title: Case C-571/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland (Netherlands) lodged on 10 December 2014 — Timberland Europe BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst, kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond

text:
               2.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/13

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland (Netherlands) lodged on 10 December 2014 — Timberland Europe BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst, kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond
      (Case C-571/14)
      (2015/C 073/19)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Rechtbank Noord-Holland

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Timberland Europe BV

         Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst, kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Is Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 (1) invalid in so far as it relates to [C], established in Vietnam, and [F], established in the People’s Republic of China, because Articles 2(7)(b) and 9(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (2) (‘the basic Regulation’) were infringed, given that the Commission did not examine the market economy treatment and individual treatment claims submitted by the aforementioned exporting producers?

                  2.

                  Is Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 invalid in so far as it relates to the producers referred to in question 1 because Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation was infringed, given that the Commission did not make a determination within three months of the initiation of the investigation?

                  3.

                  Is Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 invalid in so far as it relates to [A], part of [B], established in Vietnam, and [D], part of [E], established in the People’s Republic of China, because Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation was infringed, given that the Commission did not make a determination within three months of the initiation of the investigation?

         (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 of 5 October 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam (OJ 2006 L 275, p. 1).

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


title: Case C-546/08: Action brought on 9 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/22

         Action brought on 9 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-546/08)
   (2009/C 32/39)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Dejmek and M. Sundén, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 (1) on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing or, in any event, by failing to notify the Commission thereof, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for implementation of the Directive expired on 15 December 2007.

      (1)  OJ L 309, p. 15.


title: Case T-482/14: Action brought on 26 June 2014  — Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria v Commission

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/51

         Action brought on 26 June 2014 — Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria v Commission
   (Case T-482/14)
   2014/C 261/80
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to that decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid;

               —

               annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.


title: Case T-457/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 24 March 2009 — Intel v Commission

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/44

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 24 March 2009 — Intel v Commission
   (Case T-457/08) (1)

   2009/C 113/92

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 301, 22.11.2008.


title: Case C-530/16: Action brought on 18 October 2016 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               16.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 14/24

         Action brought on 18 October 2016 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-530/16)
   (2017/C 014/30)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls and J. Hottiaux, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland

      Form of order sought

   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that:

                           —

                           by failing to adopt the measures necessary to ensure that the safety authority is independent of railway undertakings, rail infrastructure operators, applicants and procurement entities, and

                           —

                           by failing to adopt the measures necessary to ensure that the investigating body is independent of railway undertakings and rail infrastructure operators, (1)

                     the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 16(1) and 21(1) of Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on safety on the Community’s railways and amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings and Directive 2001/14/EC on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification;

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission criticises the Republic of Poland on the ground that it has failed correctly to transpose within the Polish legal system the principle that the investigating body (that is to say, the Państwowa Komisja Badania Wypadków Kolejowych (National Commission for the investigation of railway accidents) (PKBWK)) must be independent in its organisation, legal structure and decision-making, as required by Article 21(1) of Directive 2004/49/EC. The status conferred on the PKBWK does not guarantee its independence. The Commission criticises the fact that the PKBWK is an integral part of the ministry of transport and that there is no safeguard whatsoever to ensure that it is independent of the ministry and the rail infrastructure operator. Furthermore, the PKBWK does not act in its own name: the minister for transport appoints and dismisses the director of the PKBWK and his deputy, as well as the secretary and the permanent and ad hoc members of the PKBWK. In addition, the minister for transport has not, by way of an appropriate arrangement, made available to the PKBWK the financial means necessary to enable it to carry out its tasks.
   The Commission also criticises the Republic of Poland for failing correctly to implement Article 16(1) of Directive 2004/49/EC on the ground that the safety authority (that is to say, the Prezes Urzędu Transportu Kolejowego (board of the rail authority) is not independent in its organisation, legal structure and decision-making vis-à-vis railway undertakings, rail infrastructure operators, applicants and procurement entities.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 164, p. 44.


               25.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/19

         Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Oslo tingrett dated 26 March 2010 in the case of Periscopus AS v Oslo Børs ASA and Erik Must AS
   (Case E-1/10)
   2010/C 320/08
   A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 26 March 2010 from Oslo tingrett (Oslo District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 31 March 2010, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Periscopus AS v Oslo Børs ASA and Erik Must AS, on the following question:
   Is it in accordance with Article 5(4) second subparagraph of Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council to order an offeror making a public bid to offer a bid price that exceeds the price that the offeror paid or agreed to during the six-month period preceding the time when the obligation to make an offer arose, considering that the market price at the time at which the obligation to make a bid arose is higher than the price that the offeror would otherwise be obliged to offer pursuant to the (Norwegian) Securities Trading Act?


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 October 2003 in Case T-174/02: Micole Wieme v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Vacancy notice — Assessment of the candidates' merits — Manifest error of assessment — Abuse of power)

text:
C 304/26               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                       13.12.2003
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 14 October 2003
                     of 23 September 2003
                                                                           in Case T-174/02: Micole Wieme v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
in Case T-308/01: Henkel KGaA v Office for Harmonis-
ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                     (Officials — Vacancy notice — Assessment of the candi-
                            (OHIM) (1)                                     dates’ merits — Manifest error of assessment — Abuse of
                                                                                power)
                                                                                (2003/C 304/47)
(Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 and
Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Opposition procedure —
Genuine use of earlier mark — Scope of the examination                                         (Language of the case: French)
conducted by the Board of Appeal — Assessment of the
evidence produced in the procedure before the Opposition
                             Division)                                     In Case T-174/02: Micole Wieme, an official of the Com-
                                                                           mission of the European Communities, represented by É. Boi-
                                                                           gelot, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
                         (2003/C 304/46)                                   against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                                                                           J. Currall, H. Tserepa-Lacombe and D. Waelbroeck) — appli-
                                                                           cation for annulment of the Commission Decision of 13 July
                                                                           2001 rejecting the applicant’s application for the post of head
                   (Language of the case: English)                         of unit ‘Legal affairs and control of enforcement of Community
                                                                           provisions’ of the ‘General Matters’ Directorate of the Taxation
                                                                           and Customs Union Directorate General — the Court of First
                                                                           Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. García-Valdecasas,
                                                                           President, P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio González,
                                                                           Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
In Case T-308/01, Henkel KGaA, established in Düsseldorf                   on 14 October 2003, in which it:
(Germany), represented by C. Osterrieth, lawyer, with an
address for service in Luxembourg, v Office for Harmonisation              1.    Dismisses the action;
in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
(Agent: O. Waelbroeck), the other party to the proceedings                 2.    Order each party to bear its own costs.
before the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) being: LHS (UK) Ltd, established in
Cheadle Hulme (United Kingdom): Appeal against the decision                (1) OJ C 180 of 27.7.2002.
of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 September
2001 (Case R-738/2000-3) concerning opposition proceed-
ings between Henkel KGaA and LHS (UK) Ltd, the Court of
First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: N.J. Forwood,
President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; D. Christensen,
                                                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
23 September 2003, in which it:
                                                                                of 18 September 2003
                                                                           in Case T-241/02: Daniel Callebaut v Commission of the
1.    Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office
                                                                                European Communities (1)
      for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
      Designs) of 12 September 2001 (Case R-738/2000-3);
                                                                           (Officials — Article 45 of the Staff Regulations — Pro-
                                                                                motion — Comparative examination of merits)
2.    Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
      (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.                                                    (2003/C 304/48)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(1) OJ C 68 of 16.3.2002.
                                                                           In Case T-241/02: Daniel Callbaut, an official of the European
                                                                           Communities, residing in Mondorf-les-Bains (Luxembourg),
                                                                           represented by A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers,


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 October 2004 in Case C-409/02 P: Jan Pflugradt v European Central Bank (Appeal — Staff of the European Central Bank — Contractual nature of the employment relationship — Alteration of responsibilities laid down in the employment contract)

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/14

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 14 October 2004
   in Case C-409/02 P: Jan Pflugradt v European Central Bank (1)

   (Appeal - Staff of the European Central Bank - Contractual nature of the employment relationship - Alteration of responsibilities laid down in the employment contract)
   (2004/C 300/27)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-409/02 P: appeal under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, lodged on 18 November 2002, by Jan Pflugradt (avocats: N. Pflüger) the other party to the proceedings being: European Central Bank (Agents: V. Saintot, T. Gilliams, and B. Wägenbaur,) — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. Rosas, R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), K. Lenaerts and S. von Bahr, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 October 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Mr Pflugradt to pay the costs.

      (1)   OJ C 19 du 25.1.2003.


title: Case T-616/13: Action brought on 20 November 2013 — AIC v OHIM — ACV Manufacturing (Heat exchanger inserts)

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/35

         Action brought on 20 November 2013 — AIC v OHIM — ACV Manufacturing (Heat exchanger inserts)
   (Case T-616/13)
   2014/C 24/65
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: AIC S.A. (Gdynia, Poland) (represented by: J. Radłowski, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ACV Manufacturing (Seneffe, Belgium)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 September 2013 given in Case R 293/2012-3;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings and those incurred before the Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The design for a product described as ‘heat exchanger inserts’ — Registered Community Design No 1 137 152-0001

      Proprietor of the Community design: The applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: It was alleged that the design did not fulfil the requirements of Article 4(1) and (2), in conjunction with Articles 5 and 6 and in particular Article 8(1) and (2) CDR

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the contested RCD invalid

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 25(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 4(2) CDR.


title: Case T-217/10: Order of the General Court of 17 February 2011 — Rautaruukki v OHIM — Vigil Pérez (MONTERREY)

text:
               9.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/20

         Order of the General Court of 17 February 2011 — Rautaruukki v OHIM — Vigil Pérez (MONTERREY)
   (Case T-217/10) (1)

   2011/C 113/42
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 195, 17.7.2010.


title: Case T-183/13: Action brought on 28 March 2013 — Skype/OHIM — British Sky Broadcasting and Sky IP International (SKYPE)

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/28

         Action brought on 28 March 2013 — Skype/OHIM — British Sky Broadcasting and Sky IP International (SKYPE)
   (Case T-183/13)
   2013/C 171/54
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Skype (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: I. Fowler, Solicitor, J. Schmitt, lawyer and J. Mellor, QC)

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

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: British Sky Broadcasting Group plc (Isleworth, United Kingdom) and Sky IP International Ltd (Isleworth)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 January 2013 in Case R 2398/2010-4;

               —

               Order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘SKYPE’ — Community trade mark application No 3 660 065 for services in class 38

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘SKY’ for goods and services in classes 9, 38 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 3 203 411

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for all the contested goods

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-107/08: Action brought on 7 March 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/21

         Action brought on 7 March 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-107/08)
   (2008/C 107/33)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Schima and A. Alcover San Pedro, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria
   Form of order sought

               —

               The Republic of Austria has infringed its obligations under Article 2 of Directive 2005/33/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2005 amending Directive 1999/32/EC as regards the sulphur content of marine fuels (1) by failing to adopt the regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement the Directive or by failing to inform the Commission of their adoption.

               —

               Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for implementation of the Directive expired on 11 August 2006.

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 191, p. 59.


title: Case C-291/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln lodged on 3 July 2006 — Deutsche Post AG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Third Party: MDG Magdeburger Dienstleistungs- und Verwaltungs GmbH

text:
               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln lodged on 3 July 2006 — Deutsche Post AG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Third Party: MDG Magdeburger Dienstleistungs- und Verwaltungs GmbH
   (Case C-291/06)
   (2006/C 261/15)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgericht Köln
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Deutsche Post AG

      Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

      Third party: MDG Magdeburger Dienstleistungs- und Verwaltungs GmbH
   Question referred
   Is Article 47(2), in conjunction with Article 95 EC, the fifth indent of Article 12, and Article 7(1) of Directive 97/67/EC, in the version amended by Directive 2002/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 (1), to be interpreted as meaning that, where a universal service provider applies special tariffs for business customers who give postal items to the sorting office pre-sorted for the postal network, that universal service provider is obliged to apply those special tariffs also to undertakings which collect postal items from the sender and give them pre-sorted for the postal network at the same access point and on the same terms and conditions as business customers, without the universal service provider being permitted to refuse to do so, having regard to its obligation to provide a universal service?

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 176, p. 21.


title: Case C-311/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Nederlandse Raad van State by order of 8 August 2000 in the case of N.V. Sturing Afvalverwĳdering Noord-Brabant, N.V. Afvalverbranding Zuid Nederland, UTR Umwelt Gmbh and Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelĳke Ordening en Milieubeheer

text:
C 335/28              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     25.11.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Nederlandse                  4.b )If so, is Regulation No 259/53, in so far as it permits
Raad van State by order of 8 August 2000 in the case of                      such a prohibition on export solely on the basis of the
N.V.      Sturing      Afvalverwijdering       Noord-Brabant,                principle of self-sufficiency at national level, compatible
N.V. Afvalverbranding Zuid Nederland, UTR Umwelt                             with Article 29 of the Treaty establishing the European
Gmbh and Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke                          Community?
                   Ordening en Milieubeheer
                                                                       (1) OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39.
                        (Case C-311/00)                                (2) OJ 1993 L 30, p. 1.
                        (2000/C 335/50)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 8 August 2000 by the
Nederlandse Raad van State (Council of State), Netherlands,
which was received at the Court Registry on 16 August
                                                                       Action brought on 30 August 2000 by the Federal Repub-
2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of N.V. Sturing
                                                                       lic of Germany against the Commission of the European
Afvalverwijdering Noord-Brabant, N.V. Afvalverbranding Zuid
                                                                                Communities
Nederland, UTR Umwelt Gmbh and Minister van Volkshuis-
vesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer on the follow-
ing questions:                                                                                (Case C-321/00)
1.a) Must the operation, recycling/reclamation of other inor-                                   (2000/C 335/51)
     ganic materials, referred to under R5 of Annex II B
     to Directive 75/442/EEC (1) on waste (hereinafter: ‘the
     Framework Directive’) be interpreted as also covering ‘re-        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
     use’ within the meaning of Article 3(b)(i) of the Frame-          ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
     work Directive?                                                   Communities on 30 August 2000 by the Federal Republic of
                                                                       Germany, represented by Wolf-Dieter Plessing, Ministerialrat,
1.b) How must R5 be interpreted, in view of the answer to the          Federal Ministry of Finance, Graurheindorfer Strasse 108,
     above question? For the operation referred to therein to          D-53117 Bonn, and Jochim Sedemund, Rechtsanwalt, Charlot-
     exist is it necessary that the substance be submitted to a        tenstrasse 65, D-10117 Berlin, acting as Agents.
     treatment, can be used several times or can be taken
     back?                                                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
2.   If it follows from the answer to the abovementioned               1.    Annul Commission Directive 2000/38/EC of 5 June 2000
     questions that an operation such as the processing of fly               amending Chapter Va (Pharmacovigilance) of Council
     ash does not fall within the scope of R5, are the lists of              Directive 75/319/EEC on the approximation of pro-
     operations in Annexes II A and II B of the Framework                    visions laid down by law, regulation or administrative
     Directive exhaustive or is one of these lists exhaustive,               action relating to medicinal products (OJ 2000 L 139 of
     and if so which one?                                                    10 June 2000, p. 28);
3.a) On the basis of which criteria must it be decided whether         2.    Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceed-
     an operation must be regarded as disposal or recovery                   ings.
     within the meaning of Article 1 of the Framework
     Directive?
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
3.b) If an operation can be classified both as a disposal
     operation and a recovery operation, must priority be              —     Infringement of the Council’s legislative competence
     given to the list in Annex II A or II B when classifying                through circumvention of the prescribed legislative pro-
     that operation or does neither of the two lists take                    cedure: the contested directive contains a series of amend-
     precedence over the other?                                              ments which do not in any way relate to the adaptation
                                                                             of existing provisions governing pharmacovigilance to
4.a) If the shipment of the fly ash must be regarded as a                    ‘scientific and technical progress’ (Article 29i of Directive
     shipment of waste for disposal, can an objection be                     75/319) but alter specific legal obligations of undertak-
     raised to the shipment pursuant to Article 4(3)(b)(1) of                ings having a duty to notify within the context of
     Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 (2) of 1 February 1993 on                    pharmacovigilance. In addition, the efficacy of hitherto
     the supervision and control of shipments of waste within,               existing national notification procedures is adversely
     into and out of the European Community to the shipment                  affected inasmuch as they have to be replaced by a system
     solely on account of the need to achieve self-sufficiency               based on a European data-processing network which will
     at national level without showing that self-sufficiency at              still not be available for that purpose on 5 December
     national level is necessary to achieve self-sufficiency at              2001, the date by which the contested directive must be
     Community level?                                                        transposed.


title: Case T-411/10: Action brought on 8 September 2010 — Laufen Austria v Commission

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/57

         Action brought on 8 September 2010 — Laufen Austria v Commission
   (Case T-411/10)
   ()
   2010/C 301/91
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Laufen Austria AG (Wilhelmsburg, Austria) (represented by: E. Navarro Varona, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul in part Articles 1 and 2 of the Decision of the European Commission of 23 June 2010 with regard to the fine imposed on Laufen Austria (considered both individually and jointly and severally with Roca Sanitario) for the alleged infringement of Article 101 TFEU; and consequently

               —

               reduce the fine imposed on Laufen Austria, considered individually and jointly and severally with Roca Sanitario, in accordance with the claim set out in the application, in so far as the Court deems it appropriate on the grounds stated or on other grounds which it may consider;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by Laufen Austria.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The contested decision in these proceedings is the same as in Case T-408/10 Roca Sanitario v Commission.
   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in that case.
   It is maintained, in particular, that the decision at issue, in holding that the applicant did not operate independently on the market and declaring Roca Sanitario to be responsible for its conduct, is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.
   In that regard and in the alternative, the decision infringes Article 23 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 as well as the principle of individual responsibility for infringements and the principle of proportionality, in relation to the amount of the fine imposed individually on the applicant for the infringement allegedly committed prior to its acquisition by Roca Sanitario. That amounts exceeds 10 % of its turnover in the year preceding adoption of the contested decision and has been incorrectly established.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 June 2001 in Case C-70/99: Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Air travel within the Community — Different rates of airport tax for national and intra-Community flights — Freedom to provide services — Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92)

text:
11.8.2001               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                                   C 227/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       after amendment, Article 49 EC) and Article 3(1) of Council
                                                                             Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for
                                                                             Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes (OJ
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                     1992 L 240, p. 8), — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed
                                                                             of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, V. Skouris,
                                                                             J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and N. Colneric,
                          of 26 June 2001                                    Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,
                                                                             for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 June 2001, in
                                                                             which it:
in Case C-70/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                 ties v Portuguese Republic (1)
                                                                             1.    Declares that, by introducing under Article 10 of Decreto
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Air                         Regulamentar (Regulatory Decree) No 38/91 of 29 July 1991
travel within the Community — Different rates of airport                           a higher passenger service tax for intra-Community flights than
tax for national and intra-Community flights — Freedom to                          that applicable to domestic flights and by introducing under
     provide services — Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92)                               Decreto-Lei (Decree-Law) No 102/91 of 8 March 1991 and
                                                                                its implementing orders a higher security tax for intra-
                                                                                Community flights than that applicable to certain domestic
                          (2001/C 227/01)
                                                                                flights, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                                under the combined provisions of Article 59 of the EC Treaty
                                                                                (now after amendment, Article 49 EC) and Article 3(1) of
                 (Language of the case: Portuguese)                                Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on
                                                                                access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air
                                                                                routes;
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                            2.    Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
In Case C-70/99: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: F. Benyon and F. de Sousa Fialho) v Portuguese
Republic (Agents: L. Fernandes, M.L. Duarte and F. Viegas) —
application for a declaration that, by maintaining in force                  (1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.
Article 10 of Decreto Regulamentar (Regulatory Decree)
No 38/91 of 29 July 1991 (Diário da República I, Series B,
No 172 of 29 July 1994), which provides that flights from
Portugal to other Member States are subject to higher security
taxes than those applicable to certain domestic flights, the
Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
the combined provisions of Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now,


Important legal notice

|

E2002P0001

Action brought on 22 April 2002 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway (Case E-1/02)

Official Journal C 134 , 06/06/2002 P. 0006 - 0006

Action brought on 22 April 2002 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway(Case E-1/02)(2002/C 134/07)An action against the Kingdom of Norway was brought before the EFTA Court on 22 April 2002 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Dora Sif Tynes, acting as Agent of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Rue de Trèves/Trierstraat, 74, B-1040 Brussels.The applicant claims that the Court should:1. Declare that the Kingdom of Norway has, by maintaining in force a rule which reserves a number of academic posts exclusively for women, failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 7 and 70 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area and Articles 2(1), 2(4) and 3(1) of the Act referred to in point 18 of Annex XVIII to the Agreement (Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions); and2. Order the Kingdom of Norway to pay the costs of the proceedings.Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:- Article 7 EEA provides that acts referred to or contained in the Annexes to the Agreement or in decisions of the EEA Joint Committee shall be binding upon the Contracting Parties, and be, or be made, part of their internal legal order.- Article 70 of the EEA Agreement requires the Contracting Parties to promote the principle of equal treatment for men and women by implementing the provisions specified in Annex XVIII to the Agreement, one of which is Council Directive 76/207/EEC.- Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training, promotions and working conditions is listed in Annex XVIII to the EEA Agreement.- Article 2(1) of Directive 67/207/EEC lays down the principle of equal treatment, stating: "For the purposes of the following provisions, the principle of equal treatment shall mean that there shall be no discrimination whatsoever on the grounds of sex either directly or indirectly by reference in particular to marital or family status".- However, Article 2(4) of Directive 76/207/EEC stipulates that "This Direcive shall be without prejudice to measures to promote equal opportunity for men and women, in particular by removing existing inequalities which affect women's opportunities ..."- Furthermore, Article 3(1) of Directive 76/207/EEC sets out that: "Application of the principle of equal treatment means that there shall be no discrimination whatsoever on grounds of sex in the conditions, including selection criteria, for access to all jobs or posts, whatever the sector or branch of activity, and to all levels of the occupational hierarchy".- The applicant pleads that the Norwegian rule in question allowing for reservation of certain academic posts to women only is in breach of EEA provisions on gender equality.


title: Case T-507/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of  23 November 2005  — Ruiz Bravo-Villasante v Commission (Officials — Action for annulment — Time-limit — Inadmissibility)

text:
               11.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/32

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 23 November 2005 — Ruiz Bravo-Villasante v Commission
   (Case T-507/04) (1)

   (Officials - Action for annulment - Time-limit - Inadmissibility)
   (2006/C 36/68)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Arturo Ruiz Bravo-Villasante (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Fuertes Suárez, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and L. Lozano Palacios, Agents)
   Application for
   Annulment of the decision of the selection board for competition COM/B/2/02 to award the applicant a mark lower than the pass mark in the oral test and not to include him on the reserve list for that competition
   Operative part of the Order

               1.

               The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Each party shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 115, 14.5.2005.


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 124, 24.5.2003

text:
7.6.2003        EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                         C 135/39
                                                           III
                                                        (Notices)
                                                    (2003/C 135/61)
                Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union
         OJ C 124, 24.5.2003
         Past publications
         OJ C 112, 10.5.2003
         OJ C 101, 26.4.2003
         OJ C 83, 5.4.2003
         OJ C 70, 22.3.2003
         OJ C 55, 8.3.2003
         OJ C 44, 22.2.2003
                                              These texts are available on:
                                         EUR-Lex: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex
                                          CELEX: http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case T-145/08: Action brought on 17 April 2008 — Atlas Transport v OHIM — Atlas Air (ATLAS)

text:
               21.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 158/19

         Action brought on 17 April 2008 — Atlas Transport v OHIM — Atlas Air (ATLAS)
   (Case T-145/08)
   (2008/C 158/31)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Atlas Transport GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: U. Hildebrandt, K. Schmidt-Hern and B. Weichhaus, Rechstanwälte)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Atlas Air, Inc. (New York, United States of America)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 January 2008 (Case R 1023/2007-1);

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Word mark ‘ATLAS’ for goods and services in classes 9, 36 and 39 (Community trade mark No 2 970 788).

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant.

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: Atlas Air, Inc.

      Trade mark right of applicant for the declaration: In particular the figurative mark ‘ATLASAiR’ registered in the Benelux States for goods in class 39 (No 555 184).

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Community trade mark declared partially invalid for services in class 39.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Applicant's appeal dismissed as inadmissible.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of the third sentence of Article 59 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), as the grounds of the appeal were linked to very specific assumptions and implicit grounds were not regarded as being sufficient. Further, analogous infringement of Article 61 of Regulation No 40/94 in conjunction with Rule 20(7) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (2), as the proceedings before OHIM should necessarily have been suspended.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).


title: Case C-9/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 7 January 2011 — Waypoint Aviation SA v État belge — SPF Finances

text:
               26.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 7 January 2011 — Waypoint Aviation SA v État belge — SPF Finances
   (Case C-9/11)
   2011/C 95/06
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Waypoint Aviation SA

      Defendant: État belge — SPF Finances

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 49 EC prelude the application of a national provision such as Article 29(2)(d) of the Law of 11 April 1983, in so far as:
               first, that provision permits the grant of a tax credit, the notional withholding tax, to the recipients of income from debt-claims or loans granted to a coordination centre, within the meaning of Royal Decree No 187 of 30 December 1982 on the creation of coordination centres, when the company which uses the funds borrowed by or through the coordination centre in order to acquire a tangible asset which it uses in Belgium in the exercise of its business activity, confers the right to use that asset on a company which forms part of the same group of companies and which is resident in Belgium, whereas, second, that provision does not permit the grant of a tax credit when the same company confers a right to use the same tangible asset on a company which also forms part of the same group of companies but which is resident in a Member State other than Belgium?

               2.

               Must Article 10 EC, read in conjunction with Article 49 EC, be understood as prohibiting an interpretation of a provision such as Article 29(2)(d) of the Law of 11 April 1983, which makes the grant of a tax credit, the notional withholding tax, to the recipients of income from debt-claims or loans granted to a coordination centre, within the meaning of Royal Decree No 187 of 30 December 1982 on the creation of coordination centres, subject to the condition that no right to use the tangible asset financed by means of those debt-claims or loans is conferred on a member of the group established in another Member State, by any company in the group, and not only by the company which acquires the tangible asset through that financing, and which uses it in Belgium in the exercise of its business activity?


title: Case C-531/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 18 October 2016 — Šiaulių regiono atliekų tvarkymo centras v ‘Specializuotas transportas’ UAB

text:
               9.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/27

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 18 October 2016 — Šiaulių regiono atliekų tvarkymo centras v ‘Specializuotas transportas’ UAB

   (Case C-531/16)
   (2017/C 006/34)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants in cassation: Šiaulių regiono atliekų tvarkymo centras, ‘Specializuotas transportas’ UAB

      Other parties:‘VSA Vilnius’ UAB, ‘Švarinta’ UAB, ‘Specialus autotransportas’ UAB, ‘Ecoservice’ UAB

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the free movement of persons and services set out, respectively, in Articles 45 TFEU and 56 TFEU, the principles of equality of tenderers and of transparency set out in Article 2 of Directive 2004/18 (1) and the principle, which flows from the aforementioned principles, of free and fair competition between economic operators (together or separately, but without limitation to those provisions) be understood and interpreted as meaning that:
               if related tenderers, whose economic, management, financial or other links may give rise to doubts as to their independence and the protection of confidential information and/or may provide the preconditions (potential) for them to have an advantage over other tenderers, have decided to submit separate (independent) tenders in the same public procurement procedure, are they, in any event, under a duty to disclose those links between them to the contracting authority, even if the contracting authority does not inquire of them separately, irrespective of whether or not the national legal rules governing public procurement state that such a duty does in fact exist?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question:

                           (a)

                           is in the affirmative (that is to say, tenderers must in any event disclose their links to the contracting authority), is the circumstance that that duty was not complied with in such a case, or that it was not properly complied with, sufficient for the contracting authority to take the view, or for a review body (court) to decide, that related tenderers which have submitted separate tenders in the same public procurement procedure are participating without being genuinely in competition (and are engaged in a pretence of competition)?

                           (b)

                           is in the negative (that is to say, tenderers do not have any additional duty — which is not laid down in legislation or in the tendering conditions — to disclose their links), must the risk posed by participation of related economic operators and the risk of the consequences flowing from this then be borne by the contracting authority, if the contracting authority did not indicate in the public tendering documentation that tenderers were under such a duty of disclosure?

               3.

               Irrespective of the answer to the first question, and having regard to the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-538/13, eVigilo, must the provisions of law referred to in the first question and the third subparagraph of Article 1(1) of Directive 89/665 (2) and Article 2(1)(b) of that directive (together or separately, but without limitation to those provisions) be understood and interpreted as meaning that:

                           (a)

                           if, in the course of the public procurement procedure, it becomes clear, in whatever way, to the contracting authority that significant links (connections) exist between certain tenderers, that contracting authority must, irrespective of its own assessment of that fact and (or) of other circumstances (for example, the formal and substantive dissimilarity of the tenders submitted by the tenderers, the public commitment given by a tenderer to engage in fair competition with other tenderers, and so forth), separately address the related tenderers and request them to clarify whether and how their personal situation is compatible with free and fair competition between tenderers?

                           (b)

                           if the contracting authority has such a duty but fails to discharge it, is there a sufficient basis for the court to declare the actions of that contracting authority to be unlawful, as having failed to ensure procedural transparency and objectivity, and as having failed to request evidence from the applicant or having failed to take a decision, on its own initiative, as to the possible influence that the personal situation of related persons might have on the outcome of the tendering procedure?

               4.

               Must the legal provisions referred to in the third question and Article 101(1) TFEU (together or separately, but without limitation to those provisions), be understood and interpreted, in the light of the judgments of the Court of Justice in Case C-538/13, eVigilo, Case C-74/14, Eturas and Others, and Case C-542/14, VM Remonts, as meaning that:

                           (a)

                           where a tenderer (the applicant) has become aware of the rejection of the lowest-priced tender submitted by one of two related tenderers in a public tendering procedure (tenderer A) and of the fact that the other tenderer (tenderer B) has been declared the successful tenderer, and also having regard to other circumstances connected with those tenderers and their participation in the tendering procedure (the fact that tenderers A and B have the same board of directors; the fact that they have the same parent company, which did not take part in the tendering procedure; the fact that tenderers A and B did not disclose their links to the contracting authority and did not separately provide additional clarifications as to those links, inter alia because no inquiries had been made of them; the fact that tenderer A provided, in its tender, inconsistent information on the compliance by the proposed means of transport (refuse lorries) with the EURO V condition of the call for tenders; the fact that that tenderer, which submitted the lowest-priced tender, which was rejected because of deficiencies identified in it, first, did not challenge the contracting authority’s decision and, second, lodged an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance, in which appeal, inter alia, it [challenged] the lawfulness of the rejection of its tender; etc.), and where, in respect of all of those circumstances, the contracting authority did not take any action, is that information alone sufficient to found a claim addressed to the review body that it should regard as unlawful the actions of the contracting authority in failing to ensure procedural transparency and objectivity, and, in addition, in not requiring the applicant to provide concrete evidence that tenderers A and B were acting unfairly?

                           (b)

                           tenderers A and B did not prove to the contracting authority that they were genuinely and fairly taking part in the public tendering procedure solely because tenderer B voluntarily submitted a declaration of genuine participation, the management quality standards for participating in public tendering were applied by tenderer B, and, in addition, the tenders submitted by those tenderers were not formally and substantively identical?

               5.

               Can the actions of mutually related economic operators (both of which are subsidiaries of the same company) which are participating separately in the same tendering procedure, the value of which reaches the value for international competitive tendering, and where the seat of the contracting authority which announced the tendering procedure and the place where the services are to be provided are not very far distant from another Member State (the Republic of Latvia), be in principle assessed — regard being had to, inter alia, the voluntary submission by one of those economic operators that it would be engaging in fair competition — under the provisions of Article 101 TFEU and the case-law of the Court of Justice which interprets those provisions?

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

      (2)  Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33).


title: Case C-466/13 P: Appeal brought on 27 August 2013 by Repsol, SA against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 27 June 2013 in Case T-89/12 Repsol YPF v OHIM — Ajuntament de Roses ®

text:
               26.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/13

         Appeal brought on 27 August 2013 by Repsol, SA against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 27 June 2013 in Case T-89/12 Repsol YPF v OHIM — Ajuntament de Roses ®
   (Case C-466/13 P)
   2013/C 313/23
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Repsol, SA (represented by: L. Montoya Terán and J. Devaureix, abogados)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

               —

               set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2013 in Case T-89/12, notified on 28 June 2013;

               —

               uphold all of the forms of order sought at first instance;

               —

               order the respondent to pay the costs.

      Ground of appeal and main arguments

               1.

               In relation to a certain practice of OHIM in registering marks and of the case-law of the General Court, corrective action is required which applies in an effective manner the reciprocal relationship between the distinctive character of an earlier mark and its scope of protection.

               2.

               In the judgment under appeal, the General Court contradicted itself in its reasoning and the conclusions which it reached in relation to the lack of similarity between the signs (it considered that they have more differences than similarities, though recognised that they are similar) and the weak or lack of distinctiveness of the earlier mark (it considered that it was a weak mark, but failed to take account of that weakness when assessing whether there was a likelihood of confusion).

               3.

               The General Court ignored the fact that the essential and distinctive characteristics of the opposing mark (capital letter ‘R’ inside a circle) cannot be monopolised by any third party. Consequently, the requirement that usual signs be made available on the market has not been respected.

               4.

               The General Court failed to take account of judgments of the Spanish Supreme Court in similar cases. Account should be taken of those cases since they adopt the point of view of the relevant consumer, namely the Spanish consumer.

               5.

               It is clear from the above that the judgment of the General Court is vitiated by legal errors. It must thus be set aside in accordance with the form of order sought.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 12 June 1997 in Case C-151/96: Commission of the European Communities v. Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Registration of vessels other than fishing vessels - Nationality requirement for the owner)

text:
26 . 7 . 97             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 228/5
Member State being refused family benefits in respect of                     to remain in the territory of a Member State after
full calendar months falling within an extended period of                    having been employed in that State and Article 7 of
unpaid leave, where employed persons whose children are                      Council Directive 75/34/EEC of 17 December 1974
domiciled in the Member State concerned are entitled to                      concerning the right of nationals of a Member State to
such benefits.                                                               remain in the territory of another Member State after
                                                                             having pursued therein an activity in a self-employed
O OJ No C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 .
                                                                             capacity;
                                                                       2 . orders Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                       (') OJ No C 197, 6 . 7. 1996 .
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          ( Fifth Chamber)
                          of 12 June 1997
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in      Case    C-151/96: Commission of the            European
                     Communities v. Ireland (')                                                of 17 June 1997
 (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                in Joined Cases C-65/95 and C-l 11/95 (references for a
Registration of vessels other than fishing vessels —                   preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice,
              Nationality requirement for the owner)                   Queen's Bench Division): The Queen v. Secretary of State
                                                                       for the Home Department, ex parte: Mann Singh Shingara
                            ( 97/C 228/09 )                            and The Queen v. Secretary of State for the Home
                                                                                Department, ex parte: Abbas Radiom ( 1 )
                   (Language of the case: English)                      (Free movement of persons — Derogations — Right of
                                                                       entry — Legal remedies — Articles 8 and 9 of Directive
                                                                                64/22 1/EEC)
 In Case C-151 /96 : Commission of the European                                                  97/C 228 / 10 )
 Communities ( Agents: Frank Benyon and Xavier Lewis ) v.
 Ireland ( Agent: Michael A. Buckley ) — application for a
 declaration that, by maintaining in force laws, regulations                            (Language of the case: English)
 and administrative provisions which limit the right to
 register a vessel other than a fishing vessel in the Irish            In Joined Cases C-65/95 and C-l 11 /95 : references to the
 shipping register to a vessel which is owned in whole or in            Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the High
 part by the Government, a Minister of State, an Irish                  Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division (United
 citizen or an Irish body corporate, Ireland has failed to             Kigndom ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
 comply with Articles 6 , 48 , 52 and 58 of the EC Treaty,              pending before that court between The Queen and
 Article 7 of Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 1251/70 of               Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte:
 29 June 1970 on the right of workers to remain in the                 Mann Singh Shingara ( C-65/95 ) and between The Queen
 territory of a Member State after having been employed in              and Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte:
 that State ( OJ No L 142 , 30 . 6 . 1970, p. 24 ) and Article 7        Abbas Radiom ( C-l 11/95 ) — on the interpretation of
 of Council Directive 75/34/EEC of 17 December 1974
                                                                        Articles 8 and 9 of Council Directive 64/22 1 /EEC of
 concerning the right of nationals of a Member State to                 25 February 1964 on the coordination of special measures
 remain in the territory of another Member State after                  concerning the movement and residence of foreign
 having pursued therein an activity in a self-employed                  nationals which are justified on grounds of public policy,
 capacity ( OJ No L 14, 20 . 1 . 1975 , p. 10 ) — the Court             public security or public health ( OJ, English Special
  ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: J. C. Moitinho de                     Edition 1963—1964, p. 117) — the Court, composed of:
 Almeida, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.-R
                                                                        G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, G. F. Mancini , J. L.
 Puissochet, P. Jann ( Rapporteur ) and M. Wathelet, Judges;            Murray and L. Sevon ( Rapporteur), Presidents of
  C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has                Chambers, C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann,
 given a judgment on 12 June 1997, in which it:                         D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and M.
                                                                        Wathelet, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate
                                                                        General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on
   1 . declares that, by maintaining in force laws, regulations          17 June 1997, in which it has ruled:
        and administrative provisions which limit the right to
        register a vessel other than a fishing vessel in the Irish
        shipping register to a vessel which is owned in whole            1 . On a proper construction of Article 8 of Council
        or in part by the Government, a Minister of State, an                 Directive 64/221 /EEC of 25 February 1964 on the
        Irish citizen or an Irish body corporate, Ireland has                 coordination of special measures concerning the
        failed to comply with Articles 6, 48, 52 and 58 of the                movement and residence of foreign nationals which
        EC Treaty, Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EEC)                   are justified on grounds of public policy, public
        No 1251 /70 of 29 June 1970 on the right of workers                   security or public health, where under the national


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 29 January 1997 in Case T-297/94: Joëlle Vanderhaeghen v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Actions for annulment of measures - Admissibility - Pay slips applying the scales in respect of certain parental contributions fixed by a joint interinstitutional committee - Principle of equality of treatment)

text:
8 . 3 . 97            1 EN 1               Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 74/ 19
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 22 January 1997                                                   of 29 January 1997
                                                                            in Case T-7/94 : Hilde Adriaenssens and Others v.
in Case T-l 15/94: Opel Austria GmbH v. Council of the                        Commission of the European Communities ( l )
                        European Union O
                                                                      (Officials — Actions for annulment of measures — Pay
(Withdrawal of tariff concessions — Agreement on the                  slips applying the scales in respect of certain parental
European Economic Area — Obligation under public                      contributions fixed by a joint interinstitutional committee
international law not to deprive a treaty of its object                      — Admissibility — Time-limits — Time-barred)
and purpose before its entry into force — Principle of
                                                                                ( 97/C 74/41 )
protection of legitimate expectations — Principle of legal
         certainty — Publication in the Official Journal)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                            ( 97/C 74/40 )
                                                                      In Case T-7/94 : Hilde Adriaenssens, Irma Both, Maria
                                                                      Luisa Cipriano, Raffaella Fraconfini, Christine Mitchell,
                                                                      Paloma Moreno-Doz, Jennifer Perry, Alexandros
                 (Language of the case: English)                      Athanassiadis, Francisco de Vicente and Philippe Tempe,
                                                                      officials of the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                      represented by Alain Lorang, of the Luxembourg Bar, with
In Case T-l 15/94: Opel Austria GmbH, formerly General                an address for service in Luxembourg at his Chambers, 51
Motors Austria GmbH, whose registered office is in                    rue Albert 1er, v. Commission of the European
Vienna, Austria, represented by Dirk Vandermeersch, of                Communities ( Agents : initially, Joseph Griesmar and,
the Brussels Bar, and Till Müller-Ibold, Rechtsanwalt,                subsequently, Ana Maria Alves Vieira and Julian Currall )
Frankfurt am Main, with an address for service in                     — application, first, for annulment of the implicit
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt and Medernach,                   decisions of the Commission rejecting the applicants '
8-10 rue Mathias Hardt, supported by Republic of Austria              complaints seeking to have the scales applied in
( Agents: initially Irene Janisch, subsequently Beatrix               Luxembourg on the levying of the parental contributions
Matousek-Horak and Christian Kremer) v. Council of the                which they are required to pay as users of the nursery,
European Union, ( Agents : Bjarne Hoff-Nielsen and Hans-              kindergarten and study centre services brought into line
Jiirgen Rabe and Georg M. Berrisch ), supported by                    with those in force in Brussels, and, second, in so far as
Commission of the European Communities, ( Agents: John                those decisions are based on the decision of the Social
Forman, Eric White and Theofanis Christoforou ) —                     Activities Committee fixing those scales, for a declaration
application for anulment of Council Regulation ( EC )                 that that decision is illegal — the Court of First Instance
No 3697/93 of 20 December 1993 withdrawing tariff                     ( First Chamber ), composed of: A. Saggio, President, and
concessions in accordance with Article 23 (2 ) and                    V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; H. Jung,
Article 27 ( 3 ) ( a ) of the Free Trade Agreement between            Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 January 1997, in
the Community and Austria ( General Motors Austria ) ( OJ             which it:
No L 343 , 31 . 12 . 1993 , p. 1 ), — the Court of First
 Instance ( Fourth Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts,                 1 . dismisses the action as inadmissible;
 President, P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung,
 Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 January 1997, in               2 . orders the defendants to pay all the costs.
 which it :
                                                                      (') OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 .
 1 . annuls Council Regulation (EC) No 3697/93 of
       20 December 1993 withdrawing tariff concessions in
       accordance with Article 23 (2) and Article 27 (3) (a)
       of the Free Trade Agreement between the Community
       and Austria (General Motors Austria);                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 29 January 1997
                                                                       in Case T-297/94 : Joelle Vanderhaeghen v. Commission of
 2 . orders the Council to bear its own costs and pay the                              the European Communities ( l )
       applicant's costs;                                              (Officials — Actions for annulment of measures —
                                                                       Admissibility — Pay slips applying the scales in respect of
                                                                       certain parental contributions fixed by a joint inter
 3 . orders the Commission and the Republic of Austria to              institutional committee — Principle of equality of
       bear their own costs .                                                                        treatment)
                                                                                97/C 74/42 )
 (') OJ No C 132 , 14 . 5 . 1994 .                                                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                       In Case T-297/94: Joelle Vanderhaeghen, an official of the
                                                                       Commission of the European Communities, residing at
 ---pagebreak---  No C 74/20             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     8 . 3 . 97
 Arlon ( Belgium ), represented by Alain Lorang, of the                  addressed to the Commission's staff in Luxembourg and,
 Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in                          second, for compensation for the damage suffered — the
 Luxembourg at his Chambers, 51 rue Albert ler, v.                       Court of First Instance ( Fourth Chamber), composed of K.
 Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                         Lenaerts, President, and P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges;
 initially, Joseph Griesmar and, subsequently, Ana Maria                 H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 13 December 1996,
 Alves Vieira and Julian Currall ) — application, first, for             the operative part of which is as follows:
 annulment of the implicit decision of the Commission
 rejecting the applicant's complaint in respect of her pay               I.   The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
 slip for January 1994, inasmuch as that pay slip shows
 that the administration applied to her the scales of                    2 . There is no need to give a ruling on the application for
 parental contributions in force in Luxembourg in respect                     leave to intervene.
 of the nursery services used by her as an official, and,
 second, for a declaration that the scales fixed by the Social           3 . The applicant is ordered to bear all his own costs and
 Activities Committee are illegal — the Court of First                        to pay the costs of the Commission. The Union
 Instance ( First Chamber ), composed of: A. Saggio,                          Syndicale — Luxembourg is ordered to bear its own
 President, and V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges;                       costs .
 H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 January
 1997, in which it:                                                      0 ) OJ No C 318 , 26 . 10 . 1996 .
 I. annuls the applicant's pay slip for January 1994
      inasmuch as it shows a deduction in respect of a
      parental contribution to the nursery service provided
      by the Luxembourg Childhood Centre, calculated on
      the basis of the scales applied by the Commission in               Action brought on 9 December 1996 by Andrea Von
      Luxembourg,                                                        Lowis against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
 2 . orders the Commission to pay all the costs.
                                                                                ( Case T-202/96 )
 (') OJ No C 316 , 12 . 11 . 1994 .                                                                  ( 97/C 74/44 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities was brought before the Court of First
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Instance of the European Communities on 9 December
                      of 13 December 1996                                1996 by Andrea Von Lowis, represented by Gerard van
                                                                        der Wal, member of the Bar of the Supreme Court of the
in Case T-128/96: Giorgio Lebedef v. Commission of the                  Netherlands, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                   European Communities (')                             at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 , Grand Rue .
 (Officials — Refusal by the Commission to distribute
 through its internal messenger services communications to              The applicant claims that the Court should:
the staff from an independent trade union — Legal
interest in bringing proceedings — Admissibility — Claims               — declare the application admissible,
for damages — Subject-matter of the dispute — Summary
              of the pleas in law — Admissibility)                      — declare the decision of 21 October 1996 void,
                             ( 97/C 74/43 )
                                                                        — declare the application of Community tax to the
                 (Language of the case: French)                              applicant, who works for the defendant as a freelance
                                                                             interpreter, unlawful and/or declare Article 8 of the
In Case T-128/96 : Giorgio Lebedef, an official of the                       Agreement with AIIC null and void,
Commission of the European Communities, residing at
Senningerberg ( Luxembourg ), represented by Gilles                     — order repayment of the Community tax withheld by
Bouneou, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for                          the defendant and/or paid by the applicant since
service in Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers, 15                           1 January 1989 until the date of the judgment to be
avenue du Bois, v. Commission of the European                                given in this case, together with an interest at a rate of
Communities (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Julian                           8 % or as prescribed by law,
Currall ) — application, first, for annulment of the
decision of the Head of the Unit dealing with relations                 — order the Commission to pay the costs of the
with official bodies representing the staff and with the                     applicant.
trade     unions    and        staff  associations   within    the
Commission 's Directorate-General for Personnel               and       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Administration ( DG IX ), refusing to arrange the
distribution through the Commission's internal messenger                The applicant explains that since 1973 she has worked as
services of communications from the independent trade                   a freelance interpreter for the Commission. Since 1989 the
union 'Action & Defense — Luxembourg' (A & D — L )                      Commission has deducted Community tax from the


title: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 February 2004 in Case C-180/03 P: Benito Latino v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/17

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 11 February 2004
   in Case C-180/03 P: Benito Latino v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Appeal - Officials - Occupational disease - Recognition of the occupational origin of arthrosis-related damage - Validity of the opinion of the Medical Committee - Exhaustion of the latter's competence and requirement that it act impartially - Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure)
   (2004/C 94/35)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-180/03 P; Benito Latino, a former official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing at Sérignac-Peboudou (France) (lawyers: J.R. Iturriagagoitia Bassas and K. Delvolvé) — appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) of 26 February 2003 in Case T-145/01 Latino v Commission (not yet published in the ECR), seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings being: Commission of the European Communities (Agent: J. Currall, assisted by J.-F. Fagnart) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr and R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 11 February 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Latino is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 158 of 5.7.2003.


title: Case F-117/06: Action brought on 2 October 2006 — Loy v European Parliament

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/66

         Action brought on 2 October 2006 — Loy v European Parliament
   (Case F-117/06)
   (2006/C 294/132)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Maddalena Loy (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Fratini, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the European Parliament of 30 January 2006, which informed the applicant of the decision to reassign her from the Parliament's Italian Information Office, based in Rome, to the Information Directorate-General, based in Brussels, and of the extension of her temporary contract until 16 July 2006, instead of until 31 December 2009, as previously decided by the Parliament;

               —

               order the defendant to pay, increased by default interest, all of the monthly salaries connected to the applicant's position of press attaché in Rome, from the date on which the temporary contract should have been renewed, that is, from 1 January 2006, until 31 December 2009;

               —

               order the defendant to pay compensation for material damage, estimated at EUR 240 414,42, and EUR 500 000 for non-material damage or such higher or lower amount as the Court may determine;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant invokes seven pleas in support of her action:

               —

               the first concerns infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations, in that the administration gave the applicant to believe, beyond any reasonable doubt, that her position as press attaché with the Parliament's Rome Office would be confirmed and that her contract would be extended until 31 December 2009;

               —

               the second concerns infringement of essential procedural requirements by reason of an insufficient and contradictory statement of reasons. In particular, the arguments alleging insufficiency of the applicant's professional capacities are contradicted by the reports concerning her drawn up pursuant to Article 43 of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               the third concerns misuse of powers due to manifest error of assessment of fundamental circumstances and inconsistency. The reassignment decision is not based on professional incompetence or on the interests of the service but on the desire for retaliation on the part of the applicant's hierarchical superior;

               —

               the fourth is based on breach of the duty of care in that, according to the applicant, the contested decision was adopted without the necessary care and without taking account of the employee's interests;

               —

               the fifth concerns infringement of the principles of proportionality and of sound administration. First, the applicant received no warning of the possibility of transfer at such short notice. Second, the facts underlying the transfer were not properly ascertained and the statutory provisions relating to the behaviour for which the applicant is criticised were not complied with;

               —

               the sixth concerns infringement of the right of defence, in particular the fact that the defendant, although having had the opportunity to hear the applicant, did not follow up her declarations in any way, and did not give the parties any opportunity to set out their views on the matter;

               —

               the seventh concerns infringement of the duty to provide assistance set out in Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, which requires the administration to protect officials even where the person responsible for the matters regulated by the provision in question is another official. Although the applicant advanced prima facie evidence capable of supporting her allegations, the administration took no adequate measures.


title: Case F-80/08: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 30 November 2009 — Wenig v Commission (Staff cases — Officials — Disciplinary procedure — Suspension of an official — Withholding of salary — Allegation of serious fault — Rights of the defence — Powers — Failure to publish a delegation of powers — Author of the contested measure lacking powers)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/75

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 30 November 2009 — Wenig v Commission
   (Case F-80/08) (1)

   (Staff cases - Officials - Disciplinary procedure - Suspension of an official - Withholding of salary - Allegation of serious fault - Rights of the defence - Powers - Failure to publish a delegation of powers - Author of the contested measure lacking powers)
   2010/C 24/138
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Fritz Harald Wenig (Woluwé-Saint-Pierre, Belgium) (represented by: G.-A. Dal, D. Voillemot, D. Bosquet and S. Woog, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the Commission’s decision to suspend the applicant and to order EUR 1 000 per month to be withheld from his remuneration.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of 18 September 2008 by which the Commission of the European Communities, pursuant to Articles 23 and 24 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities, suspended Mr Wenig for an indefinite period and ordered an amount of EUR 1 000 per month to be withheld from his remuneration for a maximum period of six months;

               2.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs of the main proceedings;

               3.

               Orders each party to bear their own costs in the application for interim measures.

      (1)  OJ C 313, 6.12.2008, p. 59.


title: Case T-228/03: Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Eugene Hannigan against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
4.10.2003                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 239/13
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   —      order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-
                                                                                ings.
—      annul the decision contained in Article 2 of Commission
       Decision of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the
       Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take
       into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea,                Pleas in law and main arguments
       hygiene, product quality and working conditions for
       vessels of more than 12 m in length overall notified                   The applicant invokes the same pleas in law as in Case T-218/
       under document number C(2003) 1113 to reject a safety                  03 (1).
       capacity application for a proposed new RSW vessel,
       MFV Golden Rose;
                                                                              (1 ) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.
—      order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-
       ings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                              Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Eugene Hannigan
                                                                                against the Commission of the European Communities
The applicant invokes the same pleas in law as in Case T-218/
03 (1).
                                                                                (Case T-228/03)
( 1) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.                                                                   (2003/C 239/23)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Brendelen Limited                           European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Eugene Hannigan,
   against the Commission of the European Communities                         Killybegs, (Ireland), represented by P. Gallagher and A. Collins,
                                                                              Barristers, and D. Barry, Solicitor.
                             (Case T-227/03)
                                                                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                            (2003/C 239/22)
                                                                              —      annul the decision contained in Article 2 of Commission
                                                                                Decision of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the
                      (Language of the case: English)                                Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take
                                                                                into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea,
                                                                                hygiene, product quality and working conditions for
                                                                                vessels of more than 12 m in length overall notified
                                                                                under document number C(2003) 1113 to reject a safety
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                capacity application for a proposed new vessel MFV
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                                Niamh Eoghan;
European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Brendelen
Limited, Greencastle, (Ireland), represented by P. Gallagher and
A. Collins, Barristers, and D. Barry, Solicitor.                              —      order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-
                                                                                ings.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                              Pleas in law and main arguments
—      annul the decision contained in Article 2 of Commission
       Decision of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the
       Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take                   The applicant invokes the same pleas in law as in Case T-218/
       into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea,                03 (1).
       hygiene, product quality and working conditions for
       vessels of more than 12 m in length overall notified
       under document number C(2003) 1113 to reject a safety                  (1 ) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.
       capacity application to lengthen the MFV Brendelen and
       for a proposed new vessel to replace the MFV Brendelen;