2016:160.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement by the selection board of the competition notice insofar as it arbitrarily restricted its assessment of the applicant’s professional experience by, in connection with three questions, looking only at the duration of that experience.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging numerous manifest errors of assessment committed by the selection board of the competition, which render its decision to grant the applicant only 17 points out of 56 (the threshold being 22 points) unlawful.